Piltdown Superman

Atheists and other anti-creationists have a tendency to say that the Bible is "fairy tales," but they clearly have only a cursory knowledge of its contents. Fairy tales tend to use "Once upon a time..." and do not have details. The Bible has specific details. Particles-to-paleontologist evolution is touted as science, but it is vague historical science at best. While evolutionists cannot give dates and times, there should be some specifics. A writer at LiveScience  got herself a notion to tell readers how ten traits in animals evolved. It did not go well. Charles Darwin, magic fairy of evolution generated with AI at NightCafe Many of the explanations offered were infested with bad reasoning. Worse, some actually ignored basic facts of science and displayed ignorance not only of evolutionary mythology, but animal anatomy and behavior. This child believes that the secular science industry succeeds at bushwhacking so many people is that they do not have logical thinkin

The secular science industry has had a long-standing problem with junk in peer-reviewed papers. Sometimes bad science gets through and papers are retracted, but the number of plagiarized, poorly researched, and outright fraudulent papers is increasing at an amazing rate. When found, retractions are often issued. When found. You see that, Seymour? Some tricksters are skilled and subtle. By the time bunko is discovered, serious damage may have been done. Like fraudulent human ancestors in the evolutionary parade, bad science can be built on fake science. Indeed, science paper fraud can be dangerous. There are many reasons for fraudulent papers. While scientists are viewed as paragons of virtue and impartially following where the evidence leads, that image is the opposite of the truth. They are often pushed to publish, and some will do almost anything to get their name in lights and the money that goes with it. One way that bad science and fraud can be missed is when reviewers are having

Heading west in the formerly United States, a traveler encounters the Rocky Mountains (which we generously share with Canada). The state of Colorado has the  Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve , larger than the Sleeping Bear Dunes of Michigan. You ever walk onto a sandy beach and make ouch noises because it is hot? In the summer, these puppies are substantially hotter than the air temperature. We will move on to discuss how the dunes got there. Great Sand Dunes National Park & Preserve, Flickr / NPS Natural Resources (public domain) Consider sand a spell (like when you remembered hot-footing it on the beach). It is unique and small. Both uniformitarian and creation geologists agree that there have to be special conditions to make a sand dune in the first place, and there are also conditions that can stop it from happening, such as grass growing. Conditions today would not let those dunes form, so they obviously had to be very different in the past. The culprit is the Ice

Request of Christians: It has been six months today since my wife died. Things are tough, and I ask for your prayers. Although one may think of huge critters when the word dinosaur  is mentioned, there was an extreme range of sizes. Some were about the size of turkeys. The large ones were very large indeed, and it seems that scientists naming them are running out of ways to say, "Even bigger yet." Aquatic lizards like plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs also had differing sizes. When they went huge, they did it in a big way. Big animals swimming coerces the question, "Did their size cause drag in the water and make locomotion difficult?" Modified ichthyosaur postage stamp of Yemen, 1990 Through tendentious dating methods, believers in universal common descent evolution and deep time assert that the largest of these appeared (code word for "evolved" even though there is no evidence for their evolution ) first, then came the smaller ones. Using flow simulations, st

While riding out Folly Road near Stinking Lake (which is not as bad as it sounds), I commenced to cogitating about origin of life (OoL) research. Papa Darwin speculated that it may have happened in some "warm little pond" but was reluctant to say much on the subject. Deep in thought, I was startled when Stevia Dolce spoke to me. She was with Lisa Myworries. They had made the trip from the Darwin Ranch up yonder at deception pass. Since they asked, I told them what I was thinking, which came from what I had been reading. Algae pond near Hurley, NY, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen What passes for origin of life scientific research seems increasingly desperate and is more like fantasy storytelling than real science. Lots of maybe, possibly, perhaps , and other weasel words populate the stories. Volcanic eruptions (like this one in Iceland ) pour out all sorts of gasses, some of them toxic, and lightning during those may have sparked life. Or was it methane and soda in a lake in C

The article featured below is from a creationist peer-reviewed technical journal, so it is primarily by and for scientists. However, there are several parts that non-scientists can understand. We can skim through the details (mostly in the middle) and still learn some important things; let the scientists have the rest. Biblical creationists have long pointed out that everyone has the same facts, and the interpretation of the facts are vital. In addition, scientists are human: They start with assumptions and presuppositions which heavily influence the results of their research. The DNA of Neanderthals and Denisovans was used by members of the secular science industry to supposedly support evolution from apelike ancestors. Data were selected that should support their views. Drawing from work by  Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson , creation scientists were able to use much of the data to show how it relates to the sons of Noah. This supports recent creation. Causes of Neanderthal extinction are also

In the days when Charles Darwin roamed the earth, he wrote that believing the complexities of the eye came about through natural selection seemed "absurd in the highest degree." Then he proceeded to believe absurdity anyway — and increased knowledge makes things worse for evolutionists since then. The human ear is a marvel , but the eye is even more amazing. Both eye and ear gather information from outside, then the brain has to arrange and make sense of the input. The retina alone is about as complex as the brain! Photoreceptors in a human retina, NIH / National Eye Institute (usage does not imply endorsement) The eye "appeared" (Darwinspeak for "evolved"), but once again evolution is assumed, not demonstrated. Researchers claim that the retinal cell types among several critters go way back in evolutionary history and are "conserved." In other words, there is no evidence of evolution. Worse for secularists, they are tacitly admitting not to com

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  This here article was written with some reluctance, first because the linked article is a book excerpt. Second, it is from the Discovery Institute, the main site of the Intelligent Design people. Regular readers may have noticed that I am using material from that site a bit more, but I tend to include biblical creationist material in my write-ups. This one is worth doing because other biblical creationists and I want people to learn how  to think, while atheists and secularists tell them what  to think. Some things about Darwin's logic need to be addressed. Charles Darwin dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight via Bing AI, which made the devil resemble  Homo habilis There are disagreements about whether or not Charles Darwin was an atheist, especially since he claimed agnosticism. Part of his dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight was his determination to put down creationism, viewing it as unscientific. His way of dealing with it was through met

Obstreperous atheists and fundamentalist evolutionists patrol teh interwebz, targeting Darwin doubters for destruction. They have many weapons drawn and ready, but one of these is dominant: Arbitrary assertions. When those are frequently used to put down Christians and creationists, the people using them are being illogical and indicating that their worldview is incoherent. It is indeed unfortunate when scientists also build arguments on arbitrary and false statements instead of actual evidence. But then, it has also been shown that storytelling brings in the grant money. Darwinoptera pterosaurs, Flickr / Francisco Gil ( CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ) Just off the western coast of Scotland is a group of islands called the Inner Hebrides. A representative of a pterosaur clade called Darwinoptera had apparently been found on the largest, the Isle of Skye. (A nice place to fly, certainly.) Evolutionists were surprised, especially since certain pterosaurs were only known in China, not Scotland. To cov

There are many stories floating around about Nicolas Copernicus, but many are completely false. (Atheistic revisionists are partly to blame.) He was in fact a Christian who believed that studying the heavens glorified God. His views did not contradict the Bible. Copernicus is credited with the heliocentric view (the earth orbits the sun). He reluctantly brought forward his view. Church leaders were enthusiastic about it at first, and geocentric (the earth moves around the sun) scientists and philosophers opposed him. Copernicus in the tower at Frombork , Jan Matejko, 1872 His model was discussed for about seventy-five years, but it seems to have received some backlash from Galileo. Frankly (mind if I call you Frank?), Galileo was a bit of a jerk and brought trouble on himself . (Atheistic revisionists made up many things about him, too.) Galileo drew from the work of Copernicus, then brought physical evidence to the discussion of which objects orbits what; it was no longer just philoso