Piltdown Superman

Secular astronomers, like their counterparts in geology, biology and so forth, begin with assumptions of long ages and that large-scale evolution is true. From there, they build their scientific speculations. In the Eagle Nebula, a photograph was taken of what is called the "Pillars of Creation". Don't misunderstand, this has nothing to do with biblical creation. Instead, they claim that stars are being formed. NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI / AURA) Problem is, they are arguing from a passel of preconceptions and presuppositions. Despite the claims, nobody has ever seen a star form. (I've been ridiculed for such statements because "scientists say" they see stars forming. Okey dokey, you go ahead and sit there for a few million years and let us know all about it, all right?) One creationist said that he has no problem with the idea of stars forming now (if it can be proven) because God designed the processes and the materials are in pla

American baseball great Willie Keeler played in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His batting advice was, "Keep your eye clear, and hit 'em where they ain't" ("they" meaning the fielders on the opposing team). It seems that proponents of muck-to-man evolution have their own version: See evolution where it ain't. Time and again, they argue from their presuppositions of evolution, and give "credit" to evolution when it is not justified. Fishing restrictions in many places require small fish to be released so they can grow up and make more fish. This procedure may be backfiring, as studies are indicating that the results are actually undesirable. Researchers are saying that there is an "evolutionary response to overfishing". Not hardly. It's related to natural selection (which is something the Creator devised), so they shouldn't be seeing evolution where it ain't. Many countries prohibit fishermen from bagging u

Lithium is the lightest metal. Big Bang proponents make predictions on what they expect to find that bring to mind the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent . "If the Big Bang happened, then is seems mighty likely that we'll find certain elements in certain quantities. We find them, so it must have happened." Sorry, Hoss. There are other possibilities for your observations — if they're correct. The amount of lithium doesn't fit the theories.   Not all scientists, secular or creationist, accept the Big Bang. Lawrence "Theoretical" Krauss insists that the Big Bang is true, and gives "evidence". Some of the elements match predictions of Big Bang proponents, but his material on lithium is false. (I could be like some anti-creationists and say that he's lying, but I don't know that he's intending to deceive. It's possible, sure, atheists do that, but I won't casually make that possibly libelous affirmation — unlike som

A mystery for Darwinists is that even though they claim that animals and humans all evolved from a common ancestor, there are many things that set humans apart. One of those is music. Oh, sure, there are "songs" of whales, birds "sing", parrots can mimic other people singing — but that's not really music. It's pretty much imitation or functional, not for joy. Humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). It's interesting to note that God sings (Zeph. 3:17), and that there are many verses in the Bible that refer to singing and making music (Isaiah 51:11, Psalm 149:3-5, for example). Darwin's Cheerleaders can only guess as to why we're tuned to tunes. There are three interesting studies about music. One had two diverse groups of people who had no knowledge of the other's music, and the results were rather interesting. The second study is about perfect pitch, and how the brain processes it. Third, something that has been looked at b

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen For many years, I have long contended that people are bombarded with goo-to-you evolution as if it was a fact. Darwinian evolution is not confined to college textbooks and academia, it also permeates our literature, entertainment, animated cartoons, everyday speech, politics, sports, and more. In addition, Darwin's Cheerleaders are so intent on protecting their fundamentally flawed worldview from scrutiny, they resort to sneaky word games such as equivocating "evolution" into "science", so that when we say that we oppose evolution and affirm creation, we're "science" deniers.  Anti-creationists are also very evangelistic, although many of those owlhoots don't even know what they believe and why, they just "know" that evolution is true and we're wrong. Somehow. Two of their favorite tools are badgering and ridicule, and those are often intertwined. A politician says that he rejects evolution, and left

Just imagine...a couple of cowboys one night on the lone prairie, brewing up coffee at the campfire. There's a sound in the distance. "Didja hear that?" "Yup." "Sounds like an iguanodon. He sounds mighty cranky." "Nope. Just a hadrosaur. We're okay." "You sure?" "Yup. Boom boom acka lacka lacka boom ." But seriously, folks, do we have any ideas what dinosaurs may have sounded like? Yup. Were dinosaurs noisy? Did dinosaurs honk nasally like Chewbacca in Star Wars? Did dinosaurs make moaning noises like mourning doves and owls, or did they wail like bagpipes? Are there any clues about dinosaur sounds in Scripture or science? In both, actually. If this answer seems surprising it shouldn’t be, because both Scripture and science provide trustworthy evidence that dinosaurs were anything but silent. You can find out what the racket is about by reading the rest of " Sound Science About Dinosaurs &q

Some feller was investigating shrimp — oh, wait. Kathryn Feller (I got it right, now) was investigating the larvae of mantis shrimp. They are mostly transparent, except for their eyes, which reflect colors. The amazing thing is that they can become almost entirely invisible, as if they had a cloaking device. As expected, the researchers ruined good observational science by invoking evolution to explain their findings. Actually, they conflated natural selection with evolution. They should know better, since natural selection is not evolution. And no, there's no way they'd saddle up on design as an explanation, even though that's a reasonable conclusion. To figure out how the shrimp larvae hide their eyes, Kathryn Feller collected mantis shrimp larvae from Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. In her lab, exposed to ordinary white light, the shrimp glowed blue-green. “The whole sphere of the retina at the centre of the eye reflects this sparkly blue-green light,” she says. “It’s

Many creationists go against evolutionary and uniformitarian dogmas by believing that not only did man and dinosaurs coexist, but they are described in the Bible. Anti-creationists ridicule this concept because their presuppositions depend on "deep time" (billions of years) and evolution (which requires long ages). If they'd cognate on it for a spell, they'd realize that they're ignoring and suppressing evidence such as soft tissues found in dinosaur remains (not supposed to happen), carbon-14 results (shouldn't be any carbon-14 in them at all), and discard historical ( and not so historical ) accounts of dinosaurs with people. Remember, the word "dinosaur" didn't exist until Richard Owen came up with it in the 1840s. Before that, critters that were called "dragons" looked and acted quite a bit like we'd expect from dinosaurs (until fanciful tales made dragons into magical things). Here are two candidates for dinosaurs in the B

When you have a series of conjectures touted as a major scientific theory, and the scientists cling to their paradigm instead of realistically evaluating the evidence, you have corral full of irritated evolutionists. Once again, we hear about how a new discovery will cause them to substantially rewrite their timelines because one of the crossbeams has gone out of skew on an evolutionary treadle. This time, a fish fossil is hard to classify because it has a mix of features, and the evolution of the fish jaw needs re-cognating. To make matters worse for Darwinists, evidence for an intricate network of sensors and brain responders existed early on. Kinda like they were designed that way. A so-called “primitive” bony fish with traits of sharks confuses the usual story of fish ancestry. They’re calling it Janusiscus, part two-faced Janus and part piscus (fish). This fragmentary two-faced fossil from Siberia, claimed to be 415 million years old, has lots of bone but also some traits

Uniformitarian geologists, using their standard "the present is the key to the past" presuppositions, have used a dynamo theory to explain the earth's magnetic field. They also need to explain the magnetic field reversals. Although they don't really understand it and have a plausible model for it, they have the magnetic field reversing itself over huge amounts of time. Dr. Gary A. Glatzmaier / Los Alamos National Laboratory / U.S. Department of Energy / PD Evidence has been found for rapid field reversals that jump the uniformitarian fence; lots of theories and speculations are in jeopardy. This bothers the secularists, because it fits predictions made by biblical creationists like Dr. D. Russell Humphreys . Creationist models of the Genesis Flood involve many catastrophes, including catastrophic plate tectonics, changes in radioactive decay rates — and those pesky very rapid magnetic field reversals. At first, the evidence was being faced. Then they chose to

Those pesky microbes making people sick. But we were created with an immune system. Some people think this indicates there was disease before the Fall, and put forth some ideas that they hope will reconcile God's perfect creation with our disease-fighting capabilities. Some fall flat and are pretty much like faith assertions that are unsupportable from science and Scripture. However, we're full of the tiny critters, and our immune system does more than fight disease; not all viruses and microbes are harmful. If God originally created the world without death and disease, where did our bodies get their disease-fighting capabilities? Christians generally explain the origin of immune systems in three ways. These explanations, though, have theological and scientific snags. ...   Creationists need biblical explanations that are scientifically sound and not simply lighter versions of evolutionary lines of thinking. So, one way to begin is by asking: Does our immune system ser

There have been scoffers for many years who simply dismissed the Genesis Flood as a fanciful tale or a complete fabrication. (Worse, there have been liberal Christians who have agreed with atheistic interpretations of geology and said that the Flood never happened, that it was local, "tranquil", or some other nonsense.) Many flood legends exist around the world, and quite a few are only fit for jawing with folks to fill time while riding the lonely trail — nowhere near believable. Yet, many of the flood tales from around the world have elements in common with the Genesis account. The Great Flood / Artist unknown / PD Some scoffing scholars insist that since the "Epic of Gilgamesh" is the oldest legend of a global flood that we have on record, it must be the original, and Genesis is a copy of it. Even a superficial reading of the Gilgamesh story (written as a fantastical poem) shows that it's another story that has some of the same elements of the Genes

This post is a follow-up to " Charles Darwin, Creationist at Heart? " It won't be easy, because the content sometimes is deeper than the Colorado River at the 135 Mile marker. But the content is important. Evolution is a cornerstone of the fundamentally flawed atheist worldview, and both are irrational. They do not comport with reality, and do not have the necessary preconditions of human experience. Science, logic, morality and more are impossible if atheism and evolutionism are true. Professed atheists hate God , but claim that they do not. Their conduct betrays them with their emotional, illogical attacks on God and Christians. This post from Atheism on the Slide helps illustrate my point. Only the biblical Christian worldview (beginning at creation) is consistent and makes sense of those conditions for human experience. Yes, atheists and evolutionists can do science, act logically and be relatively moral because they are made in the image of God who upholds a

It will come as a shock to many people, but Charles Darwin was actually a biblical creationist. No, he didn't want to be, and he never knew it himself. The problem is that science, logic, morality, laws of nature, and more are not possible in an worldview based on materialism, atheism and evolutionism. Those are irrational paradigms. We expect laws of nature to be the same every day (or every minute). When I put my foot into the stirrup to saddle up, I expect to swing up and then sit in the saddle, not launch off into space because gravity suddenly changed. How can you perform science when things are changing? Yet, an evolutionary view is that life, the universe and everything are the products of time, chance, random processes, mutations and all that. Laws of logic are not material; you can't trip over the Law of Identity, for example. It can be described and used, but not seen or held. In a random universe, laws of logic will pretty much be nonexistent and make it impos

Evolutionary scientists have been speculating about conditions on a primordial earth. The failed Miller-Urey experiment was based on the assumption that our planet had a "reducing" atmosphere with gasses that prevented or removed oxygen, but scientists later found that oxygen was present early on. Oxygen is a paradox, because most life forms need it to survive, but something trying to evolve would be killed by it. So those owlhoots cling to their faith and try to cognate when oxygen arrived or formed on Earth. Without actual evidence, of course. Methane bubbles rising from the sea bed / Image courtesy of the NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program. There are life forms that live in extreme oceanic environments, such as those in deep  thermal vents . But there are things living in shallower, colder areas where methane seeps up from the ocean floor that are used, according to presumptions, to gauge changes early on our planet. Methane was one of the alleged primordial gasses in

Although some people consider evolution to be a biological theory, Darwin's ideas have been used to formulate and justify many negative philosophies. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, authors of The Communist Manifesto, were happy about Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.  Karl Marx said that it "provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle". Hitler was a Darwinist , the philosophies of eugenics are evolution-based, racism was "scientifically" justified by evolution , abortion has been supported by false evolutionary claims , and so on. Unfortunately, many liberal "Christians" also embrace evolutionism and shipwreck their fragile faith. Industrialist Andrew Carnegie (with his hero Charles Darwin added) People will find ways to justify their bigotry, selfishness, greed, and pride. (For that matter, see the kinship of atheism

Did cowboys of the old days ride across the land of Nevada and visit Fly Geyser? Not hardly. Oh, sure, they probably rode on the land itself, but the geyser didn't exist yet. It's only about a hundred years old, and its origins are a strange combination of natural processes, human activity — and maybe a bit of accident. Fly Geyser in Nevada / Podruznik / PD Some of the same stone that is found here is stuff that uniformitarian geologists say takes millions of years to form. The Genesis Flood had radically different and very extreme conditions that affected global geology, and Fly Geyser is yet another item that refutes secularist paradigms. In Nevada, there is an unusual water feature known as Fly Geyser, so-named as it is found at Fly Ranch, near the town of Gerlach, Washoe County. In the 1960s, a drill hole previously bored into a natural, underground source of water began gushing heated water up at the ground surface, creating a geothermal hot spring. Rock mineral

Although evolution is an ancient religion, it has become mostly associated with biology. Well, it had  been. Evolutionary thinking have since come to influence many areas, including various philosophies. Using a naturalistic base, people have presumed that evolution is true, and then based worldviews on that belief. Some try to derive ethical behavior from evolution, but cannot account for altruism and self-sacrifice, nor can they deal with innate values of what "ought" to be, which flies in the face of the deterministic view of what "is". The only rational basis for morality is biblical Christianity. David Hume, by Allan Ramsay Using "Hume's Guillotine", Brenton H. Cook shows how three evolutionary-based views of ethics are incomplete, and even self-refuting; the Naturalistic Fallacy is persistent. The problem of establishing an ontological basis for morality has troubled materialistic philosophers since Darwin. This paper demonstrates that

Evolutionary scientists are presenting speculation as actual science again, basing their reasoning on assumptions about the unobservable past. Someone left the gate open on the corral, and the horses of speculation are wandering into the Not Evolution range. That is, why  something evolved, since natural selection is supposed to be purposeless. Young Basement Cat getting acrobatic on a flimsy wooden drying rack. This was before she became a heifer. Scientists like this seem dour. Play not only evolved, but evolved for a purpose, never mind that these are mere assertions. Often, play takes creativity, especially in humans who are clowning around for entertainment purposes. Instead of using the utilitarian route, how about considering that the only purpose is to have fun, and the Creator granted us this bit of joy? Yes, your dog enjoys play, say biologists, and so do birds, dolphins and many other kinds of animals. How did “having fun” evolve? Current Biology’s first issue o

Researchers studying "fairness" in humans did the most logical thing: they studied animals. Sure, makes perfect sense. Not hardly, old son. How about studying humans? But no, they study animals. Not surprisingly, the researchers assume that evolution is true, and manage to not only indulge in typical circular reasoning, but raise more questions than they started with. Also, the results could more appropriately reveal that fairness was put in humans and some animals by design, not by blind chance evolution. How does it make you feel when you put forth just as much effort as the next guy, but he receives twice the reward? Unfair! But how did people acquire the sensibilities involved when assessing fairness? Certain animals recognize unequal rewards too, prompting researchers to try and unravel the origins of fairness. Publishing in Science, Sarah Brosnan from Georgia State University and Frans de Waal of Emery University reviewed studies on fairness in animals. Their re

It's ironic that people who don't believe the Bible want to know about how things seem "old" in the Genesis account of creation, and then refuse to accept explanations that are offered. Fortunately, there are people who honestly want to know about that as well. Even though some well-meaning creationists have offered their ideas, they should've left their six-guns in their holsters instead of misfiring and making things worse. "Creation of the Animals" / Raphael / 1519 When reading Genesis, we can tell that Adam and Eve were walking and talking from the beginning, they were to tend to the garden, trees bore fruit, animals were brought to Adam, stars were shining — those mean that there was an appearance of age, right? Not hardly. "Appearance of age" is an incorrect and misleading term, and entirely subjective. But there's a better way to look at things, especially if I stop muddying the waters with this introduction. Extracted and

A rodent fossil that kinda-sorta resembles a groundhog has been causing some difficulties in some Gondwana and evolutionary circles. A skull was discovered (except for the lower jaw) that was rather well preserved, causing some classification difficulties. One problem for paleontologists is that, according to their worldview, it was found in dinosaur strata, and shouldn't be there. Because of the discernible features, this critter does not fit into the three major mammal classifications, and is a candidate for its own classification. It has also been called "primitive". The fossil has a resemblance to a groundhog. This groundhog clip art has a resemblance to a groundhog as well. Scientists are using their worldviews to "explain" its transition, the hows and whys of its evolution, and its relationship to other mammals — using circular reasoning and selective data citing. Indeed, they may need to rewrite evolutionary history. Again. Biblical creation sci

Even before the Rosetta spacecraft and the Philae probe met up with their targeted comet, some Darwinoids were cheering in anticipation that the results of the mission would disprove the Genesis account of creation. According to their evolutionary worldview, the Bible is wrong and the universe was formed from the Big Bang, and the earth was a hot, molten blob with no water. So what stagecoach brought the water here, then? "Why, comets, of course, don'tcha unnerstan' science, ya idjit?" No, we don't understand speculations that have no logical or evidential support. 4-image mosaic of images taken from centre of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko on 14 December 2014 ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM – CC BY-SA IGO 3.0 But hope for reasons to reject the Creator spring eternal, old son. From one fact-free wish to another, since the comet-water idea was debunked , they jumped to the idea that asteroids brought water to Earth, not comets (ya idjit). Still, they throw abou