Piltdown Superman

Before the predominance of profanity, people would sternly warn someone not to give them any lip. Basically it meant not to be disrespectful, but could also mean to stop talking, or other things. Or get mouthy. Tyrannosaurus rex has been portrayed as giving lip. It may be literal. Like so many other things in paleontology, further studies result in rethinking how critters looked and sometimes how they acted. After examining bones and teeth, some paleontologists think that T. rex may have had lips. T. rex with lips image generated with AI at Bing I told the AI art generator to give it human lips because reasons and stuff. Lizard lips to go with lizard hips... Interesting that it took decades for people to catch on to the idea of dinosaurs having lips, since lips are useful. It is an interesting development in paleontology, but there's no way of knowing if the idea is right — unless an exceptionally well-preserved fossil or mummified body was found. That may not be such a surprise th

People are inclined to feel awe over many disparate things including music, expanses of nature, great buildings, and so on. Sometimes it can be overwhelming; I have been moved to tears by great classical pianists seeming to become one with a concerto — and showing joy in the process. People in groups seem to share a sense of unity when experiencing something awesome. Atheists may try to deny awe because it seems religious, but they feel it too. Indeed, many places in the Bible tell of people overwhelmed with awe when shown the glory of God. It seems that we are born that way. Bridal Veil Falls, Waikato, New Zealand, Flickr / Adam Campbell ( CC BY-ND 2.0 ) The concept of awe has been difficult for scientists to define. They try to study it, but it is an intangible part of humanity like consciousness or the soul . (You don't see our alleged evolutionary cousins the apes staring at the night sky in awe — it is uniquely human , and we were created to have it.) But it is human nature

What image comes to mind when the word scientist  is used? Frowning, deep in thought, very serious, having intellectual conversations with other scientists, and so on. They gather facts, do unbiased research, and reach conclusions so they can spread their knowledge and better the world. Not hardly! Like other people, they have biases, vices, and operate from presuppositions. One would probably not think of scientists as carrying Jelly Babies in lab coat pockets or being comedians. An examination of a paper on how critters developed powered flight was unintentionally funny. Flying Squirrels, Rawpixel / John Audobon , 1845, modified at  PhotoFunia Evolutionists assume evolution to prove evolution, then they invoke evolution to evosplain it to the unwashed masses. (No matter that the work of the Creator is the logical conclusion based on an honest examination of the facts, that's not allowed.) The flying squirrel and a few other mammals have extra skin that is used to glide. Bats also

A fundamental tenet of universal common descent evolution is that humans evolved from fish, and ultimately, from minerals. There had to be creatures evolving limbs from fins, and  Tiktaalik roseae got evolutionists all het up, but that was a failure . Other critters supposedly evolved from land back into the water, and the Thalattosuchia are considered candidates for that as well. Here we get into word salad, where they are referred to as marine crocodiles, but are not classified with crocodilia. Whatever. Thalats and such were crocodile relatives, then. Saltwater Crocodile, Flickr / Bernard Dupont ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) Just like the original transition from water to land, there is no evidence of moving from land to water. Some evolutionists got a notion to use computed tomography, and they think they found a confirmation for their biases. Their article used the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™ in lieu of evidence. Sure is a great deal of time, money, education, and more

Many creatures are wonderful to behold, and the specified complexities used by the Master Engineer are amazing. Some critters are considered ugly or even repellant, but people can get past " the eww factor " to appreciate them for what they are. It is easy to appreciate waterfowl — the family Anatidae — such as ducks, swans, geese, and others for their beauty. Many are sources of food (although people are reluctant to eat swans ). Some migratory birds are protected by law but can also become nuisances. Common Loon, Unsplash / Jeremy Hynes The existence of feathers is an insurmountable hurdle for Darwinists, which are arranged on waterbirds to keep them buoyant. Glands and preening help with waterproofing. In addition, they have a passel of hollow bones so they are not weighted down and prevented from flying. The webbed feet are also products of brilliant design, helping them move efficiently in the water. Each feature defies molecules-to-mallard evolution, and taken together

My friend Hammond Suisse was talking to some of the hands from the Darwin Ranch in town, and there were a mite glum because of recent reports on fish lizards (ichthyosaurs). They knew that the narrative about evolving and re-evolving did not hold water. Now this. Despite claims of fundamentalist evolutionists, there are fossils out of sequence. Since there is no reasonable evidence for the evolution of those extinct marine lizards, one owlhoot came up with the idea that they evolved in bursts . Now there is an ichthyosaur fossil in the wrong place. Ichthyosaur, Copyright Expired Science Illustrations /  Heinrich Harder , 1916 Way up yonder, north of Norway, is an island called Spitsbergen. The source of the consternation was found there. No signs of evolution, this monster (some of these wet dinosaur cousins were huge ) was fully formed and in rocks that are dated by secularists as 250 million years old. That is too old for the evolutionary scenario, but right in keeping with the fact

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This is an article I would rather not write, but my experiences and thoughts may be useful to others. Maybe I will get insight from them. A spell back, I was confused by Dr. Todd Wood who appeared in the creation science film Is Genesis History . Well, it was afterward that I was confused. He seemed to be advocating for baryons-to-biochemist evolution . After a bit of investigation, I wrote an article discussing both my confusion and also a video he made that seemed to settle things. Todd Wood with Del Tackett, Is Genesis History screenshot, modified with FotoSketcher Although I am a nobody, I was hoping that he would respond to the article. That didn't happen. After a while, I stopped paying attention to Dr. Wood's activities. Then some articles from Answers in Genesis got my attention. They were doing a series on young-earth evolution , which is something new to me. The idea seems contradictory, because evolution demands deep time and a denial of th

With the possible exception of Darwinistic laissez-faire capitalists , most people think it is a good idea to take care of the environment. Today is Earth Day. (No coincidence that it is also Lenin's birthday .) Good work for the environment was hijacked by leftists, but now they are more concerned with foisting anthropogenic climate change on the masses. Some are so weird, they want to give rivers and lakes personhood status ! These people are evolutionists, but ironically, caring for the environment is in keeping with biblical creationist principles. Cattle, Pixnio / Hagerty Ryan, USFWS Back in Genesis, God gave Adam and Eve responsibilities to care for the Garden. This is called the dominion mandate . We are stewards and receive many of the benefits, but ultimately, God is the owner (see Psalm 50:7-15). It is not an exact comparison, but Mark 12:1-12 has the Parable of the Tenants. They worked for the owner and received some of the goods, but he retained all the rights — even a

Hands at the Darwin Ranch over at Deception Pass are excited about how the James Webb Space Telescope is checking out exoplanets: that means evolution. This great and expensive accomplishment is getting some great views of the heavens, but the main goal is to find extraterrestrial life. If there is life, it must have evolved, right. Not hardly! So far, however, it has inadvertently supported creation science predictions instead of materialistic views. Sort of causing secular views rapid unscheduled disassembly... Extrasolar planets are plentiful , but unsuitable for life. Mayhaps the JWST will provide more information. HD 149026b (Smertrios), NASA / JPL-Caltech / T. Pyle (SSC) (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Despite the artwork, nobody really knows what these planets look like. One listed as HD 149026b is also called Smertrios, after a character that eventually merged with the Roman god of war. It is one of those "hot Jupiters", big and unpleasant. Smert

Curious that a British exclamation of approval is uncommon in the formerly United States, but this child is not using it in a literal way. The mantis shrimp smashes things — except for those that have harpoons instead of smashing claws . This predator has a resemblance to the praying mantis because of a second pair of limbs, hence the name. But it is not a shrimp, only distantly related to them. The mantis shrimp slaps down its prey very hard, very fast. Peacock mantis shrimp, Wikimedia Commons / Rickard Zerpe ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) Believers in stardust-to-stomatopod evolution cannot come up with plausible explanations for this critter's development. Study on it. That claw catapults at high speeds with a special mechanism. In fact, the bubbles made are even more devastating that the initial strike because of cavitation  (which would have been powerful in the Genesis Flood ). Get your finger too close and you may regret it . They also have exceptional vision which is being studied for