Piltdown Superman

We've reached the conclusion of this series on radiometric dating, which are methods used to determine the age of the earth and rock samples; clocks in the rocks. The linked articles have had information for lay people as well as those more technologically inclined, showing how methods of radiometric dating are based on several assumptions, circular reasoning, wildly varying results, and more. Here are links to the previous installments in the series: Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 , Part 5 , Part 6 , Part 7 .  This article discusses some heavy metal stuff. That is, isotopes of lead. It is supposed to be reliable if scientists include some interesting data juggling. But like the other methods, this one also goes over like a lead balloon. If uniformitarian geologists would play the cards they're dealt, they'd see that the earth was created, and it was created much more recently than they want to believe. Sorry, Papa Darwin, no time for evolution to h

Some people don't seem overmuch concerned with their worldview, and some even deny having one. But if you cognate on it a mite, you'll see that everyone has a worldview. Maybe they haven't organized and written down their philosophy of life, but we all have a system of beliefs (presuppositions) by which we live our daily lives; everyone is a philosopher to some extent. Do you want to get all you can in life because you can't take it with you? That's close to hedonism. Do you want to glorify Jesus and proclaim the truth? That's Christian, and you've probably thought that one out. Even on a more mundane scale, when you get out of bed, you expect gravity to work the same today as it did before. You get the picture. For a scientist to do science stuff, they have to believe in God's created order. Logic works without exception, such as the law of non-contradiction: something can't be both true and false at the same time in the same way. You can'

Secular astronomers and cosmologists tell us the universe is 13,820,000,000 years old or thereabouts. Are they right? Why should we believe them? Although they use calculations based on data, they also use several assumptions (including that the universe is ancient) in the first place. However, there are other possibilities to consider, especially since astronomers keep finding evidence of a young  universe, including up yonder in our own solar system . Globular cluster NGC 6365 Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA, Acknowledgement: Gilles Chapdelaine Creation scientists have theories and models. One is the age in a time dilated universe. The following article by Dr. Ronald G. Samec  discusses this, how globular clusters do not show their alleged old age, and how secular explanations fall short. In creation time dilation cosmologies (e.g. Humphreys and Hartnett), while the earth experiences less than 10,000 years of recorded history (God’s time clock), millions, and possibly billions,

It seems that proponents of goo-to-you evolution want things flexible. Evolution is presented as an irresistible force, and things will  evolve; after all, R. Clinton Dawkins said that evolution has been observed, but not when it's happening. But if the fossil record show something allegedly millions of years old and its living descendants are unchanged, they call it "stasis" because they didn't have to evolve. I reckon it makes perfect sense to someone, somewhere. Blind fish and certain crustaceans are supposed to be evidence of evolution. They lose  abilities (including a bit of brain), and that is presented as evolution, which supposedly gains  abilities and information. Glad I'm just a regular guy who doesn't have to pretend he understands such highfalutin "reasoning". Three blind crustaceans, confined to cavernous darkness, have brains that are several nerve clusters short of an optic lobe. When it comes to a brain center for processi

A volcano gets a notion to erupt and form an island. Hot times! But what happens next? (Maybe the rocks of known age will be tested to be 250,000 years old using fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods , but never mind about that now.) The new island begins to cool, and a whole passel of activity begins. After all, that's what happened with the island of Surtsey, off the coast of Iceland. There's life, and also geologic formations that threaten uniformitarian paradigms. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory satellite For that matter, Mt. St. Helens had a big eruption in the state of Washington, and has been recovering nicely. Also, it has been a geological laboratory, with a mini Grand Canyon that obviously did not take millions of years to form. It's been the frequent subject of evidence for what would have happened during and after the Genesis Flood. How about this new one, Nishinoshima, off the coast of Japan (if you consider 1,000 km/621 miles "of

Proponents of microbes-to-maids evolution are still gnawing on that bone of their hypothesis despite increasing advances in science — especially genetics. So called "junk" DNA turned out to be an embarrassment, since it's not junk at all. Non-functional "pseudogenes" are functional after all. What more can go wrong? morgueFile / buttons_on-off_001 / click Things are starting to get unpleasant hereabouts, especially since the study of epigenetics  is causing a some consternation. Changes can appear in organisms as if environmental factors switched them on and off. Neo-Darwinism requires long amounts of time, and some living things can modify too fast  to suit evolutionists. This all fits in right nicely with the expectation of biblical creationist biologists, however. During the European winter of 1944, Allied troops were pushing toward Germany. In Nazi-occupied Holland, Dutch drivers went on strike to further hinder the German war effort. In retaliation

First up, I want to get some important information out regarding snakes, especially since summer's coming to these here United States, Canada, and the Northern Hemisphere. Don't be thinking you know something about snakes because you watched some movies and television. Some rattlesnakes don't do you the courtesy of coiling up before striking, or even rattling. Watch your step (got hiking boots?), and don't be groping under rocks, woodpiles, and that sort of thing. If you're out for a hike or a dinosaur dig and you encounter a snake — any snake — leave it alone! The same for if you find one in your shed, garage, or some other place. They don't want to deal with you and usually want to just get away. Freeze, visually locate the critter, and slowly back off, Pilgrim. Image credit: Rattlesnake at Echo Park, Dinosaur National Monument / US National Park Serpents — I mean, Service Here are some articles on what to do when you encounter them:  Dealing With Sna

A newly discovered psychological disorder classified under anxiety disorders-phobias is called literalgenesisphobia . This phobia is the intense fear that literal creationists are right and there is a God after all. This psychological disorder is rare phobia, but it is commonly seen in militant atheists and ardent adherents to the evolution paradigm. Brain scans have shown the lack of development in the critical thinking areas of the brain which, when compared to creationists brain scans, is seen to be underdeveloped and smaller than creationists. That is, the brain tissue that is used in the function of critical thinking which can be measure physically is smaller (therefore underused) in atheists, atheopaths and ardent evolutionists compared to the brains of creationists. Current research into this psychological disorder shows lack of social skills. They also exhibit inability to debate and present data empirically and coherently, resulting in maladaptive behaviours towards tho

Something many creationists emphasize is that scientists argue from their worldviews, but people who indulge in Scientism and put scientists on pedestals seem to view them as fact-finding automatons, unclouded by avarice and emotion. Not hardly! They are just as prone to vices and ambitions as the rest of us mere mortals. Geology historian Dr. Martin Rudwick wrote an evolutionary book, Earth's Deep History.  He wrote an appendix to the book that ridicules creationists, and uses numerous logical fallacies that are unworthy of a historian of his stature. He argues from his worldview (scientists do that), but engages in ad hominem  attacks, prejudicial conjecture , loaded language (such as "fundamentalists" without actually defining what those are), the fallacy of exclusion (suppressing or ignoring evidence), straw man  ( comparing creationists to Flat Earthers — seriously?), rewriting history (including the Scopes trial ), and more. In addition, he ignores the fact

Darwinian evolution is a belief system about the distant past that cannot be observed or duplicated. It is philosophical and religious in nature, an effort to account for life, the universe, and everything without God the Creator. For Darwinism to work, huge amounts of time are needed. To keep this view, secularists ignore or excuse away evidence for a young earth — and a young solar system. Enceladus image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SSI/PSI There have been several indications of youth from the solar system, especially the moons. But scientists keep seeing potential for life to evolve out there, and are repeatedly surprised by geologic activity on moons. Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, was erupting jets into space, which should not be possible in an ancient solar system. Now it looks like the hot water eruptions are more like curtains rather than jets, which would cause even more problems for deep time proponents. Also, Jupiter's moon Europa was considered a hopeful place to f

Proponents of Darwinian evolution are known to claim that amazingly complex DNA is friendly to their belief system. That's the opposite of the truth. We had the "junk DNA" fiasco, where evolutionist studied some of the genome, didn't understand a lot of it, had that relegated to "junk" status, and were embarrassed when proper research refuted the "junk" claims. The fact is, a great deal of DNA is not yet understood. Scientists have attempted to determine how transcription factors bind to the genome so they can switch genes on and off. This has had poor results. However, it looks like they've saddled up the right horse this time, with new research and a three-dimensional model. And this  time, scientists were more interested in doing science instead of being Darwin's Cheerleaders — no silly claims about evolution. Maybe because the research itself was very complex, and gave them a bit of proper perspective about the design skills of the

Some owlhoots claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. If they had knowledge to go with their enthusiasm, they would know that the origin of life is foundational  to evolution. Attempting to distance themselves from the insurmountable problems of abiogenesis (including the law of biogenesis that indicates life only comes from life, and irreducible complexity ) is disingenuous at best. Adapted from " swampyWater3 " by mconnors / morgueFile The failed Miller-Urey experiment is being zombified with some fanciful fact-free new ideas, and I reckon that nearly anyone can see that the new presentations are chock full of assumptions. Some of these involve the conditions of their fantasy primordial Earth, the world being ancient in the first place (Papa Darwin's scum-to-sculptor ideas require a lot of time), disagreement within the ranks of other Darwinians, nothing can be plausibly demonstrated, and more. You'd think they'd think about evi

Secular geologists (and some Bible compromisers) accept fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods to determine the age of the earth. These are based on uniformitarian presuppositions, which are in turn based on several assumptions, including a constant decay rate. In addition, they not only give wildly varying results, but outrageously bad old-earth ages for young  rocks of known  ages! This is science? Not hardly. But they cling to this because they are locked into naturalism, and cannot allow a divine foot in the door, even though their methods are unreliable. Evolution requires a great deal of time, and uniformitarianism is essential to that. Creationist scientists have demonstrated that the rate of decay is not constant, which ruins one of the primary assumptions of uniformitarian dating methods. The biggest causes of change was the Genesis Flood. In addition, there are many other indicators of a young earth that are conveniently ignored by old earth geologists and evolu

It is easy to see that evolutionary education is misnamed. It is not education, it is indoctrination , and if evidence for Intelligent Design or creation science was presented, it might "confuse" students , and they would dare to doubt Darwin. The vigilant Evo Sith are on patrol to silence opposition and protect "science" by disingenuously equivocating "evolution" with "science". These sidewinders must be an embarrassment to evolutionists who actually think, and who want to examine the evidence instead of rejecting creation science simply because they believe what they're told about what creationists say . Some of us reckon that if people were allowed to see evolutionary thinking with it's flaws and with evidence that supports creation, there would be far fewer Darwinists. Creationists want people to learn critical thinking, and some of us emphasize learning logical fallacies so people are not deceived by profound pronouncements

The Cambrian Explosion (where complex fossils suddenly appear) has been a problem for Darwinian evolutionists for a mighty long time. They come up with some strange ways to explain it , but those aren't satisfying. They still cling to their faith despite observed evidence, though. To make the Cambrian Explosion more baffling for evolutionists, the deeper Precambrian area is sparse with fossils, and creationists are excited about research into a seventh megasequence . Using advanced technology, paleontologists are soaking up the excitement about a tiny sea sponge fossil. Sponges and coral / NOAA Now the sponge (the sea sponge that is, not my weird neighbor) is back in the running as the oldest human evolutionary ancestor. Yes, they really think that. Their excitement is based on circular reasoning and presuppositions about the age of the rocks and their evolutionary sequence paradigms. The sponge itself? Pretty much the same anatomy as modern sponges. No evolution here, folks.

If I was involved in a longhorn cattle drive back in the old days (say about 1870), we'd get 2,000 or more head of cattle to Kansas. Let's go with Abilene. We reach the destination and are offered $4.00 per hundredweight. I don't cotton to that price, so I check around a few more places. Yep, that's what others are offering. What if I decided that the price is the same everywhere? I might be correct about the rate in that part of Abilene, but could be missing out on another dollar per hundredweight elsewhere. Or maybe even much less. You can only apply your observations just so far. Supposed dark matter ring in galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17 Source: Hubblesite.org Evolutionists, whether Darwinian, cosmological, or other, tend to make numerous logical fallacies. This includes extrapolating from a limited amount of observed data and assuming that the observations extend further. "Dark matter" (and it's relative, "dark energy") supposedly m

The public seems to have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to science and the scientists that make science and technology happen. Many will blindly accept what scientists say (or what the science press claims what scientists say). Some go as far as to make man-made science philosophies the ultimate source of truth and knowledge. Then the disconnect. People are skeptical of what scientists say, while being enamored of science. Despite the claims of evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, and those tinhorns who go haywire alternating between atheism and agnosticism, it's not st00pid unedjamakated dumb Xtians who have doubts. Instead, there are people who think and are informed about science matters who have doubts. Can you blame anyone for having doubts? Scientists say things that are not exactly true, and the science press has the grace, dignity, and accuracy of a cattle stampede, making grandiose claims about "discoveries" that the scientists themselves do not reco

It seems that every time cosmologists find a safe trail to ride in tracking the Big Bang, another rattlesnake pops out and spooks their horses. Cosmic microwave background radiation was supposed to be a smoking gun proof of the Big Bang, but it raised more problems than it solved. More recently, the revamped Big Bang hypothesis has had problems, including  quantum fluctuations , primordial lithium , the recent "gravity waves" fiasco , and speculations that there was no Big Bang after all . They keep drawing cards and ending up with a losing hand. Another problem for Big Bang proponents is a cold spot in the sky. A big one. Attempted explanations are failing, and fouling up the whole shootin' match. Reason indicates a Creator, not a cosmic accident. In a new paper, scientists have announced the discovery of an enormous region of lower-than-average galaxy density about three billion light-years from Earth. This "supervoid," the largest single structure ev

When you see the green trees, red roses, blue skies with white clouds, a rainbow in the sky, stars at night, the Grand Canyon, the Great Barrier Reef, Highlands of Scotland, Moraine Lake, Blyde River Canyon, the people you meet, birdies chirping in the trees, you may be thinking to yourself that it's a wonderful world. That it is, old son, that it is. But it's also a wrecked  world. That's right, all the splendor around us is a remnant after the judgement of the Genesis Flood. I reckon that we can't imagine the splendor of the original creation, but God's people will see the new  creation (Rev. 21:1-5, Rev. 22:1-5). We can try to imagine that, but we know we're not even close. We hear about the supercontinent called Pangaea, which broke up into the land masses that we see today. There was supposedly another one before that called Rodinia. No, it doesn't mean land of rodents. Rodinia also broke up. The hypothesis is that Rodinia broke up, continents crash

As a child, did you ever play " Pin the Tail on the Donkey "? You blindfold the participants (one at a time), spin them a bit, then have them put a tail thing on a picture of a donkey that is attached to a wall or something. I wasn't too fond of that game. Darwinists often try to pin the tail on the human by claiming that sometimes people are born with "tails". (Sometimes they confuse "tail" with the tailbone, or coccyx, which is a part of normal human embryonic structure .) These people claim that these "tails" are leftover from our alleged evolutionary history. Now, wait a minute, old son. When someone says that we "evolved from monkeys", they risk the wrath of evolutionists who say that we didn't evolve from monkeys or apes, but that they diverged from a common ancestor way back yonder. But they want to claim we had tails, the "throwbacks" prove it. Lemurs have tails, and they're on the evolutionary tree, wh