Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Here is a revision of an article that I did as a guest post back in April of 2011. It may come as a shock to some people, but the propaganda is untrue: Christians are not gullible by default. We can be as gullible as the next person — including you. Oh, don't give me that! You've been "had" before, we all know it. I've been tricked by certain e-mails, especially when they say something that I want to hear, or if it's presented very well. Most of the time (I want to believe), I'm careful. Healthy skepticism is a good thing. Occasionally, I have been sent the " atheist professor and the chalk that wouldn't break " gag. I would look it up on urban legends sites and reply to the sender, "Hey, Horatio, you've been had". Or how about the bit where young Einstein told off an atheist teacher when he was a child? (There's even a video dramatization of this hoax . It contains some good discus

Some evolutionists have argued that science isn’t possible without evolution. They teach that science and technology actually require the principles of molecules-to-man evolution in order to work. They claim that those who hold to a biblical creation worldview are in danger of not being able to understand science!  Critical thinkers will realize that these kinds of arguments are quite ironic because evolution is actually contrary to the principles of science. That is, if evolution were true, the concept of science would not make sense. Science actually requires a biblical creation framework in order to be possible. Here’s why : To find out why, read the rest of   "Evolution: The Anti-Science" here .

Students have a right to question “evolutionary pseudo-science” and “evolutionary dogma,” according to the “Question Evolution” campaign and should be encouraged to do so, says Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition. The coalition is offering  brochures, caps and t-shirts announcing kids’ opposition to Charles Darwin and the theories of evolution. Read the rest of "Students encouraged to challenge 'evolutionary dogma'" here . Also , see the related video here . 

Evolutionist : " Blah, blah, excuse, same old, same old, ad hominem, blah, blah, Straw Man, same old, same old, blah, blah, excuse, Fallacy of Declaration, blah, blah, fraud as proof, blah, blah, blah... " Me : Video source here .

Human/ape common ancestry has been a subject much discussed recently. A friend wrote me asking for links dealing with human/ape common ancestry. While there are numerous good articles that have talked about this issue from an intelligent design (ID) friendly perspective, I tried to provide him with some helpful links and information. As a preliminary point, it's important to note that human/ape common ancestry is compatible with ID. Nonetheless, ID proponents are interested in taking a scientific approach to these questions, and the evidence suggests that even modest changes requiring two or more mutations before conferring any adaptive benefit could not arise via Darwinian evolution under any reasonable timescale involving human/ape common ancestry. As a result, questions about human/ape common ancestry should be on the table for people who really want to follow the evidence where it leads. If you really believe in scientific inquiry and not your presupposit

Forest Sosnowica Poland by Sylwia Mazurek/PD Wood has long provided mankind with construction material, fuel, enjoyable scenery, and shade. One of the most abundant biological products in the world, wood consists of the thickened cell wall deposits that provide support for branches and stems in trees and woody plants. Scientists recently described the oldest known example as "a simple type of wood," but just how "simple" is this material? The study published in  Science  looked at fossilized wood found in rocks that are supposedly 10 million years older than the prior record-holder. The discovery of this substance in "Early Devonian plants was unexpected," the researchers wrote, presumably because wood is such a complicated biomolecule that it should have evolved  later , not  earlier . Read the rest of " Earliest Fossil Shows Wood Could Not Evolve" , Elroy.  

In 28 September 1969, fragments of a meteorite landed 2 kilometres south of the small village of Murchison, Victoria, Australia. Local residents collected about 100 kg of material, and the largest fragment was about 7 kg. Xanthine (Photo: Wikipedia) The Murchison fragments came from a class of meteorite called carbonaceous chondrites, because they contain small nodules called chondrules. Since this class is rich in carbon and water, right from the beginning the Murchison meteorite has been analysed for organic molecules. Chemical evolutionists, who have faith that life evolved from non-living chemicals, were hoping to find evidence to support their faith. They had hoped that this meteorite would provide evidence that such processes were widespread in the universe, even if some of them were pessimistic that life could arise on earth. One of the first discoveries was amino acids, the components of proteins. Later, th

NASA I was having a discussion the other day about the age of the earth, the age of the solar system &c. We were amazed at how evidences for a young earth and young solar system are ignored and ridiculed by evolutionists and religious compromisers. And we had a good laugh at the Tooth Fairy mentality of resorting to the imaginary Oort Cloud as an "explanation" for the problem that comets would have been exhausted long ago in an old universe. Then we looked up the Kuiper Belt... Evolutionary astronomers, who assume the solar system is billions of years old, must propose a ‘source’ that will supply new comets as old ones are destroyed. The Kuiper Belt is one such proposed source for short-period comets (comets that take less than 200 years to orbit the sun). The Kuiper belt is a hypothetical massive flattened disc of billions of icy planetesimals supposedly left over from the formation of the solar system... These planetesimals are assumed to exist in (ro

Kohoutek 1974 (NASA) The existence of comets has long been used as an argument for a recent creation (probably the best treatment so far is that of Slusher ). The case is usually made as follows. The standard model of a comet is one in which all of the material observed is released by an icy nucleus only a few kilometres across. This model strongly suggests that comets are very fragile, losing much of their material during each close pass to the Sun. Most comets follow orbits that take them vast distances from the Sun. If a comet’s orbit takes it too far from the Sun, then the comet could easily be captured by the gravitational attraction of other stars and thus would be lost to the Solar System. This places a maximum distance from the Sun that a comet may orbit. If this maximum distance can be estimated, Kepler's third law of planetary motion can be used to deduce the greatest possible orbital period that a comet may possess (about 11 mil

A common claim of atheists and evolutionists is that Christians use a policeman's exit (cop-out) by referring to God as the Creator, and as an explanation for the unknown. What they fail to realize (and, I suspect, they do this willfully) is that when Christians, creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design refer to the Creator, they are doing so because that is where the evidence leads . This is not a first resort, it is a logical conclusion based on the evidence. Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries has a radio program and podcast cal led " The Dividing Line ". He occasionally takes various calls, and is willing to discuss matters with Christians, atheists and others. I caught the podcast of July 14 ( the entire podcast is here ), and heard him discussing the "God of the Gaps". Dr. White shows just how absurd the accusation really is. The relevant excerpt is here: In addition, I'll steer you to something I posted at "Stormbri

First clarification: Writing the word "creationist". Since the majority of creationist writings that I read do not capitalize the word, I am going to stop writing it as "Creationist". Although I am a Christian and Biblical creationist (See? Fixed it), my goal with this site is to present as much science as I can and hold back on the theology. The reason for this is simple: Creationism makes valid scientific points as well as theological points. (I prefer to deal with the theological aspects now and then at my Weblog for and about Christians, " A Soldier for Jesus ". If you are looking for me to give you  hardcore science disputing evolution and supporting creationism, don't go there, Girlfriend. This is the one you want.) Once in a while I will deviate so things do not get too stuffy. Although many evolutionists seem to think that the Christian or creationist explanation for life, the universe and everything is a simple "Goddidit", that

Clker/gebert Animal and plant cell DNA is so complicated that all the cellular machines that process, regulate, and manipulate it are constantly in need of cellular fuel. In fact, each animal and plant cell uses so much fuel that specialized fuel-production facilities called mitochondria are required.  A new evolutionary study attempted to provide evidence supporting a bacterial origin for mitochondria, but all it really did was beg the question. Evolutionary scenarios for mitochondrial origins are faced with a problem: The cell must utilize its DNA in order to live. But this in turn requires an energy factory. Without either the energy or DNA factories, the cell would die. Thus, both factories, in full form, are required for plant and animal life. Read the rest of "Origin of Cells Study Uses Bad Science" here .

Radioactive isotopes are commonly portrayed as providing rock-solid evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Since such isotopes are thought to decay at consistent rates over time, the assumption is that simple measurements can lead to reliable ages. But new discoveries of rate fluctuations continue to challenge the reliability of radioisotope decay rates in general—and thus, the reliability of vast ages seemingly derived from radioisotope dating. In 2009, New Scientist summarized a discovery at Brookhaven National Laboratories that revealed a statistical correlation between the distance to the sun and fluctuations in the decay rate of a radioactive silicon isotope. The data showed that silicon-32 decayed more slowly in the winter, and then sped up during the summer. A 2010 Stanford University report reflected similar fluctuations in the decay rate of other elements. To see whether or not nearness to the sun somehow affected these radioisotope decay rates,