Piltdown Superman

At this writing today is August 30, 2014 and the Rosetta spacecraft has entered orbit around Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenk. (It is an understatement to say that this is an ambitious undertaking, since the flight alone has taken ten years.) The Philae probe is expected to land on the comet in a few weeks, and several sites have been projected . Comet on 23 August 2014 - NavCam / Copyright ESA / Rosetta / NAVCAM And I thought the 1986 Vega probes that dealt with both Venus and Halley's Comet were big deals! Well, they were for that time. It's interesting to me that the Rosetta will be using outdated equipment, because a great deal has changed in the ten years since it was first launched. But "old" does not mean ineffective. Secular scientists are starting with the presuppositions that comets are building blocks of the solar system. By rendezvousing with this comet, they hope to find secrets to the origins of many things, possibly even life itself. Not har

Give us a kiss... It is becoming more frequent when "science" is promoting an agenda — usually, a leftist agenda. Sure, science is great when discussing sex properly and scientists are actually doing real science. But when we have bad science and pseudoscience being used to ridicule traditional sexual values, promote promiscuity and abortion, get involved in government-mandated contraception, supporting gender confusion — the false researchers and the science press do not keep their own domain and abandon their proper abode, there is a problem. Especially since so many people will accept what "scientists say" without question, even when scientist say things that have nothing to do with science. To what extent should scientists presume to offer advice about sexual matters? Beyond providing descriptions of body parts and how they work, science exits its domain when telling people how they should behave or think about sex. Yet repeatedly, editorials in jou

It has been made into a joke where royal persons referred to themselves in the plural, such as, "We are not amused". Although they had no way of knowing it, they were more correct than they knew — but for different reasons. We are not alone inside ourselves. There are billions of microorganisms living there, coexisting and even helping us thrive. Naturally, evolutionists will assert that they gradually evolved along with us, but they do not offer models, believable explanations or anything other than assertions. In fact, to want us to believe such a thing is asking quite a bit. Further, they equivocate "evolution" with "adaptation", and make it sound like microbes-to-man evolution is realistic, but such a word game is disingenuous at best. It makes much more sense to believe that they are doing what they are designed to do from the beginning. By learning more about “who” lives in you in sickness and in health and what they are doing, medical scient

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen When running this online creation science ministry, and being in contact with others who stand for biblical creation, we see some pretty vicious stuff from anti-creationists and misotheists. (When I say that I am a biblical creationist, I mean that I believe in a literal six-day recent creation as well as the global Flood, according to what the Bible teaches.) Evolution is a cornerstone for atheism and liberal Christianity (or a word I like to use for liberal religion, “churchianity”), and they detest those of us who will not compromise on what the Bible says. Several creationist Pages on social media are what I consider "link mills", simply pasting links to creation science articles ( sometimes sending them to sites that are, as a whole, opposed to our message even though the specific articles may be adequate). Some of us strive to aim higher, and are very selective in what links we post. In addition, we encourage people to learn how to

Helium was detected on the moon during solar eclipses. There are claims that helium-3 is too abundant for the young universe models of biblical creationists, but there are problems with these claims. One is that it is rather difficult to actually measure. Another is that there are many assumptions involved. A third problem is that several factors that can lead to an abundance of He-3 are not taken into account by evolutionists, and the amount of helium on the moon is not a problem for creation science. Helium-3 arises from the radioactive decay of tritium, a ‘heavy’ isotope of hydrogen containing one proton and two neutrons. Through beta decay one of the neutrons in the nuclei emits an electron and is converted into a proton; thus the new atomic nuclei has two protons and one neutron turning an isotope of hydrogen into an isotope of helium (31H → 32He + e). This decay process has a half-life of about 12.3 years. Helium-3 also arises from complex nuclear processes in the sun and

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Experiences, observations and material that I have have read brought me to these speculations. With more time, reading and experience, I may adjust some of them later. Some people will play with semantics, claiming that the word "evolutionist" is something contrived by creationists in an effort to malign proponents of evolution. Their "sources" for such an accusation are anti-creationist sites that simply make the assertion without evidence. The word evolutionist is indeed a valid word that gives a useful description, so I see no need to change my use of it. Vehement anti-creationists Having an online ministry brings out people who hate biblical creationists who will seek our Websites, Weblogs, social media areas and so on. They will lash out at us with assertions and ridicule (often calling us "liars" and "science deniers") because we disagree with naturalistic and atheistic interpretations of scientific evidence

Evolutionary scientists had some basic guidelines for determining how to classify humanoid fossils and so forth. (For that matter, the concept that a larger brain meant that the owner was more intelligent was discredited.) Once again, we see that when more information is discovered, we also see that there is a great deal more information to be learned. Adjustments must be made. Henry Vandyke Carter / PD One of the criteria to determine if a skull belonged to a Neanderthal was the layout of the inner ear — it was unique to them. Or so they thought. Since that same inner ear arrangement has been found in a non-Neanderthal, some rethinking has been happening. The lines of biology are more complicated, and archaic humans traveled quite a bit. This may be startling for evolutionists, but it fits in very well with the biblical creationist timeline. How can you tell a fossilized skull belonged to a Neanderthal? The comparatively large size and prominent brow ridges? Actually — unt

Are you familiar with the expression, "The same thing only different"? 'Tis a silly phrase and I really don't like it — except when it's useful. It came to mind when reading two articles about two moons orbiting two planets. Many of the events discussed were extremely similar. Mosaic of Jupiter's moon Io, NASA / JPL / USGS Ice particles on Saturn's moon Enceladus, NASA / JPL / SSI Quite often, the solar system does not cooperate with stories given about its formation because of many anomalies; some things just don't work. With these two articles, we have two moons that are recalcitrant. Io (a moon of Jupiter) was rowdy, firing off huge amounts of volcanic material that should have been dissipated long ago according to deep time belief systems. In addition, Saturn's moon Enceladus is shooting ice into space. Enceladus should not be able to do this. In both cases, scientists used an implausible explanation and expect people to belie

Some people have the mistaken notion that so-called "microevolution" (small-scale changes in organisms) lead to "macroevolution" (goo-to-you). (Some atheists dishonestly charge that creationists made up those words to deceive people.) Use of these words is discouraged by creationists , as "micro" and "macro" involve change in a different direction. Federal Republic of Germany, Gregor Mendel, 1984 While Charles Darwin was saying that small changes led to big changes, Gregor Mendel was experimenting with genetics, using peas. Mendel wondered if he could support Lamarckian evolution (a concept that Darwin disliked), and actually refuted it when he discovered the laws of genetics . His work also demonstrated the opposite of Darwin's speculations. Again we see that the Bible is right, things reproduce after its own kind and does not change into something completely different. One of the “heroes” of evolutionists is Gregor Mendel, a Eu

Critics of creation and Intelligent Design like to come up with certain physiological features and say, "That must be evolution, since it's done so badly. No God did that!" Such remarks are made from their evolutionary biases and not from sound reasoning. Unfortunately, other biased people take these pronouncements and run with them, thinking, "Checkmate, creationists!", but neither Darwin's Cheerleaders nor their mentors know what they're talking about. Henry Vandyke Carter / PD What they believe is evidence for evolution is, when examined by knowledgeable people, actually evidence for the Creator after all. Clinton Richard Dawkins made pronouncements that the human eye is poorly designed, and that has been thoroughly discredited . Dawkins, Don Prothero and others make similar foolish claims about the recurrent laryngeal nerve, but they not only misrepresent its functions, but demonstrate lack of knowledge of embryology and anatomy. Or perhaps

Many Christians have not given serious consideration to how accepting secular notions about origins affects their entire theology. When accepting the latest pronouncements of man-made science philosophies, they are forced into a position of making theological adjustments to make it fit their understanding of Scripture. Source: Hubblesite.org The current popular view among secular scientists regarding the origin of the universe is the Big Bang. There are Christians who are quite happy to believe that God used the Big Bang to create the universe. Unfortunately, the Big Bang is seriously at odds with the book of Genesis and the order of creation, so they have compromise in the beginning. In addition, the Big Bang has serious scientific difficulties, and has been adjusted many times — so compromisers need to make frequent adjustments as well. The Big Bang is not "settled science", nor is it agreed on by all cosmologists and cosmogonists. Who are you going to believe, t

It is baffling why some people are so concerned about how the possibility of life on other planets affects biblical creationism. They will ask, "What will that do to your view of the Bible?" This kind of question gets ahead of itself, and I wonder if these people have any idea what is involved in the studies of exoplanets in the first place. It's not like they're across town, or even a three-day flight from Earth. First, scientists have to find a suitable planet that may be in the habitable zone. Then, through processes as yet unknown, they must find out if there is life on that planet. After that, it needs to be determined if there is intelligent life on it. So, don't be trying to overturn God's written Word with "what ifs" and assumptions. Speaking of the habitable zone, there are many exoplanets but so far, none have fit the criteria. Too big, too small, too close to their sun, too far away, wrong composition, combinations of factors...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Edited 24 June 2024 In yesterday's post, points were made that atheists and evolutionists blatantly misrepresent the biblical creationist position  in their efforts to control education. They present evolution as indisputable scientific truth. One of the main problems with this is that people will simply accept such statements as accurate, and then expect creationists to defend positions that we do not hold. Educators present only the good side of evolution, often including (sometimes from ignorance) outdated and inaccurate information from textbooks . Indeed, some textbooks also contain fraudulent material . Creation science and Intelligent Design materials are actively suppressed, and evolution is sometimes required to be presented with no contrary information . Add this indoctrination to the additional problems that people tend to "think" with their emotions, and that students are not taught to think critically. Then we have Darwinoid

Atheists and evolutionists will sometimes say that they want to have "an honest discussion" with creationists about origins science. Unfortunately, they obtain information from anti-creationist sources.  regarding what creationists believe and teach. From their questions and statements, we can tell that they seldom attempt to understand what creationists really  believe and teach. This kind of approach leads to absurd conversations resembling: "You misrepresented the biblical creationist position". "No, I didn't! I did not  misrepresent it! Prove that I did!" "You made assertions but did not substantiate anything". "Liar! What I said is true!" Sigh.  Such illogical assertions are generally based on repeating what has been read from spurious sources. The British Humanist Association gave an excellent example of the inaccurate information that has been spread about creationists. They listed several "arguments" t

Some biblical creationists are intimidated by the certainty of long-agers who insist that they have strong evidence for an ancient earth and that the biblical timeline is impossibly short. This confidence is based on bravado. In actuality, the ice cores are nowhere near as reliable as evolutionist claim. Pixabay / Antarctica / Mariamichelle Several assumptions made regarding ice sheets, flow models and core samples, including the assumption that they are extremely old. Also, they are calibrated and confirmed by other methods that require numerous assumptions. This amounts to circular reasoning, one of the most common practices of evolutionary science. Using a Noah's Flood model, creation scientists used their  assumptions for flow models and came up with more believable results. There are three parts in this set. First, " Ice Cores, Seafloor Sediments, and the Age of the Earth: Part 1 ", and then, " Ice Cores, Seafloor Sediments, and the Age of the Earth: P

Previously, I wrote an article about how people need to be discerning. Cults like the Sacred Name, Jehovah's Witnesses and others will use interest in origins as a way to rope in the unsuspecting and feed them their "truth".  On another Weblog, I wrote about a Sacred Name cultist posing as a biblical creationist and speaking blasphemy on Facebook. I hope this article (and others linked within) will not only expose the charlatan, but also give encouragement to check for deceptions and compare their statements with the Word of God. After all, this is not the only time or place that this will happen. Please see " A Cult on Facebook Claiming to be Creationist ".

The human body has been likened to a machine with all of its components functioning together for existence and procreation. Animals can also be compared to animals; I tell my wife that I like watching Basement Cat, the Feline Machine. To some extent, the machinery comparison can be extended to plants as well. It becomes easier to notice the similarities as we learn more about biology, even down to the molecular level. Your cells are far more complicated than this machine Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures In fact, the components of the living cell were considered simple. In fact, our cells are loaded with extremely complicated machines and mechanisms that were designed by our Creator before mankind began to dream of them. I cannot see how, on an intellectual level, someone could believe in time, chance, mutations and so on, and deny that life is intricately designed. But it is not an intellectual battle, it is about ideologies and rebellion against God.  Here are a few new repor

Creationists are grinning about dental calculus. Of course, we wouldn't be grinning so much about having to have our own removed. Rather, archaeologists made some cavities and are studying the remains of supposedly prehistoric people. Studying dental build-up has put evolutionists down in the mouth before, and it is happening again. Evolutionary assumptions are that humans were stupid brutes early in their development, and they were too stupid to figure out how to use plants effectively. It seems that the people of this study knew about plants, and how to use them effectively — possibly for medicinal purposes. The results fit with biblical post-Flood dispersal models and put a cap on evolutionary guesses. Al Khiday, near the Nile River in Central Sudan, contains five archaeological sites with burial grounds representing three cultures: one without evidence of agriculture, another with evidence of some agricultural development, and a more recent one suggesting a well-devel

A creature with one of the worst reputations is the shark. It's often a victim of "guilt by association" where people think that just because it's a shark, it will seek you out and kill you. For that matter, the word "shark" covers a lot of ground, because there are various species of shark. This gets more complicated because the hammerhead, for example, comprises more of a family of several species. Most shark attacks on humans are from three kinds , and some of the reports are sketchy. Some of them are huge and alarming to behold, but (like the majority) have no interest in humans. But there's no need to be careless, either. Basking shark, harmless to humans / Pixabay / tpsdave Sharks are amazingly efficient at doing shark stuff. Evolutionists have no idea how they evolved ( especially the teeth !) and have no plausible models, but they're certain it happened because they presume that evolution is a fact. Realistically, they are examples o