Piltdown Superman

This article is focused on the Darwinian roots of the Nazi legal system. It contends that Darwinism underpinned the most basic features of Nazi legal order and theory. The Nazis developed a ‘progressive’ theory of law in which ‘law’ was interpreted as a result of force and social struggle. According to the Nazi legal theory, the legal system should not contain fixed rules of law but evolve in continuous flow as a ‘living law’. Because the Nazis were Darwinists who believed that human beings were descended from the animal kingdom, they did not accept the idea of God-ordained human rights, but rather that the ‘stronger’ would have the ‘right’ to dispossess and destroy the ‘weaker’. During that time, most German judges and lawyers were legal positivists who rejected the concept of God-given rights as defined by the Holy Scriptures and classical natural-law theory. As a result, a ‘master morality’ w

This is one aspect of real  science — proposing newer and more effective ways of evaluating information when the old ways are inadequate. This series of articles challenges both Darwinists and Creationists. Creationists need to rethink their understanding of inheritance. The current secular view is based on the inadequate Mendelian (genetic) paradigm and the inadequate statistical theory of information. The new understanding needs to be based on biblical creation and Werner Gitt’s multidimensional theory of information. The key element in the multidimensional theory is apobetics (purpose, especially the intention of the Creator) and this explains the failure of Darwinists to come to grips with the reality of biological information, because they reject the idea of purpose. Two different purposes can be identified in the biblical view of biology—stasis of created kinds and variety within kinds. We therefore need to lo

"…you would have thought we would have given up guessing about planetary magnetic fields after being wrong at nearly every planet in the solar system…" — Fran Banegal, "The Emptiest Magnetosphere" In 1984, when no space craft had yet reached Uranus and Neptune, I published a theory predicting the strength of the magnetic fields of those two planets in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, a peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal. I made the predictions on the basis of my hypotheses that (A) the raw material of creation was water (based on II Peter 3:5, "the earth was formed out of water and by water"), and (B) at the instant God created the water molecules, the spins of the hydrogen nuclei were all pointing in a particular direction. The tiny magnetic fields of so many nuclei would all add up to a large magnetic field. By the ordinary laws of physics, the spins of the nuclei would lose their alignment within seconds, but the large

A new curve fit to a new compilation of data shows with new clarity that from 1900 to 2010, the main “dipole” part of the earth’s magnetic field decayed exponentially (constant percent loss per year) with a small sine-wave variation. The time constant of the exponential part is 1611 (± 10) years. The sinusoidal part has a period of 66.1 (± 1.3) years and an amplitude of 0.29 (± 0.02) % of the main part today. The fit is very good, with most points within 0.05% of the curve. The distinctness of the exponential part gives new strength to the creationary model of the field, that losses in the earth’s core today are steadily decreasing the electric current producing the dipole field, thus supporting a young earth. A simple electric circuit clarifies the decay model. The small sine-wave part, apparently not noticed in the dipole moment data before now, may be due to an east-west torsional oscillation between core and mantle. This corresponds to an approximately 60-year cycle observed i

The biggest problem currently faced by evolutionary paleontologists is how to explain the fact that original soft tissue—which should decay in only thousands of years—still persists in fossils that are supposedly millions of years old. A recent scientific paper was titled "Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival," which implies some sort of solution to this colossal conundrum. But not only did the authors fail to address the titled topic, the "peer review" process also failed to detect this critical omission and block the study's publication.  Appearing in the online journal PLoS ONE , the paper was authored by six investigators from various institutions. It did a good job of firmly establishing that the soft tissues the researchers extracted from a T. rex and a hadrosaur were original to the dinosaurs and not contaminants. This part of the study demonstrated good scientific observation and detailed analysis of the partly decayed c

Contradictions between evolutionary fossil dating and the dating implied by evolutionary cladistic analyses are common. Therefore, one dating scheme must take precedence over the other. The vagaries of fossilization are well-known, with fossil ranges commonly being extended by tens and hundreds of millions of years by new discoveries. Consequently the ‘evolutionary history’ deduced from cladistics analyses takes precedence over fossils. This means many taxa are inferred to be much older than the evolutionary fossil dating indicates. To accommodate this, evolutionists have invented ‘ghost lineages’, which are lineages that have no fossil evidence. Read the rest of "Ghosts in the Rocks" here . 

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen "There's life in other worlds. Maybe they'll come to Earth helping man to find a way..." — Mike Pinder, "My Song", on Every Good Boy Deserves Favour by the Moody Blues , 1971 Something occurred to me about yet another way that evolutionary thinking has led to a tremendous waste of time and money: SETI . The whole thing is silly, with astronomical (heh!) odds against finding signals from intelligent life "out there". There are all sorts of excuses and wishful thinking  masquerading as science that stretches credulity , but frankly, that's what evolutionism is: Accept their authority by faith, suspend your common sense and disbelief. Scores of assumptions are made and connected regarding the origin of the universe (using the current popular premise of the Big Bang). The "odds are" that since life evolved on Earth, then life must have evolved  elsewhere in the universe. Further, since the universe is

‘If there are prehistoric animals alive today it would imply that there’s something very wrong with our understanding of the fossil record.’ In 1977, a Japanese fishing trawler netted a — thing — off the coast of New Zealand. After taking photographs and measurements, the smelly carcass was dumped back into the sea. The Japanese scientific community was all fired up because they thought they had found the remains of a plesiosaur. It appears that the controversy that ensued was settled by declaring that the evidence added up to the critter being a species of shark. Bummer. Still, don't you wonder, "What if...?" From krakens to gigantic sea serpents, terrifying monsters of the deep have haunted the imaginations of generations of  mariners. Now experts in marine life claim sea monsters might actually exist. Because scientists are still finding new species of underwater life, the discovery of ‘marine monsters’ is not impossible, a meeting heard ye

The headline says it all: “Environs Prompt Advantageous Gene Mutations as Plants Grow; Changes Passed to Progeny.” It could also have read: “Lamarck Was Correct, Evolution is False.” Of course this is not new news. For the umpteenth time we hear about the inheritance of acquired characteristics—the catch phrase most often associated with the pre Darwin naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck—which evolutionists desperately opposed for so many years until it could no longer be suppressed so now they say it was their idea all along. Yes there is indeed a battle against science, it’s just not the one evolutionists want you to believe. Read the rest of "Flax: More Falsifications of Evolution and the Real Warfare Thesis" here .

I have some videos up on static pages about dating methods. It is actually one lecture split into four parts, and will take you just over an hour. Click here for the videos .

Can science prove the age of the earth? Venus (NASA) No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Although age indicators are called “clocks” they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the “clock” has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed. There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old. However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now. And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite inte

For the past two decades, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer has been at the cutting edge of research demonstrating that certain dinosaur remains contain original soft tissue. Of course, since this material should have completely decomposed after only thousands of years, none should be left after the millions of years assigned to these remains. And this is why scientists who have chosen to investigate soft tissue remain divided over the issue. Schweitzer’s latest technical report attempts to justify that in-bone collagen recovered from dinosaur remains is original to the dinosaur—and not a bacterial or lab-bench contaminant—on the basis of the peculiarities of the collagen protein’s three-dimensional structure. Collagen is a tough structural protein that bacteria do not manufacture. It forms long strands and acts like molecular strings that tie or connect other tissues such as skin and bones. Read the rest of "Latest Soft Tissue Study Skirts the Issues" here .

Going Nuclear: Cyberstalking design advocates and their families – re: “Say hi to XXXXXXXXXX and the kids for me, you demented child abuser” This attempt as headlined to implicitly “out” and threaten my wife and our children – not to mention (per the outrageous rhetoric of Mr Dawkins and fellow New Atheists) to try to falsely smear me as a child abuser for trying to raise my children in a Christian home – moves matters at and around UD beyond the context of debate to something far more poisonously menacing and destructive. Read more about anti-Christian, anti-ID bigotry and sociopathic behavior here .

Although some of Darwin's Cheerleaders support the debunked Miller-Urey experiment, real science shows that it did not perform what is claimed. In fact, people who know about chemistry should laugh at the concept of chemical evolution. When the newspaper headline, "Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our bodies, newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now p

Comet Hartley/NASA Comet Hartley 2 is an odd, dumbbell-shaped object that rotates as it tumbles along its orbit. One end spews carbon dioxide gas so violently that it regularly throws off chunks of ice as it travels around the sun every six and a half years or so. Astronomers are scratching their heads over how such a small object could still have so much energy and material after billions of years of existence. NASA's EPOXI mission flew near enough in November 2010 to capture impressive images of Comet Hartley 2 ejecting its gases. Much of the data it collected has since been analyzed. The University of Maryland's Michael Ahearn told Space.com recently, "Among the comets visited by spacecraft, Hartley 2 is in a class by itself. Read the rest of "Young Comet Challenges Solar System Formation Story" here .

This time, I am giving you my work, not just showcasing Creationist scientists. In my dealings with evolutionists, I have been amazed at the number of logical fallacies that I have encountered. Many of them stand alone, but many others are combined into a Chaotic Crawling Casserole of Illogic. That is, there are so many errors, conversation becomes almost impossible and you're better off watching reruns of "Columbo". Among the logical fallacies I have encountered (in English) are: No, I'd better not. It's much better if you read the rest of your logic lesson here . Plus, you can see the short, funny video, too. 

In neo-Darwinian theory, mutations are uniquely biological events that provide the engine of natural variation for all the diversity of life. However, recent discoveries show that mutation is the purely physical result of the universal mechanical damage that interferes with all molecular machinery. Life’s error correction, avoidance and repair mechanisms themselves suffer the same damage and decay. The consequence is that all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay. Mutation rates are so high that they are clearly evident within a single human lifetime, and all individuals suffer, so natural selection is powerless to weed them out. The effects are mostly so small that natural selection cannot ‘see’ them anyway, even if it could remove their carriers. Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to damage as our body cells. Irrespe