Piltdown Superman

Back in 1929, Edwin Hubble realized that the farthest galaxies had a redshift in the spectrums, and those also had the greatest redshifts. That became known as the Hubble Law , and was the beginning of what became the Big Bang origin of the universe story. Based on assumptions and speculations, secular cosmologists and cosmoginists did the math and expected evidence for the Big Bang in the Hubble telescope. It did not happen. The James Webb Space Telescope was built to be bigger and better — perhaps too good for their purposes. Phantom Galaxy M74, Flickr / James Webb Space Telescope ( CC BY 2.0 ) Amazing photographs were produced (but what we see is adjusted because the JWST works in the infrared). Secularists were alarmed because images were not comporting with the Big Bang tale . Worse, information actually supported biblical creationist predictions . The difficulties are compounding for the frequently-Frankensteined Big Bang, which should have been abandoned long ago. Hubble's

We have seen that, according to the expectations of secular cosmologists, the universe does not act its age. Expected antiquity is absent, and celestial bodies in our own solar system show activity that should not be happening. The bigger picture of the universe is also troubling to cosmic evolution. Earth orbits the sun, a well-behaved star in a galaxy with billions of its closest friends. Our galaxy is called the Milky Way. It is part of a larger group and...things just keep getting bigger. Barred spiral galaxies (like ours is thought to be) are another problem for secular scientists. Hubble image of barred spiral galaxy, NASA , ESA, et al  (usage does not imply endorsement) (modified at PhotoFunia ) It's that pesky James Webb Space Telescope contraption again. Secularists put that thing up there to confirm their biases about the Big Bang and the age of the universe, and they may very well be having some regrets. Spiral galaxies, expanding universe — okay, fine. But according to

No, that is not a typo. It means Jupiter Mass Binary Objects. Although Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system, it is gas with a great deal of mass. The James Webb Space Telescope has a great location and equipment, and it detected rogue planets — the hippies of the cosmos. These rogues are wandering around not bothering anyone. Some (binary Jupiters) even have dance partners. That is, it they orbit a common center of gravity. Same with the earth and the sun. But I digress. Elephants, Open Clipart and Jupiter, NASA et al  (who do not endorse this site) Prevailing views of how the universe formed and operates rely on dark matter and dark energy . The rogues are mostly dark as well, but unlike dark matter and energy, they have been detected. Hippie planets are causing problems for the establishment, maaaan ! That is, secular views of star and planet formation. Seems like those folks should be used to it by now because there are numerous challenges to their views already. Mayh

After many years and a great deal of expense, the James Webb Space Telescope was put in orbit.  Secularists have high hopes for the JWST regarding the Big Bang and life beyond Earth, and were greatly relieved that it is working properly. Now they think they can check out cosmic evolution. It should be kept in mind that we are talking about preliminary findings, and peer-reviewed material takes longer to become available. It's the nature of that beast. We need to look back to see why all the ruckus. JWST deep field galaxy cluster SMACS 0723, NASA / ESA / CSA / STScI (usage does not i mply endorsement of site contents) Regular readers have seen material on how the Big Bang, a concept that was mostly established in the early twentieth century, is often Frankensteined with new parts stitched in (rescuing devices). Although a tenet of faith for materialists who claim to love facts and science, there is no empirical evidence for the Big Bang. Lots of theory, lots of attempted confirmat

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  As stated many times before, Christians and creationists are called to a higher standard using evidence, logic, and apologetics than unbelievers. Further, we must show godly integrity in everything we do. One of the main principles in a debate, formal or informal is to honestly and accurately represent the opposing view . Otherwise, people make disingenuous straw man arguments. (Evolutionists frequently do this to creationist views.) Unfortunately, some influential creationists are making false statements about natural selection . Although I am not influential, I have been doing this to some extent as well. Lightbulb with world, Pixabay / PIRO4D Atheists try to slap leather with us, and are frustrated when a knowledgeable creationist returns fire with truth and reason. The abusive  ad hominem  "liar for Jesus" is falsely asserted when we know something of which they are ignorant, or simply do not like. However, we must not give them any basis to make

Human nature being what it is, after people learned that planets orbited the sun and that the stars are also miniature suns, they would have wondered if those distant suns had their own planets. In the 1990s, the first extrasolar planets (exoplanets) were discovered. Seeing distant objects on Earth is difficult enough, and the problem is much greater with such huge distances. People see pictures of planets with romantic names like TOI-1231 b, but such detail has never been observed — those pictures are artists' renderings. NASA / JPL-Caltech / R. Hurt (SSC-Caltech) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) I can't help but wonder if God built intellectual surprises into creation that would be discovered as we advanced in science. If you study on it a spell, you might realize that as scientists learn more about the world and the universe, they become more arrogant. Scientism and materialism become supreme, and atheism is on the rise while logic is being twisted beyond

It may come as a shock to some people, but there are absolutes in the universe. Think about them: moral standards, people can think logically, do math and science, and so on. Because of a risible and self-refuting trend that truth is subjective, Francis Schaeffer coined the term true truth , meaning truth that was absolute. The idea that there is no ultimate or absolute truth fits in quite nicely with Darwinism, atheism, Marxism, and other false salvation philosophies. Atheists do not have a consistent moral standard, preferring their morality to be subjective — again, this is self-refuting . Credit: Pexels /  RF._.studio Science needs the proper environment . This precludes atheistic naturalism as well as pagan and Eastern religious views, which will not let science thrive. A number of biblically-based presuppositions are necessary for science. One of these is objective truth. If you study on it, the subjective or relative truth ideas of postmodernism make science impossible. This fit

A source of contention between biblical creationists and other biologists is the created kinds that we read about in Genesis. We are not given a great deal of information about what exactly they are, which prompts discussion among creationists as well. The study of biblical created kinds is called baraminology. Creationists believe that Basement Cat and lions developed from the original cat kind. The same with dogs, horses, and such. We are all from the same human kind. The system of taxonomy we use was devised by creationist Carolus Linnaeus , and scientists have made adjustments to it for many years. He was attempting to determine the created kinds in Genesis, and at first, thought that kinds were on the level of species. Biologists of the creation persuasion tend to think that kinds most closely line up with the classification of family, but there is some variation on that theme. Sometimes a creationist will say “there are no transitional species” or “animals do change, bu

Atheists and other anti-creationists are known for using labels in their attacks on biblical creationists, but those are ad hominems  and used for building straw man arguments. They call us "science deniers", which is based on equating evolution with all science. (One rancorous tinhorn says certain creationists "hate science" despite being shown that his claim is completely false.) Many also like to say that biblical creationists use pseudoscience.  Actually, the opposite is true! Original image: The Angry One  by Ferdinand Hodler To fully appreciate this question, we need to lasso ourselves some important definitions. Science is a system of knowledge using a scientific method. However, there is other knowledge to be had that is not scientific. Pseudoscience is a false claim that knowledge is gained by scientific principles. Astrology uses scientific approaches and appears  scientific, but that is not the case . Also, these owlhoots rely on appeals to emot

Many promoters of scum-to-skeptic evolution have used the effete claim that evolution is essential for science. Informed Christians often respond that there is no evidence of evolution being even remotely important for the advancement of science and technology. Digging deeper, we also tell them that most of modern science is based on biblical thinking, and that the founders were often Bible believers . Atheists find this upsetting, and try to deny the facts. It's their nature, and what they do. Something that really annoys these owlhoots is when the basis of science itself is examined. To do science, consistency and uniformity in nature are required. For example, the cow doesn't jump over the moon. Another obvious example is that our sun is well-mannered, and does not fry us one day and freeze us the next. Scientists need to rely on uniformity.  This consistency is all a validation of principles found in the Bible, and the Christian worldview makes science possible. N

Back in the olden days while studying contract law, one thing was frequently emphasized: for a contract to be valid, there has to be a meeting of the minds. That is, both parties need to understand the terms of the agreement. Ever sign a legal document or read the terms of service for many products online? Words and expressions are defined, often in excruciating detail. This is foundational to reduce confusion. Credit: Pixabay / PDPics Ambiguity can be fun. Some owlhoot challenged me to a debate while I was stuffing feathers into a pillow. So, I threw down on him. "Throw down" can be literal, or the colloquialism for engaging in a challenge. It may have originated in days of old when knights were bold, and one would throw down the gauntlet when issuing a challenge.  We don't need confusion on terms when trying to understand or debate a subject. I disremember when and about what, but I was having an argument with a guy for parts of two days because we each had a

Or, "How Do I Refute Thee? Let Me Count the Ways..."  by Cowboy Bob Sorensen As we have seen numerous time on this site alone, anti-creationists want to debunk what we have to say. These self-appointed social justice warriors go on search-and-destroy missions, attacking creationary sites in their efforts to protect "science". In reality, they are attempting to protect evolutionism from rational scrutiny. We get a boatload of them at The Question Evolution Project . What follows involves my own observations as well as material that I recommend for your edification. Credit: Freeimages / gestoerte Darwin's Crusaders Science thrives on information and discussion, but anti-creationists not only oppose free speech, but free thought. Darwinism must  be guarded, lest people see it for what it really is. Many of these folks fancy themselves as crusaders for science, falsely  calling those who disagree with evolution "liars" , egos telling them t

Darwin's defenders often say that the science of genetics refutes biblical creation science and affirms gunk-to-geneticist evolution. That'll be the day! In reality, further research in genetics has been a gold mine for creation science, and the prediction by creationists that there is no "junk" DNA has been confirmed several times . Evolutionists do not help their cause by using deception and bad science, such as when they stitched together the chimpanzee genome and say those critters are our closes relatives. The DNA puzzle is not yet complete, but continues to refute evolution and support special creation. DNA puzzle, Pixabay / qimono Changes in what is known about genetics is rapidly changing, so what we read in textbooks is incomplete or even erroneous today. DNA is more than a storage medium for a n amazing a mount of information, it is a language as well. People who want to know more on the subject have an uphill climb. When scientists commence to wr

Mockers sometimes say that Proverbs 26:4-5 are a blatant contradiction. If they'd bridle their enthusiasm, they might see that those verses are put together for a reason: It is a contrast, not a contradiction. Unbelievers do not like what God says about them (Psalm 53.1, Romans 1.18-22), but I reckon I'm not going to argue against the Creator of the universe to please others. Believers are to defend the faith, but we must do it biblically. When someone says, "Leave God (or the Bible) out of this and let's debate on neutral ground", that's saddling up someone else's horse to ride. You're answering the fool according to his folly and being just like him. But you can reflect back to him and show him his folly so he isn't such a clever fellow in his own eyes. (Dr. Jason Lisle has some information on the "Don't Answer, Answer" strategy .) If you bring yourself down to the unbeliever's level, old son, you're not going to get a