Piltdown Superman

stock.xchng/mrpac-man The varieties of plants and animals around the world are not explained by evolution. To have surprisingly similar plants and animals on different continents prompts evolutionary scientists to create ad hoc "just so stories". The Biblical explanations are far better, despite ignorant proclamations to the contrary. In March 2010, internationally renowned atheist Richard Dawkins addressed the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne, Australia. He said, “The pattern of geographical distribution [of plants and animals] is just what you would expect if evolution had happened.”  He then went on to say that the distribution is “not what you would expect on certain alternative ideas … like if they had all dispersed from Noah’s Ark.” However, a closer look at the science of biogeography (the study of the distributions of plants and animals) reveals a very different picture to the one Professor Dawkins painted. Read the rest of " Plants and animals

NASA Evolutionary cosmologists insist that the universe is ancient. Unfortunately, there is evidence that does not support their presuppositions. They have to come up with further theories that attempt to explain problems with facts. One of these is the "Faint Young Sun Paradox", where (in their scheme of things) the sun was too cool to adequately heat the Earth when life was supposed to have evolved. The notion that the earth and cosmos are billions of years old continues to present serious problems for evolutionary scientists. For instance, billions of years ago, the sun would only have glowed faintly, leaving nearby earth totally frozen. But with no liquid water on earth's surface, how could life have evolved and become fossilized so long ago? This conundrum has been called the "faint young sun paradox," and after 25 years of research, it remains just as problematic as ever. Scientists have tinkered with models of what they thought were atmospheres

COBE MBR (NASA) Some evolutionists think that distant starlight is the "smoking gun" that destroys creationism and the Genesis account. (Some make a desperate, illogical leap of faith that this also disproves the existence of God. That is patently absurd.) However much we have learned, we have not learned everything. Theoretical astrophysics and cosmogony are in a constant state of flux as new information comes to light, and theories need to be (or should be) modified or completely abandoned. The cosmic microwave background radiation was praised as strong evidence for the Big Bang. However, the uniformity of the MBR ("horizon") actually creates more problems than it solves. The ‘distant starlight problem’ is sometimes used as an argument against biblical creation. People who believe in billions of years often claim that light from the most distant galaxies could not possibly reach earth in only 6,000 years. However, the light-travel–time argument cannot be used

Jupiter, with Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. NASA. Evolutionary cosmologists postulate an old universe based on their presuppositions. When facts are learned that contradict their belief system, they need to tap dance around them or modify their theories. (Of course, modifying theories to the point that they must discard an ancient universe viewpoint in favor of a young, created universe is unthinkable to them.) Sun Dancer Puss/podzad, stock.xchng Their modified viewpoints often create more questions and problems than they solve, such as the imaginary Oort cloud , abode of comets in waiting; there is no evidence that such a thing exists, but it conveniently explains away the fact that short-term comets should have been exhausted long ago. Other bafflers for cosmologists include methane in the thick atmosphere of Titan, the hypothetical temperature of the sun 3.8 billion years ago and the heat of Jupiter's moon Io. Biblical creationists do not need tap dan

Evolutionary cosmologists insist on accepting only the evidence that, to them, shows the universe to be billions of years old. If contrary evidence does not fit their presuppositions, they attempt to force-fit the data to fit.  Credit: NASA (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) New models and theories are proposed, which raise more questions for them to dance around with even more theories. Creationists do not have this problem. The 1969 moon landing was one of the crowning achievements of mankind. And magnetic moon rocks were some of its most mysterious discoveries, showing that they hardened in the presence of a magnetic field. But if the moon is billions of years old, it should not have had a magnetic field. It is too small to generate its own field. Ever since the moon landing, theorists have been trying to figure out how the moon could have been magnetized. You can read the rest of "What Magnetized the Moon?", here .

Extra-Solar planets (or "exoplanets") raise some simple questions for creationists. But the questions they raise for evolutionists are much more complex. For instance, from a cosmic evolutionary presupposition, colorful and interesting suggestions are made that are fanciful indeed. Although the thought of discovering an Earth-like planet somewhere out there is a kind of Holy Grail for evolutionary astronomers, such a discovery would compound the need for rational explanations instead of excuses masquerading as theories. Many evolutionists have long hoped to find evidence of life in space. They reason that if life evolved on Earth, then it could have evolved elsewhere. If, as the argument goes, there are countless planets throughout the universe that have formed via natural processes, there must be other Earth-like planets. Many think that finding such a planet outside our solar system would be almost like finding evidence of life in space. You can read the rest of "Pla

USSR souvenier sheet commemorating Lenin's 100th Birthday Здра́вствуйте tова́рищ! Славься, Отечество наше свободное, Дружбы народов надёжный оплот! Партия Ленина - сила народная Нас к торжеству коммунизма ведёт! Today is the birthday of Ленин — Lenin. Looks like I went "Russian" into this post. I won't get high "Marx" for it... More commonly, it is celebrated worldwide as "Earth Day". It is a multifaceted. One one level, it is great to take notice of our environment and make personal choices to keep things clean. It is difficult to image any thinking person who is opposed to such things, and most people seem to be observing it with good intentions. Earth Day is also observed by pagans [ 1 ,  2 ] , and there is other planet-loving wackiness, too [ 3 , 4 ] . But another level is more insidious. This involves government intrusion, taxation, regulation, political lunacy and more. It is strange that what should be a simpl

Galapagos Tortoise, stock.xchng/buzzpup One of the sacred shrines of evolutionism is the Galapagos Islands, where Charles Darwin saw variations and thought that they meant molecules-to-man evolution. What is actually observed, however, are the variations that are not contested; both evolutionists and creationists agree on these. As Ken Ham said about the birds, he saw big finches, little finches, big beaks, little beaks. What do you see today? Big finches, little finches, big beaks, little beaks. Further, the tortoises show expected variations within limits. What is annoying to evolutionists is when something that is supposed to have been extinct for a long time either shows up again, or discernible traces of the formerly extinct beastie are found. Observing animals on the Galapagos Islands supposedly helped Charles Darwin come up with his theory of evolution by natural selection. But none of these animals have fulfilled the evolutionary interpretation Darwinists have pl

November 1956, Photo by Jim Rooney It is fascinating to learn the intricacies of a creature's design. Watching our Basement Cat in stalking, playing or clawing action (clawing me ), I remark about the "feline machine". Daniel Schmitt refers to a dog's means of locomotion as "an evolutionary miracle". (Is this an example of "science of the gaps", or a reluctant acknowledgement of a Designer?) It looks like a meaningless phrase is acceptable in evolutionism. But what are some of the special features of the canine clan? Human feet would quickly freeze if exposed to snow and ice without proper gear, but dogs don't seem to mind the cold. Since the pads of their feet aren't protected by fur like the rest of their bodies, it would seem that they'd be especially susceptible to freezing—but they aren't. Japanese researchers recently discovered why. Read more about the feet, and a couple of other nuggets about dog engineering

 Photo by Jim Thiele / Source: USFDA Evolution requires huge amounts of time for changes in species to manifest themselves. (This is why young-earth creationism is ridiculed, as is the Genesis flood — they do not allow enough time for goo-to-you evolution to occur.) At least, the story is that given enough time, worthwhile changes happen and new species, even new life forms, will emerge. It is realistic to have faith in such a view. Right? I have some bad news for you, Sunshine... From the tiny Chihuahua to the massive mastiff, the over 200 breeds of domesticated dogs come in a wide variety of different body sizes and proportions, hair lengths and textures, and demeanors. Evolution asserts that animals change through a gradual accumulation of mutations. But evidence shows that the wolf-to-dog transition occurred rapidly, according to pre-designed genetic potential and not mutations. Mark Derr, author of a new book titled How the Dog Became the Dog: From Wolves to Our B

When the average Joe or Jane on the street is presented with evolutionary "truth", they are given the propaganda version: Scientists are all in agreement, it's a proven fact, only religious fanatics disagree with science , lower life forms evolved into more advanced life forms given time, chance and mutations &c. But the evolutionary propagandists leave out the little details such as: Scientists are not all in agreement, mechanisms for "this evolved into that" are guesswork, there are many credentialed experts who do not buy into evolutionism. No materialistic evolutionist has a clue how life originated. According to evolutionary theory, chemicals must have somehow organized themselves into cellular life, presumably long ago. And that means that enzymes must have formed themselves, too. But enzymes are highly engineered miniaturized machines. Even intelligent human scientists armed with the most sophisticated technology cannot reproduce their design

Space radiation hitting cell DNA. Photo Credit: NASA People misrepresent the creationist and ID positions with straw man arguments, ridicule and outright falsehood. When they want to discredit these positions so desperately that their efforts betray their own lack of knowledge and ability to reason, they humiliate themselves.       Chris C. from Greece writes: Hello dear sir. I hope this is the right place to ask a scientific question. I’m aware of the information theory and how it is related to DNA and Creator, I have also read many of your articles upon this.  But I need some more clarifications upon this. I carry the words of a materialist and I would like to have the answer to these specific claims.  Thank you.  Here it is: To find out what it is, you can finish reading "Is information a ‘false metaphor’ for DNA?", here.

With the help of outdated textbooks, errors and frauds in paleontology, evolutionary propaganda and especially the popular media, we are provided with images of cavemen as brutish sub-humans. For that matter, evolutionary presuppositions tell us how "primitive" humans were in the old, old days. (Some of this takes the form of, "They were too stupid to build the pyramids, so space aliens had to help them".) The truth is radically different. Here is a scientific and Biblical view. As far as stereotypes go, cavemen make easy targets—especially when transplanted into the twenty-first century. Their brutish way of dealing with contemporary situations earns a laugh on commercials and TV shows. They just don’t understand us modern humans, and their misunderstanding strikes humor gold. But when we cut away the laugh track and the bumbling ways, we’re left with something of an enigmatic figure—a being without a settled place in our understanding of history. Perhaps,

Evolutionists point to bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics as an example of observable evolution. Not really. Mutations and natural selection are not providing the required new functions, but rather, a loss of functions. Molecular biologist Dr. Georgia Purdom explains. The extraordinary ability of certain bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics—which are otherwise useful in speeding recovery from some illnesses—has been a hot topic on the minds of doctors, hospital staff, reporters, and the general public for several years. It is also heralded as a textbook example of evolution in action.  These bacteria are being studied by evolutionary scientists with the hope that they will reveal secrets as to how molecules-to-man evolution could have happened.   But are bacteria really evolving? Read the rest of "Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?", here .

Click for Larger. Image by NASA.

All too often, I encounter uninformed orthodox evolutionists who have mistaken ideas about the concept that they are attempting to defend. These included the woefully mistaken notions that there is only one theory of evolution, one Big Bang theory, plenty of fossil evidence, indisputable transitional forms, the Miller-Urey experiment proves that life happened by chance and other errors. Another set of mistakes that I encounter is based on radioactive dating. Fundamentalist evolutionists refuse to admit that the dating methods are highly biased and unreliable. The flaws and presuppositions of evolutionists are nowhere more apparent than in the dating fiasco of the East African KBS Tuff strata. Disputes had to be settled by pigs. A popular myth is that radioactive dating methods confirm the geologic time-scale and the concept of human evolution. The methods appear so impressive that many Christians accept them as evidence that the earth is very old. The best way to expose this myt

Here are two examples of people asking questions based on their misunderstanding of creationist positions. (I keep saying, "Do your homework", but they don't listen.) These letters to CMI show how not only are the creationist positions strong, but evolutionists should not be getting their opinions and bad information from sources that are nothing more than pooling of angry ignorance. A skeptic wrote to a friend of CMI, “The latest that I hear from AIG and CMI is that they are now invoking total and absolute sci-fi hocus-pocus like White Holes in a downright vain attempt to force creationist cosmology to make some kind of, any kind of sense. To force it to fit into a model of the 6000 year old, 6-day created cosmos. “The scientific community is laughing at them because they couldn’t even get a basic fact like that even if white holes did exist (and there is nil evidence for them to date) then so time in the universe outside of one would dramatically slow down instead of

There are several method used in attempting to obtain the age of the Earth. The best know is the  radiometric dating of meteorites . Radiometric dating uses a "parent" element that decays into a "daughter" element. When calculating the age of a rock using, say, the Potassium-Argon method (K-Ar), a number of assumptions must be made: The rate of decay has remained constant, the amount of both parent and daughter elements, nothing was added or removed and so on. When an age of the Earth is produced that do not meet uniformitarian presuppositions, the results of the test are discarded . Instead of "Follow where the evidence leads", this means, "Make the evidence say what you want". Most of the evidence favors a young Earth , and radiometric dating also yields young ages. Unlike some scientists, creation researchers are willing to examine the evidence and work with serious questions about their results. In the final report of ICR’s Radiois

So often, when presenting creationist and ID theories and models, we are "refuted" by evolutionists with the following perspicacious gems: Not true Irrelevant Disproved by atheists in a forum Creationists and ID people do not have real scientists Assorted foolish logical fallacies, including, "You're an idiot" That last one is very special to me because it generally stems from the objective, dispassionate approach of, "The evidence compels me to reach conclusions that do not fit my preconceptions. Besides, I just don't like it". When I am confronted by someone who does not want to even consider the possibility that what we are presenting is the truth, my feeling is this: Do you have what it takes to honestly examine evidence that is contrary to evolution?