Piltdown Superman

"Just a minute, Cowboy Bob! We all know that  14 C  has nothing to do with the age of the Earth!" For the most part, that is true. Uniformitarian scientists use long-term dating methods, test meteorites and select a result that best fits their presuppositions . It would be better for all if they were more scientific and actually examined their starting points. Using uniformitarian assumptions, Carbon-14 should not exist in many items. But it does  exist. People make excuses for it, including " contamination " and testing errors. (That casts aspersions on the labs doing the testing, and should  undermine their confidence in the testing methods in general.) Actually, Carbon-14 is a serious threat to the idea of an ancient Earth, and far better supports creationist Flood geology. Evolutionists have long used the carbon-14, or radiocarbon, dating technique as a “hammer” to bludgeon Bible-believing Christians. A straightforward reading of the Bible describes

One of the most confusing (and annoying) problems in discussing origins is the misuse of terminology . The word "evolution" itself has several different definitions. Use a word, and people often have a definition in mind — which may not be appropriate for the discussion at hand. Some people will disingenuously equivocate the proper definition for the moment into "molecules to man" evolution. CDC.gov/ Janice Haney Carr Another confusing problem is that Darwin's Cheerleaders will point to variations and say, "See? Evolution in action!" Variations in a microbe such as  Pseudomonas aeruginosa are often used to extrapolate small changes as "proof" of Darwin's general theory of evolution. That is the opposite of the truth; no new genetic information is added. Rapidly “evolving” bacteria are in the news. A mutation toggling the bacteria  Pseudomonas aeruginosa  between two distinct forms is generating excitement among evolutionary

In recent years, American voters were bombarded with questions about embryonic stem cell research for medical and other purposes , and if federal funding to destroy the lives of the unborn to further this research should be allowed. All sorts of claims were made about the benefits of ESR, but they were with little merit. It was mostly emotional hype based on leftist politics and the "right" to abortion. Meanwhile, adult stem cell research has been progressing. There are some startling benefits from the stem cells of humans — and some animals. The results are very encouraging, and human life does not need to be sacrificed. With adult and induced pluripotent stem cells in abundance, it should not be necessary to destroy human embryos to understand stem cell science. Research with adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) is continuing to produce amazing discoveries. Read about some of these amazing discoveries at " Stem Cell Science Can Pro

Another example of the intricate complexities that we see all around us is in the chemistry of human pregnancy. There are seeming paradoxes in the changes that seem to be understood now. Image courtesy of  David Castillo Dominici  / FreeDigitalPhotos.net Although it is obvious that such intricacy is the product of the master Designer, evolutionists blindly place their faith in time, chance and random mutations. The onset of pregnancy presents an apparent contradiction. Ovulating and initially pregnant mothers experience an increase in progesterone. On the one hand, this hormone signals the immune system to back down and lay low. That's critical, because otherwise her body would fight and kill sperm cells as though they were unwelcome invaders, and she would never become pregnant. But on the other hand, progesterone reduces cholesterol levels in her body. Too much progesterone would doom a developing baby, who requires cholesterol. Why would one action both promote and p

It is ironic that critics of the Bible misunderstand (deliberately, I believe) that it actually affirms the value of women — sometimes contrary to cultures of the times. In contrast, the evolutionary worldview devalues human life . "Survival of the fittest", natural selection, " It's only a fish going through evolutionary stages " and other excuses contribute to this concept . In many cultures, women are of lesser value. With the increase of abortion "rights" in the West, there is also an increase in abortions because the mothers do not want girl babies.  Here  is the real  "war on women"! Ironically, abortion is fundamental to "feminism" today, but history shows quite the opposite. What value does society place on women, born or unborn? Biblical Christianity stands in stark contrast, placing value on humans who are created in the image of God. Lita Cosner writes, Abortion-rights activists, especially among the modern fem

I fouled up, and it is a good thing.  Originally, I was going to post the link to this Bob Enyart interview with microscopy scientist Mark Armitage in a previous post  and forgot to do it. Even though this interview is from 2012, it has some important information about the iDINO Project, dinosaur soft tissues and the laboratory at the Creation Research Society's Van Andel Creation Research Center. To download or listen online, click here . The screen shot shows where to find the audio links.

Evolutionary cosmologists get more things wrong than they get right. Using their presuppositions, they make predictions. (Don't we all?) The problem is, whenever the space probes get close enough to celestial objects that are the subjects of scientists' predictions, the preductions are incorrect. NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute These scientists do great calculations and can describe the present, but when it comes to explaining planetary origins, they do poorly. In fact, they make up some nice stories that have no substantive basis. But they must  have an ancient universe, because evolutionists  must  have huge amounts of time to plug into their conjectures. Creationists do not have these problems. Like Enceladus, Saturn’s moon Titan shows multiple signs of being far less than 4.5 billion years old – yet the press releases are strangely silent about the implications.   As we showed recently with Enceladus (8/7/13), planetary scientists become oddly silent

The little things do matter, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The more our science and technology develop, the more we can learn about the Creator's intricate design. For example, the Kinesin Linear Motor: We are also learning more about the things that harm us. Mark Armitage  is a scientist who is helping to increase our knowledge. He has been fascinated by magnifying things since he was young, and even makes micrographs. After he became an evolutionary scientist (following the crowd, believing because he thought that was the way scientists think), he became a biblical creationist. Among other things, he takes pictures of the microscopic world and has many technical publications. Meet a scientist whose work involves high-precision photographic enlargements of a microscopic world we seldom see … Mark Armitage talks with Tas Walker about ‘the things that are not’. ‘I distinctly remember when I was infected with the microscope bug’, recalls research scien

The Hardy-Weinberg Principle is taught to help give an understanding of gene frequency in a population. It is a useful tool when used accurately. Unfortunately, there is a bit of "bait-and-switch" happening with the term "evolution". People start out using evolution correctly, and then equivocate with molecules-to-man evolution. This takes a helpful principle and turns it into an inaccurate propaganda device. Public schools, colleges, and universities today teach the Hardy-Weinberg Principle in biological science courses, and many of them do so inaccurately. The inaccuracy of these teachings are simply due to either a misunderstanding of the application of the Hardy-Weinberg Principle and equation, or it may be due to a deliberate misinterpretation of its uses to further support and promote a “macroevolutionary” philosophy. We will discuss how instructors are using the Hardy-Weinberg Principle as evidence for molecules-to-man Darwinian evolution, why this metho

A "slot canyon" is much deeper than it is wide, a narrow gorge that, by all accounts, is gorge-ous. Credit: Freeimages / Antelope Canyon /  Kristin Smith Uniformitarian geologists have attempted some explanations that fall far short of observable data. In reality, slot canyons are explained far better by catastrophic global Flood geology. We’ve all seen photos of those exquisitely beautiful and mysterious canyons with swirling, multicolored sandstone layers that look almost like marble cake. Known as “slot canyons” (their depth is much greater than their narrow width), most usually have a “sometimes dry” streambed flowing through them. What formed these remarkably sculptured beauties? These inspiring canyons are exotic and often remote. The state of Utah sports a concentration of them. Over the years, Native Americans have attached spiritual significance to these treasures. Many of the stirring photos we’ve seen were taken from helicopters or by daredevils

Use of the word "science" is often vague and nebulous. People forget the philosophies behind scientific methods, and do not differentiate between practical, applied science and historical (origins) science. Further, people approach science with expectations and preconceptions. The following article uses a computer parable and explanation to put things in perspective. One day, two computer programs were taking a break, having a cup of tea in the hard drive of a laptop. Recently, another computer program had failed to respond and had been deleted from the laptop. The two programs, feeling philosophical about their old friend, started talking about the meaning of life, where they had come from, how they should live and what happens after deletion. They were specifically concerned with where they came from. However, after much conversation and many cups of tea they could not decide. The past course of events can neither be directly observed nor repeated. When people wor

On "Real Science Radio", Pastor Bob Enyart interviewed former atheist Dr. Jay Wile (Ph.D. in nuclear chemistry). They discussed several topics, emphasizing radiometric dating. The write-up and the link to listen are here .

Uniformitarianism  and "deep time" are basically the  warp and woof  of evolution. Essentially, "the present is the key to the past", and fossilization takes millions of years. Rock strata are dated by the fossils they contain, and fossils are dated by the rock strata in which they were located. Using this erroneous thinking, there can be no traces of organic material in fossils, because they would have all turned to stone. Freeimages / huzzah Creationists tend to nose around, disputing evolutionary conjectures, asking questions and taking a bite out of the bad science of evolution. For example, dogs can be trained to find organic materials. How can a dog sniff out fossils, if fossils do not have organic material in them? We may be barking up the wrong tree, but it's a puzzler. Gary Jackson and his dog, Migaloo, trained to sniff out buried remains, work with local Australians to uncover archaeological sites and help police locate the remains of murder

People who put their faith in "science" and scientists (such as those seen in the video " Evolution vs. God ") face a challenge: Things keep changing. Some pronouncement is made, scientists congratulate themselves on their genius, the media covers it and the crowds go wild. Then things change. Different criteria are implemented, new technology is utilized, things that were rejected in the past are suddenly important. (Such changes must be an embarrassment for theistic evolutionists and other biblical compromisers!) For example, "Y-chromosome Adam" and "mitochondrial Eve" were alleged to have been many thousands of years apart. Using faulty presuppositions to avoid data that points to biblical sources, the gap between these alleged ancestors from your family tree has narrowed. Mitochondrial Eve finally meets Y- chromosome Adam (sort of). Announcing two studies that “re-date ‘Y-chromosome Adam’ and ‘mitochondrial Eve,’ Nature reports, “

The more our medical technology advances, the more we realize that there is a great deal to be learned. Viruses and microbes (with uncertain boundaries between them at times) abound inside us. Many cannot be studied in a lab setting, either. Our bodies, and even our planet, is filled with coded information that shows the work of the Creator, and that evolution is absurd. As scientists continue to find incredible diversity in the smallest of organisms, realizations of all we've been missing are changing conceptions of life. Microbes: they live in and on us, and all around us – in the soil, in the air, and deep in the earth and seas.  “ How many microbes are hiding among us? ” Science Magazine asks.  It’s been hard to know, because most cannot be cultured in the lab.  New sequencing technologies are starting to shed light on the “dark matter” of the living world, as EurekAlert termed it in a Department of Energy press release reprinted by Astrobiology Magazine.  Eddy Rubin

When I was younger, I accepted Theistic Evolution ("TE"): Just go along with the evolutionist crowd and slap God's name on it as a kind of blessing. That way, I had everything covered. But I had no real knowledge of science nor theology. Once I started learning, it did not take me long to realize that TE meant doing violence to the teachings of the Bible. Today, I notice compromisers getting praise and support from atheists. And why not? Atheists necessarily believe in evolution , and both agree that the Bible is not authoritative and does not mean what it says, just that TEs agree with this a bit less than atheists. I have seen positions held by biblical compromisers like Biologos , James McGrath ,  David Montgomery and others applauded by atheists. Let's face it, placing current science trends and philosophies above God's Word just brings these people closer to atheism. In fact, people have left the faith because of evolution and lack of grounding in Scri

Evolutionists find fossils that they claim are multi-millions of years old. But they look just like their modern counterparts. That is unacceptable to evolutionists. The oft-told tale is that something dies and takes a very long time to fossilize. But this is in spite of common knowledge, but in spite of common sense. Scavengers, decay, the elements and more ruin the chances of fossilization by uniformitarian methods. No, something has to be buried quickly. Golden Orb-Weaver Spider  Nephila maculata /Wikimedia Commons/Engelen A soft-bodied creature is even more susceptible to removal before the established fossil-making techniques are engaged. What is worse is when a fossil is alleged to be so many millions of years old, and its living counterparts show no noticeable changes. Fossils are just one of many different pieces of evidence used to cause confusion between evolutionary theory and biblical history. Many of the fossil finds reported by the mainstream media are touted to

After a great deal of anticipation (and attacks, even before it was available), Ray Comfort's video " Evolution vs. God " was released on August 7, 2013. It can be purchased on DVD , or watched for free on their site, YouTube or wherever it has been embedded (such as on this page). The entire video, intro to promos, runs just over 38 minutes. Atheists are furious, attacking it with typical lack of logic . Which reminds me...some of the atheists that were interviewed were trying to appear intellectual, that they accepted evolution and rejected belief in God because of honestly exploring and evaluating the evidence. Their words indicate otherwise.  Something that stood out for me is how people accepted evolution strictly on faith, without evidence. They trusted the opinions of authority figures, and would believe whatever is in the textbooks, and do not know that they are being lied to . (In fact, I believe that many atheists are engaging in what I ref

Cosmologists and cosmogonists propose hypotheses, theories and models about the universe and the solar system. Those who persist in using an evolutionary basis keep finding flaws in their models that need to be explained away. Otherwise, they may have to actually admit that the facts support the biblical creation model far better, and with much less fuss, than an evolutionary model. In fact, Mercury supports creationists' predictions . NASA / Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory / Carnegie Institution of Washington Mercury, the smallest planet and closest to the sun, presents perplexing puzzles that provoke pique among evolutionists. That is, Mercury does not act like it is supposed to act. The smallest planet of our solar system holds some big mysteries for secular astronomers, and it continues to delight creationists. Mercury is only 38 percent the diameter of Earth, making it the smallest and least massive of the eight planets. It is the innermost planet

Instead of refuting evolution and affirming how evidence supports creation, this post will be geared toward biblical creationists. First, I want to send you to an important article on " Ten Basics Every Creationist Should Know ".  Moving on... In our enthusiasm to proclaim the truth, some of us get rambunctious and will grab things that irrefutably prove the existence of God, or conclusively destroy evolution. At least, that's how some things are presented. I have encountered well-meaning religious people who will pass along urban legends as fact, such as the atheist professor's chalk that did not break , or a youthful Albert Einstein putting a mouthy teacher in his place . Sometimes people are downright gullible, sometimes they act in haste, sometimes a mistake is made, sometimes a source is wrong. It happens.  Anti-creationists and atheopaths in general are  constantly manufacturing criticisms of us , we do not need to help them out by being blatantly careles

Do evolutionists draw inspiration from zombie and vampire movies? I ask this because they keep bringing back some concepts that should stay properly dead. Haeckel's drawings, for example. For one thing, they have been proven to be outright fraud . But what do bad science and fraud matter when the priority is to get people to believe in evolution? So they dig up Haeckel's fake stuff again, give it a haircut, shiny shoes and new suit of clothes, and present the repackaged lies . The situation is grave.

The efficient design of the honeycomb utilizes space, uses less wax, and is strong. The Evo Sith have insisted that this structure just sort of happens. As is so often the case, evolution requires a suspension of sensibilities replaced with unfounded faith. Hi, Honey, I'm home!" morgueFile/peachyqueen Darwin wanted it to be true that the honeycomb happened by chance, and his cheerleaders have been promoting the idea for years. But, as usual, the evidence is against evolutionists, who contradict each other — and even themselves. The idea that honeycombs in beehives self-assemble is as old as Darwin.  A new study claims to reinforce the idea, yet honeybees are not just bystanders in the process. Honeycombs have long been admired as examples of functional design in nature.  The hexagonal packing is the most efficient method of maximizing storage area while minimizing building materials.  Is this an example of design in nature, or natural laws at work?  Maybe

When having discussions with atheists and evolutionists, never let them build on a faulty premise. Perhaps they can construct a decent argument, but if the basis is fundamentally flawed, the rest of it is no good. When an argument is riddled with fallacies, more special "give me that" pleading is required to salvage what they consider logical arguments. Uniformitarian geologists have this problem. Mt Septimus and Cream Lake, on Vancouver Island, BC — stock.xchng/FarmFresh Their worldview is based on the presuppositions that the world is billions of years old and that evolution is true. (Indeed, evolutionists require an ancient earth to make their conjectures sound plausible.) Selective citing of radiometric dating results, discarding legitimate data that disagrees with their presumptions, making up absurd "explanations" that cannot be justified — when the explanations that they do not like actually explain observed data far better than their views. Cav