Piltdown Superman

There's nothing cowboys like more than riding into town for supplies and slipping off to the library to do some reading on abiogenesis. Good times, good times... Just kidding, science fiction is low on their list of priorities. Even so, some folks want to read secular materials to get a handle on how Darwinists are thinking, and how they try to deny the Creator. Credit: Pixabay / StockSnap First off, to tackle that kind of thing, it helps to have a strong background in science. Second (and this is the kind of thing creationists discuss frequently), a reader needs to understand the presuppositions of materialists and the assumptions upon which they base their research and conclusions. Third (one of my favorites), keep an eye out for bad logic — especially circular reasoning and affirming the consequent . Fourth, a good knowledge of creationary material is very important, since creationists are not likely to twist science to advance secular paradigms. There are some other thi

One of the popular speculations about the origin of Earth's moon is that a celestial body was unable to stay in its traffic lane, lost control, and smacked into Earth way back when. This would explain the absence of lunar water to the satisfaction of naturalists who deny the truth of recent creation. The Harvest Moon , Samuel Palmer, 1833 Even a cursory consideration of this idea shows that it is ridiculous. After all, the moon is the perfect size to obscure the sun during a total eclipse, and the moon is necessary for keeping life on Earth working efficiently. It has that almost-circular orbit and all. Rocks that Apollo astronauts brought back were tested in 2008 and found to have water, but that didn't seem to make an impression. Now that the moon can be studied from a distance, scientists learn that there is indeed water in the rocks. But it shouldn't be there according to proponents of the impact hypothesis. New clues confirm that the moon looks created. In

Advocates of deep time and dust-to-dinosaur evolution presuppose that dinosaurs died off 65 million Darwin years ago, and biblical creationists presuppose that Earth is much, much younger. With incontrovertible evidence of soft tissues in dinosaur bones, evolutionists had to circle the wagons and open fire on facts (and people presenting those facts) that threaten their belief systems. Credit: Freeimages / jim daly Some people tried to say that there were errors in lab testing, and Darwinoids on the web called the creationists who knew more about science than they did "liars". Other folks tried to get dismissive about this massive problem for deep time and evolution, hoping that their bad news would go away and things would be peachy keen if they pulled the covers over their heads and got a good night's sleep. Didn't happen. People at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (who are also fond of advancing the bad science promoting evolutionism) c

Everybody knows that water has no taste, right? That's a good thing when riding the long, hot trail and you need a good draw from your canteen that doesn't taste fruity or bitter. Well, I don't want flavor when I'm all hottened up. Don't be so sure there's no taste. A study indicates that mice are able to taste — more likely, maybe distinguish or discern that they are actually drinking water. Mice, critters, and people are designed to have many things in common, so it's likely that we can "taste" water as well. Credit: Pixabay / Capri23auto The Big Box Chain Store sells its own brand of water, and I think it tastes mighty find. But on the label, it lists the ingredients as purified water (as I wanted), some chemicals, and minerals to enhance flavor. Strikes me as odd that they're enhancing something that has no flavor, but that's just marketing. People have subjected brands of bottled water to taste tests as well. My speculation is t

Supporters of universal common ancestor evolution claim that the fossil record contains some of the strongest evidence for their belief system. Evolution requires huge amounts of time so things can go about the business of changing into other things, so there should be a multitude of transitional forms. Ain't happening, Zeke.  " But we've got excuses because you're wrong becaus e evolution !" The hands at the Darwin Ranch have worked overtime down at the propaganda mill to cover the fact that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Sure, they cite propaganda mills like Wikipedia, propaganda.talk.origins, and so forth that state what they want to believe, but those shnooks are at odds with the experts. I'd like to see trilobites do a coelacanth trick and suddenly get discovered alive Credit: Freeimages / Dave Dyet Doesn't a proper scientific attitude require evidence before a hypothesis is formed? Darwin admitted in Origin of Species, "

There is an ultra-small critter known as the tardigrade — "Is this going to be about astronomy, Cowboy Bob?" Not hardly! You're thinking of retrograde, going in a reverse or worsening state or having retrogression. The astronomy part is where planets we observe from Earth appear to move backward over a period of time in the night sky. Also, most of the planets in the solar system rotate in one fashion, but Venus goes the opposite, so it's orbit is retrograde. A few moons out there do that, too. Makes problems for the accretion theory. Oh, thanks a lot! Now I gotta turn this horsie around and get back on the right trail. As I was saying, the tiny tardigrade is very small, and is classified with over a thousand species. Most eat plants, but some are carnivorous, and live in many environments. They are considered to be relatives of arthropods, and have eight legs. Something even more interesting about tardigrades is that they are very difficult to make deceased. Re

According to some outdated versions of minerals-to-microbiologist evolution, the human genome was examined. Using outdated technology, evolutionary assumptions, and a whole heap of hubris, some DNA ("noncoding") was considered "junk". That is, containing material that was important in the past but we evolved and don't need it anymore. Not a good idea to slap a branding iron on something you don't rightly understand and herd it into the Settled Science Corral, because the "junk" is constantly being found useful .  Generated at RedKid.net The extreme specified complexity of the molecular world, including DNA, RNA, cells, and so forth, cannot be explained by evolutionary ideas. In this case, a kind of package is sent from one chromosome, takes a ride on a protein, and makes a delivery to the exact location on another chromosome. Over a billion possibilities, and the package ends up where it's needed. Time, chance, random processes — with no

Imagine if you will being out in a motorboat on a fine, sunny day, ready to do some recreational activity. Maybe singing a happy song to yourself just over the sound of the outboard motor. Then, you hear that awful sound and the song dies on your lips as the motor stops running. Things were fine a moment ago. Checking the situation, you discover that you got into the seaweed, and that stuff got tangled into the propellers, bringing you to a halt. In a similar manner, a seaweed discovery clogged the works for Darwinists and their imaginary plant evolution timeline.  Credit: Freeimages / Jacqueline Fouche Ever hear of lignin? Looks like a misspelling, or an incomplete word, but it's actually a component in plant cell walls. It helps keep land plants standing up straight and looking mighty fine, and also helps water get from the from the roots to where it's needed in the far away regions of the plant. The story continues that lignin is not needed in aquatic plants, so it di

One of the favorite tricks of Darwinoids is to engage in equivocation , which is a logical fallacy. It is also called the bait-and-switch maneuver. For our purposes, we'll look at how the word evolution is used. This word actually has several definitions that involve change over time in one way or another. Humans were credited (or blamed, if you will) for "rapid evolution" involving geckos. Credit: Pixabay / Skitterphoto Geckos, those baffling little critters that can hang by one toe and inspired self-cleaning adhesive tape , were observed changing over time. Although the geckos remained geckos, disingenuous proponents of  universal common ancestor evolution called these minor changes "evolution", equivocating on the key word to deceive people into believing that Darwin was right after all. Ain't happening, Zeke. Those sidewinders were implying that big picture evolution happened, but no new genetic information was added, and the geckos conveniently

Darwin's defenders often say that the science of genetics refutes biblical creation science and affirms gunk-to-geneticist evolution. That'll be the day! In reality, further research in genetics has been a gold mine for creation science, and the prediction by creationists that there is no "junk" DNA has been confirmed several times . Evolutionists do not help their cause by using deception and bad science, such as when they stitched together the chimpanzee genome and say those critters are our closes relatives. The DNA puzzle is not yet complete, but continues to refute evolution and support special creation. DNA puzzle, Pixabay / qimono Changes in what is known about genetics is rapidly changing, so what we read in textbooks is incomplete or even erroneous today. DNA is more than a storage medium for a n amazing a mount of information, it is a language as well. People who want to know more on the subject have an uphill climb. When scientists commence to wr

Going to have to use expensive words in this post, especially since the subject is rather technical. A chimera is a mythological creature made of multiple parts. Depending on the myth it would have the head of a lion, snake tail, and the body of a goat. This word has been incorporated into biological and medical sciences involving ethical considerations regarding biological tampering . Chimaera image credit: Wikimedia Commons / ArthurWeasley That was the easy part of the vocabulary. Now we move on to microchimerism, and you can see micro in there as well as chimera , but adding -ism does not make it into a religion. Instead, it is a rapidly-developing area of study for women's health. Simply put, it is male DNA in a woman's body, had has a great deal to do with fetal development. God's ideal for marriage and procreation is one man and one woman . T he DNA is found in father, mother, and child , which includes a woman having multiple fathers for her children, and a

The series continues on how Darwin's externalism has interfered with scientific investigation on living organisms, and evolutionists give credit to nature for changes real and imagined. Engineered complexity is the opposite and arguably more scientific approach. Now we need to look at some additional factors. Credit: Pixabay / Adi Rahman Materialistic scientists are frequently surprised at what is found in nature. Organisms adapt, and do it quickly, but Darwinism requires huge amounts of time and assumes that conditions are the primary factors. While conditions are important, the best approach is to see that organisms adapt because they were designed by the Master Engineer to do so. Anti-creationists often lie about biblical creationists that our argument is "GodDidIt", so there is no need to investigate further. Yet evolutionists essentially say "NatureDidIt", and even personify nature in a kind of pantheistic view. No, both camps want to know how som

Proponents of fish-to-farrier evolution find the subject of dinosaur soft tissues distasteful, and I've even seen some outright deny that they exist! Others tried to downplay and ignore them, but they're here — and they're spoiling Darwin's party. It shouldn't be a surprise to learn that Darwin's disciples are loathe to have dinosaur fossil tissue tested for carbon-14. After all, that would mean their deep time presuppositions are wrong. No soft tissues in this bad boy, he's entirely concrete. Credit: Library of Congress / Carol M. Highsmith Several years ago, radio host Bob Enyart offered to pay $23,000 USD to Jack Horner, the paleontologist without an earned degree , to test his T. rex fossil for C-14. He declined . Other evolutionists have resisted having specimens carbon-14 tested as well. If you dig out your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™, you'll get, "We can't handle the truth!" That is, there would be further eviden

There was a time when education meant equipping students for the future. This included lectures, learning from books, debating, listening to lectures that would challenge their thinking, and more. Now we have "safe spaces" where the darlings can feel safe, and they are spoon-fed information that conforms to ideologies. This is a good way to protect evolution from scrutiny and logical thinking. Generated at Add Letters The politically/culturally correct movement is useful to suppress free speech, and is frequently advantageous for political and moral leftists. Evolution is the reigning paradigm in government-run educational centers (as well as liberal religious schools), and the very idea that Darwin's views are not supported by scientific evidence is harshly suppressed. (It interferes with their materialistic indoctrination.) Perhaps academics and students realize that if they have to admit there is a Creator, they have to also come to terms with what he has to say.

Rocks falling through the sky can be interesting, and those quick streaks of light indicate for us that a meteor burned up in the atmosphere. Most burn up, and tons of dust lands on Earth. No, they don't know quite how much, but it's a lot. When rocks do not burn up and actually reach the ground, then they're called meteorites. Big ones are rare, so there's no call to be worrying about them. Meteor image credit: NASA (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Meteorites have a lot to tell us. (No, they don't talk, and if you're hearing talking meteorites, I'll observe you from a safe distance.) We can learn from meteorites by studying them, especially the chemical composition. Secular geologists presuppose that they are the best things to use for obtaining the age of the earth through unreliable radiometric dating methods because they're not from Earth. Creationary scientists also have hypotheses about our planet's age that differ g

Believers in evolution and deep time get on the prod when soft tissues are discussed, mainly because they cannot exist over millions of Darwin years. Lately, the most frequent discussion on soft tissues involves dinosaurs, but they are found in other areas, such as the ink in a fossil ink sac that was used to draw a picture . In a similar manner to soft tissues, fossil plants are not cooperating with the evolution narrative. Gingko leaves in autumn, Wikimedia Commons / Joe Schneid  ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Even after the alleged millions of years, original plant molecules and chemical bonds were found — and a term that brings the concept of entropy to mind, thermodynamic stability, was used. Worse for Darwin's disciples, plant material was essentially unchanged between those in the fossils and living counterparts. I reckon that the term living fossils may be applicable here. Yee ha boy howdy, evolutionists were frustrated twice in one study! Truth is, the earth is not billions of ye

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen We've seen several times before that evolution was not the brainchild of Charles Darwin, and had been around since way back when. It is actually an ancient pagan religion , and had received some "scientific" adjustments before Darwin became its chief popularizer . Darwin's disciples revere him as a "great scientist", as well as the other 19th century propagandists for evolutionism. Except that most were not scientists at all! Many creationists point out that Darwin had no formal scientific training, and was actually a backslidden theology student. (I'll allow that he did make some good observations while learning in the field, however.) We also point out that old earth advocate Charles Lyell was a lawyer. Several others that influenced Darwin and the revival of evolutionism had no scientific training. "That's not quite fair, Cowboy Bob. Geosciences are comparatively new, so they weren't giving away those

A favorite argument by biblical creationists and advocates of Intelligent Design against Darwinism is irreducible complexity. The simplified version is that everything must be in place at the same time, from the beginning, or nothing works or makes sense. This applies to the human eye and even down to the molecular level. Papa Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” He also said that he could "find no such case". I reckon he didn't try to see the evidence, just like his disciples today — who have even less excuse because of advances in science and technology. Matthew 13:14 comes to mind. Anti-creationists say that irreducible complexity "can be explained", but their arguments can be summed up as, "I found someone on teh interwebs that says irreducible complexity isn't so, and he says what