Piltdown Superman

As you can see, this is the third installment in a series on radiometric dating. ( Part 1, on the most common forms of radiometric dating methods, is here . Part 2, on the isochron method, is here .) Uniformitarian geologists rely on a number of assumptions to make their dating methods work. Unfortunately, the assumptions are unrealistic. On a side note, did you know that there is a huge assumption made about the age of the earth? It is not determined from terrestrial rocks, but from meteorites ! The assumption is that everything formed at the same time, and meteorites are purer than the rocks on our own world. Old son, that's circular reasoning. Back to the main topic now. In Part 3, the Potassium-Argon dating method is examined. Although considered to be the most reliable, this method is so loaded with assumptions, it is actually unreliable and unscientific. Once again, a proper interpretation of the evidence points to a young planet. Radioactive dating methods—many of w

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Every once in a while when creationists use the term "living fossils" to show flaws in evolutionary ideas, someone comes along with a comment like, "That's a term made up by YECs to attack evolution!" That's the opposite of the truth. But what if Young Earth Creationists did make up that term? Words and phrases are made up all the time. So if we did make it up, somehow it wouldn't be legitimate — but it's all right for atheist evolutionists like Clinton R. Dawkins to make up the word "meme" ? Double standards, you can but we can't. But we didn't. The first known use of the term "living fossil" seems to have been with Papa Darwin himself . Like his successors, he used an observation and then guessed about an explanation. When people do it today, it's called "science". Since some people want to cling to their beliefs despite the evidence, I'm going to show you that the t

Evolutionists have a fundamentally flawed worldview, and it frequently hinders real science. Like so-called "vestigial organs" and "junk DNA" , if something is not understood, it is assumed to be a leftover from distant evolutionary past. Dolphins have been studied for many years, and their ability to use sonar has been known. So, what about electroreception? Like some other animals, the Guiana dolphin can detect electrical impulses. It's those pits on the beaks that make it happen. Evolutionary scientists did not bother to research this area because of their assumptions; if they had assumed it had been created for a purpose, hey let's find out what it is, this interesting discovery may have been reached long ago. Of course, since the discovery has been made, they use the nonsensical circular reasoning of "convergent evolution". That is, they "know" that evolution is true, but have no means of showing how dolphins evolved this abi

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen "Science" is treated by many people like a kind of pantheistic force, or even a deity. It is personified, and phrases like, "Someday, science will find a cure/pill/answer". (No, science will do no such thing. Scien tists , the people who use the philosophy and methods of science, try to do that.) Likewise, scientists have a position of adoration, especially in Western cultures. This reverence for science and scientists contributes to the fallacious philosophy of Scientism, where all that matters can be reduced to, and explained by, scientific means. Indeed, attitudes of Scientism are going beyond the bounds of science . There's a joke floating around that goes something like this: "Scientists say that most people will believe something if you begin a statement with, 'Scientists say'" . There's often truth in humor, and I think many people see the truth in this one. Sure, scientists do quite a bit of good. But t

Some of us are regretting living in a cold, snowy climate for all or part of the year. A bit of contrast helps the perspective, old son. The woolly mammoth lived in the cold. While it didn't have to worry about cleaning off its vehicle and braving the roads to go to work, it's also extinct. You're not. Be thankful. Stay safe, especially if you're not ready for that face-to-face discussion with your Creator yet. Anyway, new research has changed some theories of both creation and secular scientists. It was previously thought that the mammoths were not properly suited to cold climates. One reason for this was that because there were some actual carcasses found, skin samples did not reveal the ability to produce oil and other things needed for life in the cold and snow. Better research and better samples show that yes, they did have the necessaries for where they lived. Scientists are needing to revise their theories. Biblical creation scientists stand on the author

Those stripes on the Oriental hornet are not there just to gussy it up so we an admire it — or avoid it. Hornets do have a reputation for stinging, as I recollect. No, the stripes were analyzed in detail, and it looks like they not only help it absorb solar energy, but they may also store and use it. Secular scientists are doing the typical thing by seeing the amazingly intricate the design and workings of the Oriental hornet, and instead of giving glory to the Creator, they bow in adoration to blind, purposeless evolution. Ironic, what they consider a product of evolution is also something worthy of biomimetics (copying nature for human purposes). They want to see if they can imitate it and get something useful for converting solar energy. Oh, boy. Looking for some “green” technology to cut your energy bills? Maybe you should check out the Oriental hornet. Unlike many other wasp species, the Oriental hornet (Vespa orientalis) becomes most active in the heat of the afternoon. In

The Teleological Argument says, in essence, that the universe (and Earth) are the products of design. Add to this the impossibility of abiogenesis (life starting by chance) as well as the constantly-refuted conjectures of Darwin's Stormtroopers to support evolution. Cosmic evolutionists have not helped their own cause. Seems that gamma-ray bursts in space would destroy any life on other planets. Even if something conducive to life actually formed, there are so many fireworks out in space that it would be wiped out. (Another reason that SETI is silliness, the chances of finding something out there just keep getting smaller.) Using an evolutionary timeline, Earth should have been zapped in the past, and is fixing to be zapped again. And yet, here we are by God's plan. What are the odds that life somehow self-generated? Many experiments have shown that the likelihood of just the right chemicals combining by chance in just the right proportions, orientations, and sequence

In discussions about subjects that have more than one definition, it is important to define your terms so you're not explaining one thing and the other party has a different understanding. Changing definitions is a form of special pleading, often called " moving the goalposts ". DNA was somewhat investigated, but since evolutionists didn't understand it, they called large portions of it "junk" —  leftovers from our alleged evolutionary past, and then plopped it on the well-worn trail of scientific incompetence. When DNA was given more thorough investigation, more and more of it was found to be very important . On a side note, this is similar to so-called "vestigial organs" — they didn't know the purpose of some organs, so they declared them useless leftovers from evolution. Many were removed, and did harm to people because yes, they do have functions after all. After that scientific self-humiliation, the word "vestigial" was

We see the big cats and know that they're related to the little balls of fur that humans have domesticated for thousands of years. ("Domesticated", sure.) It's interesting to see the big wild ones occasionally playing and acting like house cats. Likewise, it's fun to see the house cats act big and bad, as if they were huge tigers or something. And yet, they've become companions of humans. Especially when food is involved. So, how did the cat kind get smaller and domesticated as a Sylvester,  Felis sylvestris lybica ? Some interesting studies in genetics were conducted, as well as studying history, archaeology, animal behavior and so forth. Unfortunately, good research was hijacked again by evolutionary agendas. Since cats are primarily carnivorous these days, the speculation (bad even from an evolutionary viewpoint) is that all carnivores, no matter how different they are, evolved from a common ancestor. These people insist on seeing "evolut

Years ago, an American advert showed a woman saying, "I'm cleaning my oven — while I sleep!" The product was for a spray can of oven cleaner. While I was cognating on the article linked below, I vaguely remembered that advert. Those of us with a bent for psychology know that the mind is awake when the body is sleeping. Dreams seem to be a way for the subconscious to work things out, maybe even clean and sort. In the Bible, God revealed things in dreams. (Does he do that now? Maybe, but not for adding onto Scripture.) Some scientists studied what happens while we sleep. You see, even cells have waste matter, and that gets cleaned up. But the structure of the brain is markedly different. It turns out that the brain gets physically cleaned out during the sleep process. Scientists studying this were using the language of design, but fell short of actually giving credit to the Designer. Although they have no models, mechanisms or explanations, they still cling to the fa

Many materialists like to parrot their icons by citing, "Things have the appearance  of design, but that doesn't mean they're designed". Ridiculous. A basic argument for the Creator appeals to common sense: A painting has a painter, a building has a builder, a saddle has a saddle maker, and so on. With the amazing complexity in the world around us, in the heavens above, the microscopic level, it takes effort to think that there is no Designer. We all know God is there, but some people choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1.19-22). Study on this: Atheism and evolutionism make science impossible because only biblical creation gives us reason to believe in a structured, orderly, reliable universe. When atheists and evolutionists do science, they are abandoning their own presuppositions and borrowing from the only rational worldview — ours. "Simple" cells turned out to be anything but simple , and are comparable with advanced computers — including their o

Some people are told by their doctors that they need to cut down on the caffeine. Then they find out that the stuff is in many things that they never expected. Coffee is probably the first thing people think of, but caffeine is also in tea, soft drinks (including some non-colas), chocolate, pain relievers use it to "deliver" the remedy as well as ease the pain, foods and snacks that try to give you a boost, ice cream, and more. Cowboys won't give up their coffee , nor will many people. But we may cut down a bit. freeimages / humusak2 Scientists studied the genome of coffee. Since caffeine naturally occurs in so many plants, they resorted to the cop-out of "convergent evolution"; it evolved separately in several things. Even more far-fetched is the claim that "natural selection" had a hand in it. Not hardly. Why don't people laugh at these "scientific" pronouncements? If they had the sense that God gave a pack animal, they'd rea

It seems that whenever we read about studies and discoveries in historical science, secularists are running at full gallop like a cavalry charge to find out how something evolved. When the dust settles, we see that scientists need a mite more humility and a lot fewer arrogant presumptions. If they admitted that the evidence points to the Creator, I reckon they would not be surprised by discoveries quite so much. Image credit: NASA / CXC / JPL-Caltech / STScI / NSF / NRAO / VLA You'd think that physics is a safe trail to ride, but astronomy is full of assumptions, rescuing devices, guesses and "Oh, surprise! We're wrong again!" discoveries. Even physics itself is uncertain, especially in astronomical machinations. "Dark matter" and "dark energy" are disputed ideas put forward to rescue the Big Bang and inflation. Newly-discovered stars make dark matter not matter, and other discoveries further refute cosmic evolution. Dark matter still has

The basic concept of microbes-to-microbiologist evolution in humans is that we improved over time, and that we're still improving. Problem is, that's simply not true. I keep saying that DNA studies are no friend of evolutionary theory, and scientists are finding evidence of genetic degradation. It's interesting that secular scientists, using deep time assumptions, get diversification in humanity that charts to about the time of the dispersal after the Genesis Flood. Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson studied mutation rates in mitochondrial DNA and the results show a recent creation. All results show that humanity cannot last forever, and will become extinct from mutations. Many creationists believe that the bulk of scientific evidence for a recent creation comes from the fields of geology, physics, and astronomy and that biology and genetics have little to contribute. However, data that confirm a young creation are rapidly emerging from genetic studies performed by both creationis

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Based on evidence and observations, I reckon that it's is reasonable to conclude that anti-creationists want us silenced. Some of those tinhorns are instituting legislation to make the teaching of creation science illegal . Over the years and scattered throughout the nearly one thousand posts and articles on this site alone, there is documentation of deception, double standards, outright lies and fraud, terrible logic and more on the part of the anti-creationists — if they can't silence us through legislation and activist judges, these bigots resort to bullying and intimidation tactics. For example, secularists organized a protest at an Answers in Genesis conference — at a church, on private property, attendance was voluntary, so it was none of their business. Their attacks on biblical Christians are escalating . In one sense, articles like this are almost immediately somewhat outdated, because new examples of atheist and anti-creationist bigotr

One of the most frequent tricks that Darwinists utilize is a word game. If you commence to having a discussion, you often need to define your terms, as definitions are vital for effective and accurate communication. The word "evolution" can have at least seven meanings , not including special uses like games and products. When you do an online search for "define evolution", you'll most likely see several links about Darwin's general theory of goo-to-you evolution. One meaning of biological evolution (aside from the ridiculous "change of time" vagueness) is variation, or possibly horizontal evolution. That refers to observed changes within limits with things like breeds of dogs, horses, birds or whatnot. But when the Evo Sith will point to these observed changes, they will pull a bait 'n' switch by equivocating this kind of evolution with the general theory of evolution. "Look! We have proof of evolution!", telling you that

The American badger is not a critter to be trifled with, and can be meaner than an evolutionist presented with paradigm-shifting facts about creation. It's a marvel of design in many ways. One amazing feature is how it's built for digging (just look at the claws sometime), and digs faster than an overworked cowboy spending money after a cattle drive. Even the fur of badgers is built for the rigors of burrowing, what with being able to switch around when changing direction and so forth. Another sign of its design is the way it carefully plans its hunting. Pixabay.com / beeki The badger does not cooperate with evolutionary ideas, either. "Old" fossils show little if any difference from existing badgers. Naturally, Darwin's Cheerleaders will use terms like "evolutionary stasis" (which is an escape hatch for when there is no sign of evolution, though other times, they claim it is an irresistible force). The genetic similarities of badgers to similar

The big area on Earth's moon that has often been called the "man in the moon" is getting cheeky. Evolutionists have their noses out of joint because the long-held belief that this area it is the result of an impact crater is being discarded. Instead, it is now thought to be the result of volcanic activity. This moon, as well as other satellites and the planet Mercury, are showing signs of a young solar system . But evolutionary theories require long ages, so secular scientists are trying to find a way to save face and keep their "deep time" presuppositions. Reckon they can't stand to admit that the evidence shows the work of the Creator, and that he did his creating much more recently that has been cherished in their worldviews. The theory of how the largest impact basin on the moon was formed has been turned upside down. Oceanus Procellarum, the large dark feature often called the “Man in the moon,” has a new story to tell lunar geologists: “I’m a