Piltdown Superman

Those of us who know that Earth has a magnetic field probably don't think about it every day. Why would you? Out of sight, out of mind. Unless you're a scientist that's paid to do that kind of thing. But it's up there, protecting our joyous wet oblate spheriod from many unpleasant things including cosmic rays, solar flares, carnivorous squid from the planet Kootulu, and more. "There are no carnivorous squid in space, Cowboy Bob!" No? Thought I read that somewhere. Oh, well. Image credit: NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image Lab Purveyors of the "deep time" mythology are beleaguered by the numerous difficulties in keeping their ideas plausible. Creationists have shown for a long time that Earth's magnetic field cannot be as old as secularists desire , and a number of rescuing devices have been considered. They still don't work, partly because scientists don't understand the field in the first place, but the bigges

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen As I have stated in articles, interviews, and so on, Question Evolution Day has many layers. Ultimately, it's about proclaiming the gospel and removing a huge naturalistic stumbling block. While we're hoping to prompt honest evolutionists to question their indoctrination and see that fish-to-fish packer evolution is abundant in storytelling but sparse in evidence, QED has some other aspects on which I need to focus. QED is an effort to encourage people to take a stand for creation (and more so in 2017, because the event coincides with Creation Sunday ). Participation ranges from having events, sharing a post with a #questionevolutionday and/or #qed2017 hashtag on social media, Sunday services, or other ideas. A reason for this event is because of censorship, censure, discrimination, and bigotry against those who oppose Darwin. If you study on it a spell, you should see that there's no legitimate reason for someone to oppose our freedom of spe

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The question of what creationists need to do when asked a question about something we cannot answer, or a question in an area that appears weak to creationists, seems like a good topic to consider, what with Question Evolution Day coming up on February 12 and all. I hope this material will be helpful in everyday dealings. Evolutionists, atheists, anti-creationists, and others seem to have the notion that biblical creationists claim to have all the answers. It may come as a shock to some people (including underinformed creationists), but we do not have all the answers. We may be asked a question about something for which we do not have an answer, and must deal with the situation correctly. In addition, some areas are underdeveloped by biblical creationists. Generated at Add Letters I'll allow that there are many sidewinders, especially online, that like to play, "Gotcha!" if someone has a problem answering a question. (Some even go as

If you commence to riding and take a turn too fast, you probably know what's going to happen, and it's none too good. People need specialized equipment to make quick movements at high speeds, and even then, we can only tolerate so much. Image credit: Freeimages / Rinske Blok-van Middendorp More than just tolerating the stress of sudden, speedy movements, animals need to be able to see where they're going. Two prime examples of this are hummingbirds and bats. Hummingbirds see things a mite differently, and bats are using their sonar to decide how to catch two insects in different places in succession. Such characteristics are antithetical to evolutionary concepts because all the "components" must be in place and fully functional at once; there is no room for gradual evolution. These are examples of the amazing design skills of the Creator, and you can read about them by clicking on " Fast Flight Specializations in Birds and Bats " .

Clinton Richard Dawkins received attention for a self-contradictory remark in 2004 that exhibited his blind faith, "Evolution has been observed, it’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening." That fits the atoms-to-atheist view that evolution is very slow, so we don't see it happening, we just infer what happened from what we see in the present. But it doesn't work, old son. Image credit: Pixabay / LoganArt Some acolytes of Dawkins attempted to rescue his gaffe, but their efforts were ad hoc and nonsensical. Part of the problem is based on definitions. Yes, evolution happens, but that is based on one of several definitions of the word. We see rapid speciation , mutations, variations, and all sorts of things. We also see interpretations of data according to materialistic presuppositions; essentially, circular reasoning. We do not see anything that supports the concept of evolution from one common ancestor, savvy? Instead, the evidence clearly

When Adam sinned, death entered the world, creation was cursed, and things went downhill. For a few days before that, everything was "very good" (Gen. 1:31). Animals didn't eat each other, we didn't eat them, no lethal poisons — now we have plenty of killing, eating, poisons, and so on. Highly venomous Bonaire box jellyfish Image credit: Marijke Wilhelmus / NOAA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Now we have various plants and critters with lethal poisons. Creationists speculate that these are part of the DNA programming that was put in place by our Creator's design for use after the Fall, possibly based on modifications of existing benign features. Anyway, the point I'm bringing to your attention is that some things are being studied by scientists for medical use, including the draculin enzyme of vampire bats, and poisons for use in non-addictive pain killers. God gave us intelligence, and expects us to use it. The most common medi

People keep gnawing on that "global warming" or "global climate change" bone, citing "consensus" as a primary evidence that the subject is deadly serious and that man is the primary culprit. Not hardly! There have been climate changes throughout Earth's history, before human activity could be blamed. Further, although there is some amount of climate change, it is negligible, and the subject is primarily a political tool for globalism, and based on an evolutionary worldview. Modified from an image at Clker clipart Particles-to-planetologist evolution as well as climate change are fields that proponents declare "settled science", and secularists in the mainstream scientific community get on the prod if someone dares to present contrary evidence. Especially objectionable is when evidence regarding climate change comes from scientists who believe in special creation. There are credentialed scientists who reject the hysteria of global war

More and more, the evolution of dinosaurs paradigm is falling into tohubohu. The evolutionists who disbelieve that dinosaurs evolved into birds must have been smiling at the news that dinosaurs and birds lived at the same time , making it convenient for dinosaurs to eat birds. We also know about dinosaur-to-bird dishonesty in museums . Another bit of news adds additional reason to doubt the age and evolution of dinosaurs. Hypothetical reconstruction of Dromomeron romeri, a lagerpetid, Wikimedia Commons / Nobu Tamura Although there is no actual evidence for dinosaur evolution, the evidence laundering spin cycle launches into high gear when a putative ancestor of dinosaurs is found in the same rock layers are other dinosaurs. Evolutionists tell some mighty fine stories, I'll allow, but they're all based on evolutionary assumptions and circular reasoning, not on actual evidence. Too bad they don't cotton to allowing themselves to even consider a Genesis Flood model fr

When you're going to drain a swamp, you have a pretty good idea about where the water is going to go. Things are mighty different when draining a flooded planet. Believers, mockers, and inquirers want to know where all that water went when the Genesis Flood was done with and the Ark settled on the mountains of Ararat. I'll allow that it's a fair question, and it seems common. God pulled a giant drain plug at the bottom of the ocean — "Quit playing, Cowboy Bob!" Well, it is a kind of funny picture. The answer is actually simple — at first. The mountains rose, the ocean floors went downward. Water ran off the continents and formed the oceans. Now, I have a skeptical nature, and I don't want to present you with something that seems to be pious assertions. While the Bible is inerrant, models from creationists, evolutionists, or whomever else are not above reproach. Is there evidence to support the Genesis Flood model? Mt. Everest from space image credit:

There's a family (not species) swimming around mainly in the Americas called killifish — "Why do you want to kill the fish, Cowboy Bob? That's cruel!" No, look closer. One word, three syllables. "Kill" is an old Dutch word for river; I live near the Cats kill s. So, the meaning of killifish is " fish of the brook ". Of course, some killifish can be good eatin', but that's not the subject today. So anyway, when industrialists were using Darwinian-based laissez-faire capitalism and dumping sewage into the water, they commenced to not only pollute, but killed off many critters as well as a passel of fish. Waccamaw killifish image credit: Fritz Rhode / North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources / public domain (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) There was a song by the group 38 Special that had the line, "You see it all around you, good lovin' gone bad". Here's another ins

When I'm discussing a repair with my favorite mechanic, I gleefully display my ignorance by asking questions that must seem ridiculous to him. Fortunately, we both know that I'm uninformed, and he likes to teach. I may ask if it's possible to make a repair in a certain way, and he'll tell me why it won't work. The science industry itself is in serious need of repair. Papers get published that are plagiarized, computer generated , the results cannot be reproduced, data is omitted, unethical activity, a blatantly leftist bias  that belies claims of objectivity, faulty peer review, and more. They want the spotlight for sensational results, but failures are useful information as well;  scientists need to know what will not work as well as what succeeds, see? Image cropped from Pixabay / Skitterphoto In addition, incomplete information is presented (a frequent occurrence among evolutionary scientists and their sensationalistic press pals), but there is a lack of f

Some owlhoots who profess to be Christians in the BioLogos gang (implied motto: "Jesus lied") have been riding with the hands at the Darwin Ranch in their continuing mission to slap leather with biblical creationists. For some reason, old Earth proponents (especially theistic evolutionists) elevate atheistic interpretations of science to the magisterial position over the Bible, which they claim to believe. Then atheists trumpet, "See? Even these religious people believe in evolution!", and then continue their perfervid denunciations of Christians, including their TE useful idiots. François de La Rouchefoucauld (Frankie the Rock) had several maxims, this is one of my favorites. If you study on it a spell, most people will consider someone insightful when they are in agreement. Some will respect intelligent opponents who disagree with them, but those are in the minority. Here, BioLogos uses secular sources in their attempts to refute biblical creationists, but t

One of the methods used to determine an old Earth as well as climate change is called paleoclimate research  ("paleo", meaning, "way back when"). The procedure seems quite simple, get samples from caves, cart them back to the lab, and see what happens. In their efforts to prove the conclusions the scientists had already made, serious flaws were discovered in the techniques. Image credit: Freeimages /  Frank Müller When the samples are moved away, changes begin to happen quickly, and the results are suspect. In addition, the samples vary between caves. This makes it mighty difficult to make projections about Earth's past climate, and to make projections about the future. Perhaps if they didn't presume consensus science, uniformitarianism and Earth being ancient, and also took more care in their testing? Earth was created far more recently than secularists want to admit. Widely used to infer past climates, isotope measurements from stalactites and stal

An argument from the Intelligent Design people that creationists like to use is irreducible complexity.  That is, components of an organism must be in place at the same time, or nothing would make sense, and even be harmful to the organism if they evolved piecemeal. There are many examples, including the hummingbird , bombardier beetle , and on the unseen level, the ATP synthase enzyme and the flagellum. Irreducible complexity is a strong argument for the skill of our Creator as well as a serious impediment for evolution. Image credit:  Zina Deretsky, National Science Foundation (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Darwin's defenders don't cotton to evidence for creation, so they attempt to "refute" things they dislike (such as dinosaur soft tissue and irreducible complexity) with such first water arguments as, "It's been refuted", or, "That's not true". Saying  something has been refuted does not demonstrate actual r

There are some mighty interesting critters living in the jungles of Indonesia, 'Straya, and elsewhere. (Mind you, keep your distance and don't touch unless you have someone with you that says it's okay.) There are interesting things up in the trees, and I understand that some spent so much time way up yonder, people didn't know they existed. Same kind of thing happens with nocturnal animals as well. Reminds me of the colugo . But I'm wandering again. Spotted Cuscus image credit: Matt Francey / Flickr One of these jungle tree dwellers is the cuscus. (Before someone commences to typo-pouncing, yes, it's spelled correctly.) This cute thing looks sort of like a monkey. In fact, it's a marsupial, similar to the opossum, which is the only marsupial in North America , and some folks eat possums . I don't. The cuscus is not fierce, so it has other continuance features that our Creator gave it. Cuscuses are good-natured marsupials that roam the lush jun

Creationary scientists have to keep secular scientists honest. Or at least, to point out their errors. It seems that one of the guidelines for both common-ancestor evolution and old Earth concepts is, "If it supports our view, valid". One of the icons of uniformitarian geology used to support deep time is the Milankovitch (astronomical) theory. The basic idea is that secular views of multiple ice ages in Earth's past were caused by changes in it's orbit and rotation over long periods. However, these owlhoots are assuming long ages to prove long ages, and making a passel of assumptions in the process. That's neither logical nor scientific, old son. Assembled with graphics from Clker clipart Secularists ignore a wagon-load of evidences for a young Earth (they don't fit the paradigm), preferring dubious radiometric dating methods instead. Milankovitch's work has been used in support of not only their credenda for deep time, but also to support climat

Years ago, the human genome was ineffectively sequenced. Toplofty scientists, reasoning from their molecules-to-molasses preparer evolutionary presuppositions, determined that the things they didn't understand were "junk" from our alleged evolutionary past. Using more advanced equipment and using due diligence, most of the things that were labeled as non-functional have been both embarrassing and surprising, since they do  have functions, some of them very intricate. Herein lies an example of how evolutionary thinking hinders science. If the previous sequencers had assumed instead that life was created, and what was found was there for a purpose, there would not have been so many delays in scientific advancement. Image credit:  “Dna” by renjith krishnan at FreeDigitalPhotos.net I'll allow that it's difficult to find something that is difficult to see, and further discoveries were practically hiding in plain sight. They're small, but have vital roles,

Back in 2010, an atheopath on Twitter made a comment along the lines of, "Creatures are born atheist". I challenged him that his statement is an unprovable assumption. (Telling the truth gained me a stalker for a few years.) Shortly after, we learned that children are born believing in God ! This supports what the Bible teaches. But like any totalitarian knows, gotta get 'em while they're young and get that brainwashing going! Even though dust-to-Dawkins evolution is untrue, unprovable, untestable, unrepeatable, is a hindrance  to science, is ignored in biological sciences, well hey, it must  be taught, children must  believe in evolution. Why? My answer is that these Darwinista owlhoots want more recruits in their rebellion against the Creator, so they are getting more aggressive and Machiavellian in their tactics, including "reeducation". Interesting that the atheistic Soviet Union not only imprisoned, tortured, and executed Christians, but sent them t

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This is not going to be a long, complicated article. Y'all probably need a break from the heavy stuff, and I don't mind one myself. A reader of The Question Evolution Project sent me a link to a one-minute video (which linked to a non-science article) about how scientists want to tamper with the DNA and chickens, help them get in touch with their inner dinosaur, and possibly bringing back a modified form of dinosaurs. Echoes of Jurassic Park , I suppose. (When we're done here, let's all meet at Kentucky Fried Rex for chow.) One serious question to consider is: why bring back things that were extinct? I reckon it depends on the motivation . Assembled and modified with Clker clipart graphics What caught my attention is how scientists are assuming evolution  in order to do this process, and ignoring the other scientists who reject  dinosaur-to-bird evolution. How many times have we seen where evolutionary thinking has actually hindered s