Piltdown Superman

My prospector friend Stormie Waters is getting hitched up with Roland Meadows, and they will make a fine couple. Like many others, they want to have the event in the spring. It may even happen outdoors by one of Stormie's favorite streams. They have occasionally sought my advice and sometimes I got a mite uncomfortable. Stormie said, "It's known that breastfeeding is best for a baby's nutrition." She looked at me with wide eyes and asked, "They get calcium that way. Why don't women's bones collapse?" Roland also waited for my reply. Young Mother Breastfeeding Her Child , Jules Breton, 1873 I dealt with my embarrassment about such a personal subject involving close friends by taking a clinical mindset. Also, I had been reading an article about it. Mammals have calcium taken from their bones, and this is not unique to humans. The child needs calcium, but so do adults. Folks have wondered for a mighty long time why women are not harmed by breastfeed

Descent with modifications evolution maintains that, biologically speaking, all life forms go back to a common ancestor. The claims of evolutionists should be verified in living things today as well as through the fossil record; there should be an uncountable number of transitional forms. Biblical creationists reject evolution partly through lack of evidence. While they believe in speciation, diversity, and the biblical kinds (similar to the family level in modern reckoning), they maintain that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. Aerodactylus scolopaciceps  with soft tissue, Wikimedia Commons /  Steven U. Vidovic, David M. Martill  ( CC BY 2.5 ) What in the wild world of paleontology is a-goin' on here? Some recent examples show why creationists are not surprised because the discoveries fit their expectations. Secular reckoning has sharks as ancient critters, and a small group suddenly appeared in the fossil record. No evolution. A web-spinning spider allegedly 3

It is amazing how things change over time, especially when evolutionists are the ones writing popular versions of history. Charlie Darwin took his voyage on the Beagle  ship, observed nature, and brilliantly formulated evolution through natural selection. The scientific world praised his genius. Stuff and nonsense. His version of evolution was resisted at first, and scientists wanted him to back up the claims in his 1859 tome,  On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life , Title page of Origin of Species with creepy 1871 Vanity Fair  caricature added Darwin made excuses, such as claiming illness — and then published material on other topics. He was going to write a massive book of evidences supporting his hypotheses, but it never happened. Charlie made Natural Selection an entity, wrote many notes, frustrated scientists, but ultimately his promised book was never written. Well, something  was published as part o

As anyone who pays attention to the origins controversy is probably aware, atoms-to-atheist evolution is far more famous than biblical creation science. Evolution is not simply a biological discussion, but a worldview that is diametrically opposed to biblical creation . Scientists are not ethical monoliths. Some have cheated and committed fraud to advance their careers and profit. Atheists have no consistent moral foundation, and some even appeal to evolution for morality . Humans want some kind of freedom outside of the Creator's boundaries like a goldfish desires freedom outside the tank. Girl and cyborg, Pixabay /  Gerd Altmann (geralt) Christians hear the word doctrine  quite often, but it is not a "religious" word. A doctrine is a set of principles in a framework that is given for belief or practice. There are military, political, and other doctrines. Although it is not likely to be found in a book of Christian doctrines, we need to consider the doctrine of creaturel

Biomimetics is where humans imitate characteristics of nature for their own benefit, so here are two examples. Indeed, if scientists who learn from creation were not such materialists, they might use Bible verses like Psalm 104:25-26 and  Job 12:7-8 as inspiration. Using the night  setting on my camera, instructions are given to stay still because the exposure is several seconds instead of the usual fraction of a second. The human eye (an inspiration for a researcher) does the opposite: It has constant tiny movements. His results were surprising when he imitated these movements. Prism effect, Flickr / Ian Mackenzie ( CC BY 2.0 ) The researcher programmed robot cameras with the small motions like the human eye. It seems like they would be blurry, but he obtained sharper images! In other news giant clams may have an impact on solar panels. Algae grow a certain way on the shells, and this helps the clams get the light they need. Their light collection strategy is more efficient by far t

Believers in descent with modifications evolution claim to have science on their side, but certain evidences for evolution are simply false. One is phylogenetic trees , which are diagrams of hypotheses and conjectures. They are not evidence. Another is homology . Note that the root word is the Greek word for same , and used in words like homogenous. In homology, if critters have things in common like each having two eyes, tails, external ears, heads on necks, etc., then boy howdy! They must have evolved from a common ancestor. Not hardly! Horse and Cow in a Meadow , Paul Gauguin, 1885 Essentially, a presupposition  is something that is assumed to be true without proving it beforehand. Many times for the sake of discussions, things are presupposed by the mutual understanding of readers or listeners. Other times, evolutionists presuppose evolution and then confirm their biases. That is circular reasoning. Biblical creationists presuppose that the Bible is true from the very first verse —

Off the southern edge of England, in the English Channel, lies the Isle of Wight. It is known for landscapes, chalk, and geological features, so the locals were probably not overly surprised to learn that a new ankylosaur was discovered there. Ankylosaurs were herbivores. These critters looked like turtles gone wrong, what with all that armor and all. One curiosity is that they are usually found fossilized on their backs . Also, like other creatures of that time, evolution is assumed but there is no evidence of it. Edmontonia rugosidens, Wikimedia Commons / Mariana Ruiz (PD) The way they were buried in sediment is a curiosity to secular scientists, and they have some ideas that do not pass the sniff test. So many ankylosaurs were clumsy, fell into rivers and floated out to sea where they were buried? This child lacks belief that such an idea is plausible. Indeed, the more reasonable explanation (although streng verboten  among Darwin's acolytes) is the mechanisms of the global Gen

The Big Bang story has been built, rebuilt, cobbled, and Frankensteined in general. When told by card-carrying members of the secular science industry, it sounds tidy and almost plausible. It brought on both cosmic and biological evolution. Looks good on paper. However, the tale is told as if scientists were trucking along in complete unity. Nope. Cosmologists and cosmogonists in the ranks disagree. It is also presented without any actual science, driven by presuppositions and mathematics that support them. The cosmological constant problem may be a good reason to put the thing down. Made at  photofunny  with a  NASA / ESA  image (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Something that supports science itself is how scientific laws (as we understand them) are consistent and predictable, which fits both Intelligent Design and biblical creation science views. A scientist made a claim that is...truly bizarre: The fundamental principle called the cosmological constant  — isn'

Some people read or watch mysteries for the challenge of solving them, but many have noted that writers withhold information. In reality, detectives have to find and use the evidence they have in the here and now to reconstruct what happened in the past. This is forensic science. In a courtroom, evidence is presented so a verdict can be reached. Both the prosecution and defense may be more interested in winning the case rather than reach the correct conclusion. Distractions, glossy presentations and wording, misleading logic and more can be utilized. Legal work, FreeDigital I mages /  I ndypendenZ Atheists and other believers in universal common ancestor evolution present their case, but do not take all the evidence into account. The secular science industry has biased presentations in museums, documentaries, and so forth. Those can be slick, compelling, and entertaining; they want to win. People who are interested in reaching the truth need both sides of the story. Biblical creationis

Secular scientists are committed to uniformitarianism ("the present is the key to the past") for the most part. Slow and gradual processes do not support observed evidence, so their worldview keeps them attempting to find explanations. Greenland is an icy place, but it was not always that way. There are canyons there (yippie ky yay, Bill Nye), plants were found underneath the ice sheet, the ice deposited quickly and not over huge amounts of time, and more. An ecosystem in the northern part of Greenland has been detected. Greenland north coast image credit: NASA /  Michael Studinger  (usage does not imply endorsement) The science of genetics, pioneered by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him) has developed in some amazing ways. In this case, soil was analyzed and critters that lived in northern Greenland could be determined. But mammoths ? How did those  get up there? This is pretty far north. The biodiversity is a tough thing for secular scientists to explain in the first place