Piltdown Superman

My photograph of dark matter The existence of "dark matter" is something that is popular in astronomy and astrophysics. It has never been observed (except in my photograph, above). Instead, it is inferred. No, it is not fictitious like the Oort Cloud, because its gravitational effects on objects seems to have been observed. Interesting...something that cannot be seen, touched, measured or physically detected is promoted by scientists, but they reject the Creator because he cannot be seen, touched, measured or physically detected to their satisfaction. One fits their presuppositions and worldview, the other does not. There appears to be no dark matter in our part of the galaxy. Alternative explanations and theories are offered, some that may even be better than dark matter. But they are rejected because they do not fit. Here, take a look: A new Chilean study has found that there is essentially no "dark matter" in the solar neighborhood. Dark matter is the nam

I thought I was going back to the one-minute audio pieces today, but something came up on Friday that I could not resist sharing. This is a one-hour audio from a show called "Crosstalk" on "VCY America". The full, uninterrupted show is available for purchase, but you can get quite a bit out of the free version. In the "MP3" option, the MP3 is launched immediately. My suggestion is that you save the link to your computer so you have more flexibility. Click here for the show and the write up of "The Fossil Record: A Problem for Evolutionists" .

Fossils defy standard uniformitarian explanations as to their formation. The process is supposed to be gradual, over millions of years. However, examination of fossils and sediments shows that creatures had to be buried rapidly. Further, the fossilization process had to have occurred in less time than evolutionists want to allow. Standard explanations fit the presuppositions of evolutionary geologists, but they do not fit the facts. The pattern found in ancient rock is better explained by the catastrophe of a global flood at the time of Noah. Marine biologists have scoured sea floor sediments for decades, finding living creatures in the mud but never fossils in the process of forming. That's because when a sea creature dies, its carcass is totally recycled within weeks. So, if a creature's soft parts are going to fossilize, it has to happen extremely fast. Certain sedimentary rocks, like those of the Burgess Shale in Canada, contain large amounts of fossilized sea creatu

One of the mantras that evolutionists chant involves the words "natural selection" and "mutation". These are supposed to happen over long periods of time. But the cold-water octopus did not get the memo. Instead, it tolerates cold water extremes in a surprising way — as if it was designed by a Creator instead of blind chance. Octopuses are not warm-blooded animals, yet the speed with which their nerves transmit signals depends on temperature. So how do those that live and move in sub-zero Antarctic waters function just as well as those inhabiting warm, tropical waters? The answer surprised researchers. Two biologists from Puerto Rico who studied the cephalopods hypothesized "on the basis of conventional natural selection" that the proteins involved in transmitting nerve impulses evolved because the cold water "selected" individual octopuses with cold-adapted mutations. But the research pair, publishing in Science, did not find the anticipa

An atheistic, evolutionary worldview is irrational. According to its adherents, evolution is an unguided process that is unpredictable. Expecting uniformity and predictability in nature, laws of logic to exist and so on is inconsistent with this belief system. And yet, evolution is presented as if it had intelligence. In fact, evolution is wise enough to design mutually beneficial symbiosis between different organisms, it appears. To hear evolutionists tell their stories, evolution is able to choose, plan, make decisions and carry out its wise plans. There was a book written by a priest named Nogar that seemed to have a weird religious New Age-y approach, The Wisdom of Evolution. We keep hearing about "natural selection", which indicates that if there is selecting happening, there is a selector. Watch a nature documentary and listen for the "just so stories" of evolutionary propaganda ( stories, not facts ) and listen for the way that evolution is portrayed a

Although believers in evolution and uniformitarianism insist that scientists are strictly unbiased and objective, willing to follow where the evidence leads, such beliefs are based in fantasy. Also, people like that forget what is obvious about human nature: Not only are scientists people, but they have their own biases like the rest of us. Biases and presuppositions in favor of uniformitarianism could not accept the concepts of Ice Age megafloods until there was so much evidence, they were forced to admit that they happened. Water, Freeimages / ZoofyTheJi Creationist scientists are trying out their own models about the relationship of these Ice Age megafloods with the global Noachian Deluge. The data seem to fit rather well — far better than for uniformitarian viewpoints. It took 40 years for mainstream geologists to accept the Lake Missoula flood, despite hundreds of pieces of obvious evidence. The acceptance forced many geologists to shift from strict uniformitarianism (

When someone has an "evolution is true" worldview, they are forced to reinterpret facts to suit their presuppositions. This gets embarrassing when they deny the global Genesis Flood and have to explain sea animals buried in volcanic ash, and creatures that do not fit into the failed "Tree of Life" . Also, they are trying to use "evolutionary history" when there is none. Of course, creationists do not have these problems. Something seems wrong with this picture: deep sea creatures living in the dark were preserved in ash from a land volcano. Science Daily just picked up on a press release from Oxford University that came out two weeks ago: the discovery of exquisitely-preserved Ediacaran creatures.  Both articles explained that the Ediacaran fauna appear to bear no relationship to the Cambrian animals that came (in Darwin years) millions of years later, even though “ where exactly they fit in the tree of life is unclear. ”  The discoverers believe

Although some evolutionists are supposedly amazed when they are told that there is equivocation, the fact is that such equivocation is actually prevalent. (Of course, this is rooted in their "evolution is a fact" presuppositions.) How do you defend equivocation? With more equivocation, of course. If anyone doubted that evolutionists equivocate, or that such equivocation is prevalent, they need doubt no more. I recently pointed out several examples of evolutionists equivocating on evolution. When they proclaim that evolution is an obvious fact, they are referring to the origin of species by random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection and a host of other explanatory mechanisms evolutionists employ when needed. This claim goes against the scientific evidence. Evolution may or may not have occurred. That is an ontological claim that can be argued. But there is absolutely no question the origin of species by evolution is not a fact. That is an epistemological claim which i

Creation Ministries International has a section on "15 Questions for Evolutionists". These are questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. (There is a video after point two of which I am rather fond, but I have a bias.) They do try to answer them, but do not fare well. At the bottom of the page are some of the objections and attempted answers. Click here and give it a whirl . Oh, and don't forget that February 12 is " Question Evolution Day "!

Foot soldiers in the war against those of us who dare to question the "fact" of evolution portray scientists in glowing terms. They are eminently logical, follow where the evidence leads, never have biases, are exceptionally honest and so on. (Of course, such praise makes them seem like automatons rather than people — if you believe such praises in the first place.) People who actually believe this lofty view of evolutionists are shocked — shocked, I tell you — at the suggestion that some scientists may have biases and engage in sneaky behavior. A very common shell game is conflation (or equivocation) on word meanings. The term "evolution" can mean many things. When the faithful chant that "evolution is a fact", they may actually be right when using some definitions of evolution. However, they are not right when they take one meaning of evolution and switch it with microbes-to-microbiologist evolution. When I explained that evolutionists equivocate by

It appears that many people are unaware of what happens in the evolution industry. People ennoble scientists, saying that they are strictly objective, unbiased and follow where the evidence leads. This is clearly not the case. For one thing, such sentiments display ignorance of the process of investigation. Also, scientists are portrayed as superhuman, having no emotions and no biases. There is also the assumption that scientists are unified on all aspects of evolutionism. When it comes to origins science, facts are selected to fit the presuppositions of the scientists' worldview. When the facts do not fit, excuses are made, masquerading as valid scientific theories or hypotheses. These excuses are vague, and even laughable. Especially when some evolutionists insist that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Birds and dinosaurs have oval eggs and big eyes.  Does this necessarily  mean they evolved from a common ancestor? Hopeful ovals :  Intent on evolving sparrows out of T. rex kin

It has become a sort of occupational hazard for those of us who present scientific, philosophical and logical material against evolution that we must deal with ridicule and abuse. It comes with the territory. What becomes startling is the intensity of attacks from Darwin's cheerleaders. (Personally, I believe it is because evolution is a foundation for atheism, so they feel that they must protect it at all costs.) Another startler is the lack of logic that the evolution thought police employ. Earlier in the day that I am writing this, a friend and I encountered the genetic fallacy, ad hominems, straw man fallacies, "moving the goalposts", appeal to motive, appeal to majority, appeal to ridicule and more. As well as simply wasting our time. Not only do these evolutionists fallaciously assume that people deny evolution because they do not understand it, but in the midst of their vituperative railing, they try to prove evolution by citing bad science. (Also, "You

In our last exciting episode, we saw a basic overview of the Second Law of Thermodynamics . This time, we are getting into some more specific material. Credit: FreeImages / Jason Morrison This next article examines the science behind some of the objections or rebuttals by evolutionists to creationist arguments. First, the open system, closed system and isolated system confusion. Next, the idea that ice crystals forming is supposedly evidence against entropy in relation to evolution. Third, a theological question related to the fall of man back in Genesis. To read "The Second Law of Thermodynamics — Answers to Critics", click here .   

Edited Introduction 7-09-2012 Evolution is not against the law of the land by any means. Instead, it is encouraged by secularists. (Intelligent Design and creation science have laws construed against them.) Evolution violates several laws of science. In this case, Entropy, also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe is running down. In some ways, this important scientific law is common sense because we can see it happening all the time. The most basic form says that "everything goes from order to disorder". Things break down, run down, fall apart, get worse. The only way to offset this tendency is to add energy and specific information. Here is an introductory overview of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Later, we will have some more detailed articles, including excuses skeptics make to say that it does not apply to evolution. Yes, they really think that. Evolution versus a basic law of nature S cores of distinguished scientists have carefully exa

There has been a flurry of activity on the Internet about the so-called "God Particle", a name that is not popular among physicists. What does it have to do with evolution? Nothing. What does it have to do with cosmology? Perhaps something, but it's dependent on your worldview and presuppositions. Some people are desperate to do away with God, so they will take any excuse to claim that he was not needed, that the universe somehow made itself (never mind that this is absurd even on the surface). Those of us who believe in a Designer can easily see further affirmation of his incredible wisdom, even on the subatomic level. Standard Model diagram of particles (TriTertButoxy, Public Domain) According to a recent news item flashed around the world, scientists at CERN, using the Large Hadron Collider, say they have confirmed the existence of a previously hypothesized particle officially called the Higgs boson but colloquially referred to as the ‘God part

When evolutionist scientists insist on using erroneous preconceptions, they get embarrassed. For instance, relying on evolution yields "living fossils" (plants and animals that were only known by their fossils, presumed extinct, and later found alive and well). In addition, not every square inch of this planet has been explored; new species are frequently discovered. Encompassing Cambodia, southern China, Laos, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand and Vietnam, the Greater Mekong region’s rainforests and swamps are home to a myriad of creatures. So many, in fact, that in the last decade or so more than 1,000 species of plants and animals previously unknown to science have been discovered—an average rate of two per week... ..The ‘Lazarus effect’ refers to the unexpected ‘reappearance’ of an ‘extinct’ kind of creature after “a lengthy hiatus [gap] in the fossil record.” However, as our earlier article explained, in reality there is no ‘Lazarus effect’ spa

Despite the evidence (such as the osedax in the last post , a fossil of a fish eating another fish and others), people insist on the uniformitarian belief that fossilization is a slow process and not the result of rapid burial and proper conditions. The latest? Mating turtles. I can think of several jokes to make now, but I will leave the tacky stuff to the high-class science journals. Not only are evolutionists baffled and leave it as a "mystery" (note the double standard, creationists cannot get away with that kind of thing), they are also troubled about the alleged conditions of the environment where this happened. Yet again, this all fits well with creationist and global flood explanations; we do not need to have "just so stories". Evolutionary paleontologists have a mystery on their hands: how did turtles in the act of mating become fossilized? Most of the news media are amusing themselves with prurient attention on turtle sex, using double entendres and F

Uniformitarianism, the belief that "the present is the key to the past", is based on the preconception that natural processes that we see today are the same as they were in the distant past. There is little or no room for global catastrophes like Noah's Flood. Difficulties for this viewpoint continue to crop up, however. For instance, the osedax worm eats the bones of dead things. Many fossilized organisms have been found with bore holes from the worms. This indicates that burial and fossilization had to have been rapid, not gradual. Osedax worms—also called "zombie" worms—live off the bones of dead creatures. Several species of  Osedax  surfaced in Monterey Bay, California, in 2002, and evidence of them has now been found in the Mediterranean in a fossilized whale bone. These bone-destroying worms have evidently existed across the globe as long as animals have, which raises a question: If the fossilization of bones requires vast timespans, why didn't 

This week, we are keeping the articles lighter and shorter. After all, last week had some deep stuff. Do bacteria show the effects of age? Yes. No. Both. Maybe. What bacteria do with aged and damaged biochemicals is yet another indication of the Creator's ingenuity. Bacterial cells are singularly long-lived. They keep dividing for what seems like forever. But because they are made of biochemicals, their DNA and proteins should suffer damage similar to what any other cell endures, including animal cells. What keeps bacterial cell components from wearing down? Microbiologists have been trying to find out how these single-cell organisms handle chemical damage, which relentlessly accumulates due to friction and uncontrolled chemical reactions. So far, the results have been confusing, but a new analysis appears to have confirmed that bacteria have a remarkably well-engineered damage-reduction program. You can read the rest of "The Ingenious Way That Bacteria Resist Aging", he