Piltdown Superman

Bob Enyart of Real Science Radio took a trip to the UK. On one of his stops, he interviewed Dr. David Rosevear of the Creation Science Movement (originally founded in 1932 as the "Evolution Protest Movement"). The CSM established a small museum called the "Genesis Expo" in Portsmouth. Some interesting things came out of the discussion, including how a lecture was stopped by anti-creationists, so Dr. Rosevear had to take over — sounds like the same kind of sidewinders we deal with today, don't you reckon? There was some discussion about touring former communist countries who welcome creation science. It's interesting how those who have been indoctrinated by atheism and had their religious freedoms suppressed welcome creation science, and those of us further west are dealing with secularists who are progressively making us more like the former USSR. You can download or listen online to this 36-minute podcast by clicking on " RSR in Portsmouth UK wit

When the facts get in the way of a good story, evolutionists commence to reinterpreting some facts, ignoring other facts, and changing the story. That seems to be an increasingly common procedure with them nowadays. When it comes to real science, a theory should be discarded when it's at odds with the facts. Not in the case of Darwinism, it seems. "Monkey Family 3" (cropped) by Flavio Takemoto / FreeImages When the hands of apes and humans are compared, it is easily seen that human hands are designed by our Creator for our needs, and the hands of apes are designed for their own needs. Some paleoanthropologists are monkeying around with the idea that our hands are more primitive than those of apes. Of course, presuppositions and conjectures make up the bulk of this "science". Thumbing through the pages of most manuals on human evolutionary history, a reader would soon latch onto the idea that our precision grip was a relatively recent addition to the h

Don't tell the hands at the Darwin Ranch or they'll be a mite upset, but evolutionists themselves are evolving. That part is not bothersome, but the fact that they're evolving toward what creationists have been telling them all along can be a problem. If they weren't married up with methodological and philosophical naturalism, they would be more inclined to drop their science-hindering presuppositions and abandon evolution in favor of honest work. Evolutionists have gradually, over long periods of time, and with great resistance, begun to move in closer to creationist positions in several key areas. Biblical creationists have had the right starting point all along. Below are 10 instances where the biblical creation based explanation of the observations were so much more reasonable than the previous evolutionary ones that evolutionists have actually adopted the creationist explanation to a great degree (even though they still hold to evolution). These are all exc

Know why there are multiple ideas about the formation and evolution of the solar system? Because none of them can stand up to cold, pitiless logic. They all have serious flaws, and corral the facts as well as a broken fence. Still, secular cosmologists keep trying to bring back the least flawed old nag, put a new set of horseshoes on it, and hope it can travel. Ain't happening. Then they use the same failed hypotheses as explanations for the formation of other solar systems, but never mind about that now. Artist's conception of planetary formation around Beta Pictoris / Credit: NASA / FUSE / Lynette Cook (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The nebular hypothesis  is the current favorite, and a new computer model was set up to show how lots of luck can make it all happen, and there's no need for the Creator (Col. 1:16, Psalm 14:1); maybe a bit more spin caused by the right conditions... Many assumptions and a great deal of faith are involved in makin

Who are the people who advanced science? The ones who moseyed along with the herd? Not hardly. When you hear about famous scientists, they are usually the ones that broke away. You know, people like Louis Pasteur, Ray Damadian, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), Joseph Lister, Andy McIntosh, Isaac Newton, and many more are known for what they accomplished, not for supporting the prevailing views. "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen An old television memory came back, and I decided to run with it. In 1970, there was a strange Saturday morning kids' show called Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp. I think I watched it while waiting for something else that came on afterward (we didn't have many channels, and Saturday morning was our time for the kid shows). This had chimpanzees dressed up and actors doing voices for this silly spy program. As creationists have pointed out many times, evolution has been in everyone's faces and presented as fact at every turn. The name of the band that Lance performed in was the " Evolution Revolution ", and the boss of the agents was Commander Darwin. (No, I do not think that this show was intended to be evolutionary propaganda. Rather, the writers and such were using what was considered "science" and having fun at the same time.) Oh, and the female sidekick was Mata Hairi , the name playing on the famous spy Mata Hari .    Devo

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Before I get to the article that I'm featuring below, there are some personal notes that I wanted to share. Many years ago in Lansing, Michigan, I was browsing a Christian bookstore and found a 4" wide by 8" tall (101.6 mm x 228.6 mm) booklet of 28 pages called "Should Evolution Be Taught?" by Dr. John N. Moore. I showed it to my father, a pastor in the now thoroughly apostate United Methodist church. He told me that Dr. Moore was his professor of natural science when he attended Michigan State University (he received his BA in 1957), and was given a rough time for disbelieving evolution. Naturally, he was surprised that Dr. Moore was writing in favor of creation science! Speaking of MSU, an owlhoot going by the name of Richard Lenski objected to scientific evidence against his bacteria experiment , gave some snark , and then blocked me. This is a scientist? I corresponded with Dr. Moore a couple of times (he thought maybe he re

Imagine that you're going about your business, catch something for lunch, and then someone else draws down on you to make you into their  lunch. Then you all die. I reckon that would spoil your day. Well, something similar happened and a permanent record was made in stone, but long-age paleontologists are having trouble explaining it all away. Using some detective-style historical speculation, scientists are working on a series of events that led to the demise of a pterosaur, officiate — I mean, a fish he ate — and another ill-tempered fish that dry-gulched the pterosaur. Looks like the only winner was science, as all three went down together and became fossilized. Long-age paleontologists are disagreeing on how the fossilization happened. The typical story is that creatures die, then get slowly buried and are permineralized over millions of years. But what they see with their own eyes doesn't fit the secular storyline. If they'd step back a mite and look at the

A long, long, time ago, on a continent far, far away, a scientific expedition met its demise. In addition to trying to reach the South Pole, the Scott expedition wanted to prove Darwinian evolution by observing Haeckel's "law of recapitulation" in action with Emperor penguin eggs. Emperor Penguins / Photo credit: Dr. Paul Panganis , National Science Foundation Looks like the telegraph lines were down, because they were apparently unaware that Haecke's embryo drawings were known to be faked . The "law of recapitulation" was never true . Still, the expedition found out for themselves that recapitulation doesn't work. That's because there is no particles-to-penguin evolution, the facts support creation. During January–March 1912, Captain Robert Scott and four other optimistic members of the British Antarctic Terra Nova Expedition braved the bitter-cold summer weather of Antarctica’s Ross Ice Sheet, hoping to be the first to discover the South

When engaging with sponge-to-sportscasters evolutionists, many will come up with "evidence" for evolution that may make someone wonder, "Really, you believe what you're saying?" Worse, much of what is paraded as evidence of evolution is nothing more than speculation and imagination presented as actual scientific research. Evolution is a catch-all explanation that is full of bad reasoning and even self-contradiction. Non-evolution is touted as evidence for  evolution, and the hypothesis is so flexible, it "explains" everything (which is actually nothing at all). Scientists see evolution in and under every rock and, instead of doing something actually beneficial, will seek the alleged evolutionary meanings of how and why something became the way it is. But they have nothing substantial to show for it. Then they laugh at us for believing the much more rational explanation, which is special creation by God. To see what has me on the prod about th

Seems that every time evolutionary cosmologists try to save the Big Bang concept, they find that they have to throw away and draw new cards. Evolutionists think they they have the hand needed to win the pot, but ad hoc  theories are not working. The smart move is to not  place your bets on naturalistic philosophies, since they are mighty recalcitrant. Hubble telescope image of galaxies / NASA There are numerous difficulties with the Big Bang. When they are found, cosmologists come up with some theoretical explanations that look good on paper, but that's it. The universe is full of matter, and there should be equal amounts of antimatter to go with it according to this view. But no, there's not enough antimatter, so they call it the baryon asymmetry problem.  Rescuing devices were made and the ante was upped, but the "solution" still showed a losing hand. They should fold and quit gambling with eternity; evidence supports the biblical creation account that there

Sometimes, believers in lepton-to-leporidae evolution will say that yes, there are certain things that would put a powerful hurtin' on evolution. One suggestion was finding a rabbit fossil in precambrian layers. But what good would that do? Since evolution-wrecking fossils have already been found,  we could expect the same kind of nonsense: ignore it, make excuses, ask if it was faked or identified properly (entirely reasonable), invoke "ghost lineages", play with cladograms, and so on. In other words, since they've clinging to their faith despite  evidence, geologic column-shaking evidence would have little to no effect. We could expect them to keep on denying the Creator. Evolutionists typically make a big deal of the fossil record, citing it as powerful evidence for evolution. However, we have pointed out numerous cases of out-of-place fossils, and shown how they do serious damage to the notion that the fossils provide a nice and orderly record of evolution

Adherents of spores-to-salamander evolution are quick to point to fossils and claim that they are evidence for evolution. (Of course, no undisputed transitional forms are found, but why spoil a good story to tell around the campfire on the lonely trail?) A salamander in amber and the "world's first flower" have some evolutionary scientists whooping it up and scaring the horses — but they're excited over nothing. Sure, they're coming up with plenty of stories to tell, but not so much in the way of supporting evidence. Conjecture is not actual science, old son. I paid for my evolution, where's my change? Ain't happening, there's no change because there's no evolution. The evidence points to creation, after all. To see the examples and discussion, click on " Good Fossils, But Where’s the Evolution? "

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Simply stated, yes, creationists believe that speciation happens. It's the not-so-simple answer that gives people difficulties. Fungus-to-finch evolutionists often give credit to the puny god of evolution for every change, no matter how small. Some creationists disunderstand the idea of speciation and oppose it because they do not want to give Darwinists a foothold. When understood properly, it is not a threat to creation science, nor does it support Darwinism, but it does support biblical creation science! Colorized version of John Gould's Galapagos Finches, 1837 Scientists often disagree about the meaning of the word species and if critters are indeed separate species, but the generally accepted definition of speciation is when organisms diverge into genetically distinct lines. Evolutionists cannot agree on what causes speciation. Creationists accept natural selection and speciation, and reject "fixity of species", where everythin

Evolutionists have used the term "mosaic" to describe the difficulties encountered in placing dinosaurs in their paradigm. One reason is that they persistently present puzzling information. Not only have hadrosaurs been found in the frozen regions of Alaska, but worse, how did they survive, and how did a group of juveniles die at once? Then there's difficulty of the Australian long-clawed dinosaurs — did they originate there, or in Argentina? From there, Niger presents a pareiasaur skeleton that has earned fanciful tales but no explanation. Also, we have the soft tissue problem that has been annoying "deep time" advocates for a spell now. I reckon they don't want people to recollect that there are other  instances of biomaterial that refuses to act millions of years old, too. The Earth is not  billions of years old (despite the protestations of Darwinoids), it was created much more recently. Dinosaurs do not fit evolutionary ideas. (Evolution itself d

Purveyors of goo-to-graffiti-artist evolution tend to deal from the bottom of the deck when it comes to definitions. You'll hear about beneficial  mutations, but what does beneficial really mean? If I spray paint something on a wall, the paint may protect the covered areas from rain, which is beneficial. But the chemicals may cause the affected bricks to deteriorate, obviously not a benefit. Nor is it a benefit to me when Marshall Long takes me to jail. Before people get irritated because I'm using an analogy about non-living things, just study on it for a spell; I'm talking about word usage and perspective. When some living things have mutations, some are neutral but the overwhelming majority are bad. Calling them "good" mutations is subjective. A critter can have a mutation that looks good in a lab setting, but will kill it off in the wild. Likewise, some changes can be good in one instance, but extremely bad elsewhere. (They've tried to make somet

Although some people try to deny it, we all have our starting points through which we interpret data. This applies to scientists of all types, even though some people believe that scientists are dispassionate and operate only from data. Not hardly! Petrified Forest National Park / US National Park Service / PD Evolutionary scientists were fixing to reconstruct a scenario explaining the lack of dinosaur fossils in the Late Triassic, using observations in the Chinle Formation. It was a swell notion. However, the worldview they operated from required many assumptions of evolution and uniformitarianism, and ignored some important facts. When the same information is used from a Genesis Flood standpoint, things make a lot more sense. Paleontologists have long wondered why dinosaurs are scarce in the Late Triassic rock layers of the presumed tropics of that supposed time. Fossilized dinosaurs appear abundantly in those rock layers in today’s higher latitudes. In fact, though long-n

The very small world is, after all, seeming to grow bigger all the time. Scientists are learning more about DNA, the "simple" cell, and other things, and with this comes the knowledge that there is still a great deal more to learn. The intricate integrated complexities of those things that make us physically who we are and keep us going are astounding. Power Grid / National Energy Technology Laboratory - USDoE Something new to investigate "how it works" is the power grid system inside us where chemical energy is converted into electrical energy, and that is converted yet again. All of this in a network of cells that makes the idea of evolution downright ridiculous, and testifies to the wisdom of the Creator. Apparently, it's time to alter biology and anatomy textbooks again. There's much more to mitochondria than we ever thought. Researchers revealed that these tiny cellular power houses are highly organized to efficiently deliver ATP energy. They

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Cheri Fields is a "2nd generation homeschooling mom of six, minister’s wife, writer, and science lover". She has not only harnessed the power of the Web, but saddled it up and blazed some trails. Her desire is to present biblical creation science to children, so in March 2012, she began her ministry of " Creation Science 4 Kids ". (There's a link in the lower left on this site as well.) I'll let you click around there for a spell and see what all she offers with articles, podcasts, and so forth. But my focus right now is on her mini e-book. Mysteries of Time and Creation: A Short Intro to Young Earth Creation is a free e-book 'xceptin' at Amazon, who charges $.099 USD. (By the way, I stopped posting reviews on Amazon because that company does nothing about trolls who make the review system almost worthless when it comes to creationist and Christian material, so I do reviews on my sites.) Anyway, you can get the free do

In the politically incorrect and guaranteed offensive movie Blazing Saddles, Governor Le Petomane (Mel Brooks) has a realization, and shouts, "We've got to protect our phony-baloney jobs, gentlemen!" This is what evolutionary scientists have been doing for decades. Evolution actually hinders science. So what do those owlhoots do? Make statements about how evolutionary interpretations are the only way to examine scientific data, make circular arguments, ignore inconvenient information, denigrate people who think for themselves and reject evolution, and then try to bring back failed hypotheses. Darwin's "Tree of Life" has long been uprooted and eaten by mustangs, but they are trying to rework it through a faith-based initiative couched in confident assertions, cherry picking, and scientific jargon. But it's as helpful as prairie dust to clothes drying on the line. When all the evidence is examined, the obvious fact is that life was created, and evol