Piltdown Superman

It should come as no surprise that not only are rocks exposed at the Grand Canyon, but the layers as well. Geological questions are raised, so the inability of secularists to give plausible answers to what is observed exposes their faulty presuppositions as well. Coconino Sandstone (center) / Image credit: US Department of Agriculture Forestry Service (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) When dealing with a claim, it is often helpful to examine what would be expected if it were true. We can also ask about things that are missing. Uniformitarian (slow and gradual processes over deep time) geology has many holes in the stories told about what is observed.  If Genesis Flood geology models are true, there are certain things we would expect to find, and creationists have to deal with holes in the theories as well. However, Flood geology is far more plausible in describing observed evidence in the Grand Canyon. As you look across Grand Canyon, observe the layers on both walls.

We have examined radiometric dating on this site many times, and the article linked below provides some information that is inconvenient for those who believe in deep time. The age of the earth is calculated this way by testing meteorites , not rocks on Earth. However, the dating methods are unreliable. Assembled with graphics from Openclipart It should raise the suspicions of almost anyone that there are numerous dating methods used on rocks. This is because they are not consistent and have results that vary wildly with one another, and there are numerous assumptions that must be made . Creation scientists have done their own calculations and shown how secular systems are flawed. Further, a Genesis Flood model is a far better fit for the facts. Have you ever pulled apart a large mass of taffy and watched it break into two approximately equal masses? This is an illustration of what happens in the subatomic world when a 238 U or 235 U atom undergoes splitting, or fission. Nuclea

Rusty Swingset and the hands at the Darwin Ranch like to present the fossil record as an orderly progression of simple to more complex life forms. They get on the prod when someone points out that fossils are frequently out of order according to the evolution narrative. Enhanced and cropped from Wikimedia Commons / andytang20 ( CC by 2.5 ) Point out to some tinhorns that some fossils are in the wrong place and mixed with other fossils, if you watch closely, you can see ghastly plumes of smoke rising from their heads like Ethel Rosenberg. Jumbled fossils support the Genesis Flood and rein in evolutionary excitement. In this case, a kind of Edmontosaurs in Japan caused a heap of excuse making. After all, they detest the truths of recent creation and the Genesis Flood. Researchers published the hadrosaur’s detailed description in the online journal Scientific Reports and named the fossil Kamuysaurus japonicus . Hadrosaurs, known popularly as duck-billed dinosaurs, had plant-eati

You'd think that it would be just a matter of time that ancient fossils supporting abiogenesis would be found, what with all that searching for proof of evolution instead of doing useful science and all. Unfortunately for them, this fossil discovery causes some serious problems. Credit: Image cropped from Pixabay / Couleur One problem is that the fossilized microbes are pretty much the same as their living counterparts. Strange, I thought evolution was a kind of irresistible force and that everything has to evolve — especially over billions of Darwin years and environmental pressures. Sure, they can do plenty of hand waving and ignore the "stasis" problem, but there are more troubles: they have no idea how Earth got its oceans, and undocumented abiogensis is supposed to have happened almost instantly. Not scientific, old son. The evidence refutes evolution and supports recent special creation, but they continue to deny the truth. Recently, evolutionists discovere

It is an exciting time to be a biblical creationist. Evidence keeps on accumulating to confirm what we've said all along, and it is not supportive of evolution. The refutation of the"junk" DNA evolutionary idea is bothersome for them. But one item that really gets evolutionists on the prod is the fact of soft tissues in fossils. (Note that I'm deliberately using the word fossil in its more general sense ; it doesn't necessarily mean that something has been permineralized. Ian Juby discussed that word in a segment on fossilized dinosaur skin at the 20 minute 13 second mark in this video clip .) The reason for consternation on the soft tissues is that they are strong evidence that Earth was created recently, not billions of years ago, and that dinosaurs have not been extinct for millions of years. Image credit: Pixabay / agfcontact Some anti-creationists will pretend that dinosaur soft tissues are irrelevant, others try to ignore them completely, and you

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Before I get to the article that I'm featuring below, there are some personal notes that I wanted to share. Many years ago in Lansing, Michigan, I was browsing a Christian bookstore and found a 4" wide by 8" tall (101.6 mm x 228.6 mm) booklet of 28 pages called "Should Evolution Be Taught?" by Dr. John N. Moore. I showed it to my father, a pastor in the now thoroughly apostate United Methodist church. He told me that Dr. Moore was his professor of natural science when he attended Michigan State University (he received his BA in 1957), and was given a rough time for disbelieving evolution. Naturally, he was surprised that Dr. Moore was writing in favor of creation science! Speaking of MSU, an owlhoot going by the name of Richard Lenski objected to scientific evidence against his bacteria experiment , gave some snark , and then blocked me. This is a scientist? I corresponded with Dr. Moore a couple of times (he thought maybe he re

Critics of creationists will often complain that all we do is pick at flaws in evolutionary theories, so why don't creationists round up some research? Well, busting evolutionary broncos is often quite easy because Darwin's Cheerleaders frequently fail at critical thinking, and there are numerous flaws in what is considered evidence for evolution. They get ornery when we point out those things. But more than that, anti-creationists seldom do their homework, preferring prejudicial conjecture instead. If they did scout around the Web, they would learn some starting things that interfere with their biases. Creationary scientists actually do research, write papers, have jobs in scientific fields, publish in peer-reviewed journals and more. Although the Bible is their foundation, they still conduct "real" science, including life sciences . Here is an article by Dr. Jason Lisle from the Institute for Creation Research about activities in biology, DNA, stratigraphic c

One of my contentions about evolutionists and atheists is that, although they claim that they want "evidence" for the God of creation, it is an empty demand. The evidence is all around them. When they go on their rants, I wonder if they are trying to convince themselves that their fundamentally flawed worldview is valid after all, instead of trying to get biblical creationists to embrace their version of "science". For example, when I mentioned that soft dinosaur tissue had been found (which is impossible by evolutionary time scales), one fellow claimed that creationists were wrong, dishonest, had old material and so forth. He refused to accept the actual science, and preferred to cling to his refuted presuppositions. I wonder what he thinks now, since more and more of these frustrations for evolution have been found. Microscopy expert Mark Armitage returned to Real Science Radio to discuss the soft tissue, the CRS iDINO project and other items.

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.

A huge problem for evolutionary cosmologists is the formation of Earth's moon. Several theories have been put forward that seem somewhat plausible at a glance, but have fallen apart with further scrutiny. Even the newest (fifth) hypothesis is already on the verge of being ejected . Of course (and as usual), the most logical conclusion is one that best fits the facts, but evolutionists do not want to consider that  possibility. So, the Man in the Moon is having a good laugh at their expense... For the past 200 years, scientists have been working hard to come up with an explanation for the Moon's formation that does not involve the direct work of a Creator. The fourth hypothesis in that  the Moon was formed by the impact upon Earth of a body the size of Mars . Early this year it was  proved to be wrong by new evidence . A fifth hypothesis has quickly taken its place! You can read about the five theories, why they fail and the best conclusion at " Another Lunar Formati

morgueFile/xandert (modified)  No scientist is neutral regarding data (despite the claims of Darwin's Cheerleaders). Everyone has a starting point. Creation scientists have long pointed out flaws and inconsistencies in radiometric dating. Evolution scientists obtain inconsistent results that are cherry-picked to fit their uniformitarian, fundamentally flawed presuppositions. Scientists put forward models and ideas and see if the data support them. Creationists from the RATE Project have been frustrating uniformitarian scientists . But they are not in lockstep on their models or their findings, and are continuing their investigations and analyses. Radiometric dating is  still a faulty argument  against biblical history.  Naturalistic geolo­gists often  “cherry-pick” dates  they deem appropriate to their particular studies.  Carbon-14  has been found in coal and diamond samples  supposedly be billions of years old , even though the half-life of  14 C is only 5730 years. The

February 12 is Question Evolution Day! One of the largest flaws in evolutionists' "logic" is the circular reasoning of the fossil record. How old is the fossil? You can tell because of the rock layers that contained it. How can you tell how old the rock layers are? Because of the fossils in them. The so-called geologic column only exists in textbooks, not in nature. Aside from the blatant question begging, this method of dating fossils also makes unwarranted assumptions about the uniformity of original conditions. Stratigraphy, the basis of geological dating, was founded in the seventeenth century on three principles proposed by Nicolas Steno: superposition, continuity, and original horizontality. Successive observations and experiments show that his stratigraphic model was not in line with experimental data, because it overlooked the major variable factor of sedimentation: the current and its chronological effects. Experiments simulating the formation o

A new curve fit to a new compilation of data shows with new clarity that from 1900 to 2010, the main “dipole” part of the earth’s magnetic field decayed exponentially (constant percent loss per year) with a small sine-wave variation. The time constant of the exponential part is 1611 (± 10) years. The sinusoidal part has a period of 66.1 (± 1.3) years and an amplitude of 0.29 (± 0.02) % of the main part today. The fit is very good, with most points within 0.05% of the curve. The distinctness of the exponential part gives new strength to the creationary model of the field, that losses in the earth’s core today are steadily decreasing the electric current producing the dipole field, thus supporting a young earth. A simple electric circuit clarifies the decay model. The small sine-wave part, apparently not noticed in the dipole moment data before now, may be due to an east-west torsional oscillation between core and mantle. This corresponds to an approximately 60-year cycle observed i