Creationists disagreed over what Homo naledi was. However, they never acknowledged the existence of such debate, until now.
Today’s case of psuedoscience comes from Belac. They also pointed me in the direction of the eolith nonsense from last time. Belac is quickly becoming my one-stop shop for creationist craziness. Today they’ve pointed me to the same place. Answers in Genesis, arguable the largest
Creationists claim to have done research showing eoliths are ancient artefacts that turn evolution on its head. In reality, their work is hopelessly flawed.
Human history goes back almost 10,000 years. Which might seem like a long time, but it’s nothing compared to our prehistory. That stretches back to the earliest known modern human, who lived ~195,000 years ago. We are an ancient species. So ancient that creationists seem
In their efforts to criticise the evolutionary origins of fire use, intelligent designists have misrepresented the views of both palaeoanthropologists and other intelligent designists.
Creationists try to break science so they get to be included, but in the process they have to accept silly ideas. Like aliens being demons.
In the depths of Bruniquel Cave, France, lie an enigmatic series of circles. They are made from stalagmites, on which a residue accumulated since they were placed. Radiometric dating this coating revealed these circles predated the arrival of modern humans in France. Clearly, Neanderthals must
For at least 23 years Answers in Genesis has been reporting discoveries the Neanderthals weren’t dumb; along with quotes from scientists saying as such. Despite this, they’re still reporting on Neanderthal intelligence as controversial, with researchers begrudgingly “admitting” Answers in Genesis is right.
Man masturbates to “study” evolution of music. I’m not really sure what else I can add to that title here. It’s exactly like it sounds on the tin.
When creationist Dr Nathaniel Jeanson attempted to provide genetic evidence for a young earth, he was forced to come up with a mutation rate 35x greater than what has been measured and published! We look at how he came up with this number and analyse the series of flawed assumptions he makes about the data obtained from those studies.