Piltdown Superman

Like so many other tales told by proponents of common-ancestor evolution, the lineage of the snake has been weak at best. For the most part, fossils of snakes have been quite a bit like snakes that are living today. A few fossils have been presented as transitional forms, but not without controversy among evolutionists. Credit: US National Park Service The wild-eyed science press, in their ongoing quest for sensational stories (and to bolster the secular science industry), has been mighty unhelpful by leaving out pertinent details and presenting fake science images. Further, one of the fossils shows what appear to be hind legs. I can't rightly recollect a snake doing any strolling these days, just slithering. Yet some evolutionists insist that a loss of features is evidence of advancing upward evolution. Not hardly! That's devolution. The great irony for secularists is that the fossils actually affirm creation. Until early 2015, the ‘earliest’ date reported for a fo

Today, we have a couple of related items for you. Materialists are unable to account for a sense of purpose, and have no ultimate foundation for morality. Some believe morality has its source in evolution , but that simply doesn't work. They have two minds, seeking a sense of purpose, but also claiming that "reality" dictates that when we die, that's it. Atheists agree to an arbitrary definition of "reality" as materialism with no God. This concept is based on their own presuppositions — as if they had some kind of right or moral imperative to define reality itself. Seems a mite ironic. Another irony is that anti-creationists need creationists to give them a false sense of purpose , as exhibited in their secularist jihads. Made at Atom Smasher Secularists have been doing some research on areas of the brain to see what lights up (so to speak), and are seeing that those who have a sense of purpose — a large-scale purpose — have happier lives. Biblically

Here is another article that I read with reluctance and ended up fascinated. I'll allow that linguistics can seem dreadfully dull for some people, but this is more of a big picture aspect. And we're not going to be examining things like the dangling pluperfect indefinite participle or whatever. A very basic definition of language is that it is a means of communication, and languages are not merely verbal. There are written forms of verbal languages, braille raised dots for the blind , sign language for the hearing impaired, and more. There needs to be some degree of uniformity and consistency for a language to be useful. How many times has someone inserted some slang that you've had to ask for a definition or look it up if you had not experienced it before? Some slang words become established in a language because of agreement and acceptance, but many drop off (such as, fortunately, " gag me with a spoon "). The gesture I received while driving the other day co

Way back when, the Sahara was not the arid pile of sand that is seen today. Instead, it was a bit on the damp side, with evidence of creatures that favored water, and even human inhabitants. Satellites show that under the sand, there used to be a huge network of rivers back then. Now, that's a puzzler. Credit: USDA / E.L. Skidmore (usage does not imply endorsement of this site) Secular scientists try to invoke the discredited Milankovitch astronomical theory to explain changes in Earth's climate, with unconvincing arguments. The better explanation is that during the Ice Age caused by the Genesis Flood, there were several conditions that brought greater rainfall. Scientists from the University of Arizona recently announced that what is now the Sahara desert was once wet and green and extended as far north as the Mediterranean Sea. The scientists examined chemical clues found within leaf waxes preserved in four marine sediment cores located off the northwestern Afric

Way back when, there was a myth that people with bigger brains were more intelligent than others. Then there's the observation where someone can pay mucho dinero for higher education, but are dreadful at simple logic. I can name some people that believe they're the brightest bulbs in the chandelier but are actually quite dim, but never mind about that now. So, how does this brain size and intelligence thing work in smaller creatures? Credit: Pixabay / DrScythe The brain of a bumblebee is about the size of a sesame seed. Does that explain the time I got stung by one that flew into the open window of my delivery truck, smacked into me, then stung me when it wasn't my fault? Those bad boys pack a punch. But I digress. These fuzzy little critters are capable of learning, and others can learn by watching their fellow travelers. Bats are masters of echolocation, but what happens in a crowd? Seems like there would be a heap of interference and collisions happening, but t

Biblical creationists often need to deal with tendentious evidences for Earth's alleged old age, including radiometric dating, ice core samples, distant starlight, and others. These have been dealt with by creationists in many places (several of which are linked on this site). Another "proof" for Earth's age is that of trees, since the Genesis Flood, about 4,500 years ago, would have ripped them up and they'd have to start over. Yet some are claimed to be substantially older. "General Sherman" sequoia credit: US National Park Service , usage does not imply endorsement of site contents Some folks say that certain trees are dated at 30,000 years, so the timeline of the Bible must be wrong. Ofttimes, people are using outdated material and incomplete material. For example, the General Sherman sequoia pictured above was thought to be in excess of 6,000 years, but has been revised down to an uncertain approximation of 2,150 years. Many believe that thes

People who deal with sewing or looms, whether on a personal or an industrial level, know that precision is required. My wife has longed for a self-threading needle, as have probably many other people. Sewing machines and looms break down and need maintenance. Sure would be mighty fine if the things performed their own maintenance, wouldn't it? Credit: Morguefile / cohdra Imagine something similar on a much smaller scale. Remember those microscopes you used in school? Not good enough. This is about an aspect of our internal self-repair, where ribosomes correct faulty RNA (which is a good friend of DNA) so we can continue living. The intricate design and specified complexity involved is another reason to reject common-ancestor evolution, and realize that the evidence supports biblical creation. What does it take to slip a tiny thread through the eye of a needle and then use that thread to accomplish a purpose? Chimpanzees and other apes can’t do this. It takes fine, precise

One of the items that the bosses at the Darwin Ranch have filed away in the locked back room under Try Not to Discuss is soft tissues from ancient critters. Although we've been hearing about those tissues for a spell, it's not such recent news as some people may think. Just that the more recent events about dinosaur soft tissues have rightly exploded since that business with Mary Schweitzer, Mark Armitage , and others. Triceratops at the Dinosaur Journey Museum credit: US Dept of Transportation / aschweigert (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Some uninformed but loyal evolutionists have tried to deny the tissue problem (even lying about it in forums and on social media), since it's a serious problem for them: dinosaur soft tissues and proteins cannot last for millions of years. That means dinosaurs have not been extinct as long as their dogma requires, and gives another indication that Earth was created much more recently than evolution requires.

There's a critter down Australia and New Guiney way that is sometimes called the spiny anteater. It's spiny, but not with sharp pointy quills like a porcupine. Also, it does eat ants somewhat, but is not closely related to anteaters. Seems gentle enough, but it's a protected wild animal, so don't be getting a notion to make a pet of one. Maybe consider a hedgehog and name it Spiny Norman, since there's a bit of resemblance. Anyway, the subject is the echidna (I kid you not, it's pronounced ee-KID-nuh), and is baffling to evolutionists, like its cousin the platypus . Credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainImages The classification for yon beastie is a monotreme. It's a mammal, but lays eggs. Yes, really. Read up on its alleged evolution and you get a whole whack of storytelling but no actual scientific evidence. Then they deny the Creator and resort to the nonsensical "convergent evolution" tale. Because of its unique characteristics and those of th

The Big Bang and cosmic evolution have many things going for them — on paper. Start with some assumptions, do some calculations, make impressive pronouncements, let the sycophantic science media get the bit in their teeth and gallop to the public . But do not, under any circumstances, let actual science interfere with grandstanding. Evidence is bad medicine for speculations in secular cosmogony and cosmology. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech Since observed evidence causes problems for secular cosmogony concepts, secular scientists come up with rescuing devices. Dark matter, dark energy, dark other things that have never been observed but look good for calculations abound, and "explain" why spiral galaxies hold their shape after assumed zillions of years. These things have not been observed, only inferred according to presupposition s (see " Dark Matter Remains Missing "). Another rescuing device is to come up with new physics, and even find a new theory of gravity t

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen There seems to be a fine line between rejecting material because someone dislikes the source (the genetic fallacy ), and using caution because the source is questionable. Some owlhoots fallaciously balk at learning science from creationists because creationists do not support materialistic presuppositions. Other times, material from individuals is questioned because they lack the proper credentials. Image credit: digitalart at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Readers of this Weblog and The Question Evolution Project may notice that several creationary mavericks are absent from the corral that I choose for reliable resources. I'll allow that sometimes I'm a mite skittish when atheopaths are looking for excuses to discredit individuals or organizations since I also want to make good material available for readers and viewers, but do not want to give detractors fuel for their fires. Don't disunderstand me. There are very intelligent people who have no

Proponents of molecules-to-milliner evolution are still having problems overcoming the original hurdle: the origin of life. Some even try to rework the failed Miller-Urey experiment , and others try to find different ways to justify the non-science of abiogenesis. One desperate idea was to invoke a kind of intelligent design by space aliens . Oh, please!  Image credit: Pixabay / Alexas_Fotos Some owlhoots try to distance themselves by resorting to the canard that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. Sure, pilgrim. You want us to spot you the most difficult part, and then you'll take the bit in your teeth and run with it from there. Claiming that abiogenesis (also known as chemical evolution ) is irrelevant is, I believe, blatantly dishonest, since they should know that the origin of life is in evolution textbooks, on documentaries, and so on. Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes A more rational idea involves primordial liquid drople

For this post, you're going to need your cogitating machines fully operational, because this material isn't very easy. It's down to Earth. Very. One of the deepest layers in the geologic column is the Cambrian, which has caused considerable consternation among Darwin's Cheerleaders because of the "explosion" of fossilized life forms, and they try to come up with explanations for this evolution-defying event. Credit: Pixabay / RafaelMousob Before the Cambrian layer is the Precambrian (yes, really). Not a whole passel of fossils there, but there are signs of meteorite impacts. There is some controversy about how many actually set themselves down, since one impact can effectively erase another if it's close enough, and the criteria are a mite too rigid. Evidence exists that there may have been many more impacts than are officially recorded. Michael Oard offers his hypothesis and evidence (65 footnotes) that Precambrian impacts had a major effect on th

When the hands at the Darwin Ranch at Deception Pass ride into town on payday, a word of advice: don't play cards with them because they stack the deck. Not very well, though. Even more so when it comes to science, because after stacking the deck, they still don't like they hand they're dealt. Case in point, molecular clocks. Derived from images at Clker clipart Using their scum-to-scientist evolutionary presuppositions, scientists attempted to calibrate various molecular clocks to give them the long ages they desire. In their attempts to deny the Creator, genetic clocks are embarrassingly bad. Evolutionists assign millions of years to fossils, and even to genes in the DNA of living creatures, in an attempt to bolster evolutionary theory, which needs the magic of “deep time” to seem plausible. But the supposed ancient clocks they use for these age assignments rarely agree with each other. In other words, the DNA clocks rarely line up with the fossil clocks, despit

Every once in a while, you may encounter one of Darwin's Cheerleaders proclaiming the "fact" of evolution because evolution has science going for it, so you'd better shape up. They seldom admit (and many do not realize) that science is a philosophy of interpreting evidence relying on a materialistic worldview. Sure, there are some aspects of evolution that have appear to have empirical evidence, but that is often based on conflating variations with common-ancestor evolution. The rest of the alleged evidence is based on conjecture or even outright storytelling. One of the most risible concepts that Darwinists present is convergent evolution. Organisms having similar traits but are mostly unrelated (such as sonar in bats and dolphins) each evolved the characteristic separately. Such weak reasoning is based entirely on assumptions, presuppositions, circular reasoning, and personal preferences; there is no actual evidence for it. Such efforts to deny the work of

According to telegraphs from the gang at the Darwin Ranch, Earth has experienced five mass extinction events. These are separated by huge numbers of years and are based on a number of assumptions. They don't rightly have the evidence going for them.  Credit: Col. Jeffrey N. Williams , International Space Station 13 Crew, NASA Biblical creationists have a far different take on the so-called extinction events. There was actually one very big event: the Genesis Flood. This is supported by scientific evidence, including volcanism, rock layers in megasequences, lots of water moving very quickly, and more. Secularists dislike the Genesis Flood geology from creationary scientists because it indicates that Earth is far younger than is dreamt of in their philosophy. And minerals-to-minerologist evolution requires huge amounts of time. They get mighty irritated when their long ages are taken away — especially by scientific evidence. What an amazing world we live in, and what an ama

UPDATE D :   Four  links added below the featured article , and another important update was added 11 April 2017. A reader of The Question Evolution Project contacted me about the "big news" that NASA discovered seven new planets that are in what is called the habitable zone. I had not investigated the story very much since these stories tend to be ridiculous: "It's Earth's twin, except it would be like living in lava ". I chose to wait for a response from a creationist organization so I didn't have to step in piles of evolutionary dogma and hysteria, and the wait paid off, as you'll see below. Possible surface of TRAPPIST-1f, credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech Secularists go daffy over news of possible planets in the habitable zone, and their lapdog press joins in the fun by spreading exciting but actually very fake news. Many speculations, but only a thimbleful of actual science. Why the excitement? So secularists can deny that Earth is a s

Although some owlhoots try to say that evolution is only about biology, we know that they're being disingenuous. Darwin's fake science concepts have been used to "scientifically" justify immoral behavior , and are at the root of other evils in Western society. While the field of psychology is evolutionary and God-denying in nature , evolutionary psychology is incoherent at best, and controversial even among evolutionists. It's quackery. Made at Image Chef In this pseudoscience (along with evolutionary thinking in general), there is nothing special about humans except that we're more highly evolved than other animals. We are reduced to responding to stimuli, and our behavior is strictly functional, without God and biblical morality. Our behavior is "explained" in speculative evolutionary terms, many of which are contradictory and worthy of the tabloid press. The Christian worldview, beginning at creation, is the only way to make sense of the h

An article in The Washington Post discussed an excellent mammoth skull has been discovered on Santa Rosa of the Channel Islands, which doesn't fit. It's not a pygmy mammoth, which were native to the area, and it's not a Columbian. Is it a variation of the dozen or so currently known mammoth species, or something entirely new? And — how did it get there, anyway? Mammoth sculpture image cropped from Pixabay / hansbenn The Post had some misstatements of facts, and included some obfuscation on the word evolution, using evidence and conclusions that biblical creationists agree with Darwinists about, but imply that molecules-to-mammoth is responsible. They also had some problems with the dating claims, and a few other alternative "facts". The time frame and the location of the beastie can be explained with the creation science model of the Genesis Flood and subsequent Ice Age. According to a report recently published in The Washington Post , researchers have

Ever hear of having a relationship "warts and all"? Kind of ugly wording, but it makes the point that someone accepts both the good and the bad of the other party involved. The face of the secular science industry covers up its flaws, especially regarding common-ancestor evolution and global warming. It has a bad complexion, and tries to cover up numerous flaws, which causes trust issues. Image credit: Pixabay / kinkate There are methodological errors, such as poor estimates of wildlife, observer interference, publication bias canonizing "facts" in science, storytelling to influence acceptance of untrue evidence, terribly flawed peer review. From there, move to moral errors, including misconduct (and covering it up), scientific racism. Then we have a passel of logical errors: leaving self-defeating proposals that are laughable from the get-go remain unchallenged, a solvent involving gene transfer being promoted as evidence of evolution, a dreadful concept of