Piltdown Superman

One of the most frequent problems that creationists have with evolutionists is that they refuse to do their homework. That is, they will indulge in prejudicial conjecture (making uninformed assertions) as well as building straw man arguments against creationists. They do not know what we believe and teach, and will rely on the equivalent of rumors to form their opinions. Many times, we have to correct evolutionists about what evolutionist actually believe! Voyager 2, NASA One area where evolutionists humiliate themselves is when they assert things that are simply untrue (including how evolution makes useful predictions). While there are many false claims about creationists, I will focus on one: The untrue assertion that creationists do not make valid predictions. One fellow challenged me on Twitter to give just one  creationist prediction that was true. I told him about Dr. Russell Humphreys and his predictions about planetary magnetic fields , which were proven correct and the

"Just a minute, Cowboy Bob! We all know that  14 C  has nothing to do with the age of the Earth!" For the most part, that is true. Uniformitarian scientists use long-term dating methods, test meteorites and select a result that best fits their presuppositions . It would be better for all if they were more scientific and actually examined their starting points. Using uniformitarian assumptions, Carbon-14 should not exist in many items. But it does  exist. People make excuses for it, including " contamination " and testing errors. (That casts aspersions on the labs doing the testing, and should  undermine their confidence in the testing methods in general.) Actually, Carbon-14 is a serious threat to the idea of an ancient Earth, and far better supports creationist Flood geology. Evolutionists have long used the carbon-14, or radiocarbon, dating technique as a “hammer” to bludgeon Bible-believing Christians. A straightforward reading of the Bible describes

One of the most confusing (and annoying) problems in discussing origins is the misuse of terminology . The word "evolution" itself has several different definitions. Use a word, and people often have a definition in mind — which may not be appropriate for the discussion at hand. Some people will disingenuously equivocate the proper definition for the moment into "molecules to man" evolution. CDC.gov/ Janice Haney Carr Another confusing problem is that Darwin's Cheerleaders will point to variations and say, "See? Evolution in action!" Variations in a microbe such as  Pseudomonas aeruginosa are often used to extrapolate small changes as "proof" of Darwin's general theory of evolution. That is the opposite of the truth; no new genetic information is added. Rapidly “evolving” bacteria are in the news. A mutation toggling the bacteria  Pseudomonas aeruginosa  between two distinct forms is generating excitement among evolutionary

In recent years, American voters were bombarded with questions about embryonic stem cell research for medical and other purposes , and if federal funding to destroy the lives of the unborn to further this research should be allowed. All sorts of claims were made about the benefits of ESR, but they were with little merit. It was mostly emotional hype based on leftist politics and the "right" to abortion. Meanwhile, adult stem cell research has been progressing. There are some startling benefits from the stem cells of humans — and some animals. The results are very encouraging, and human life does not need to be sacrificed. With adult and induced pluripotent stem cells in abundance, it should not be necessary to destroy human embryos to understand stem cell science. Research with adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) is continuing to produce amazing discoveries. Read about some of these amazing discoveries at " Stem Cell Science Can Pro

Another example of the intricate complexities that we see all around us is in the chemistry of human pregnancy. There are seeming paradoxes in the changes that seem to be understood now. Image courtesy of  David Castillo Dominici  / FreeDigitalPhotos.net Although it is obvious that such intricacy is the product of the master Designer, evolutionists blindly place their faith in time, chance and random mutations. The onset of pregnancy presents an apparent contradiction. Ovulating and initially pregnant mothers experience an increase in progesterone. On the one hand, this hormone signals the immune system to back down and lay low. That's critical, because otherwise her body would fight and kill sperm cells as though they were unwelcome invaders, and she would never become pregnant. But on the other hand, progesterone reduces cholesterol levels in her body. Too much progesterone would doom a developing baby, who requires cholesterol. Why would one action both promote and p

It is ironic that critics of the Bible misunderstand (deliberately, I believe) that it actually affirms the value of women — sometimes contrary to cultures of the times. In contrast, the evolutionary worldview devalues human life . "Survival of the fittest", natural selection, " It's only a fish going through evolutionary stages " and other excuses contribute to this concept . In many cultures, women are of lesser value. With the increase of abortion "rights" in the West, there is also an increase in abortions because the mothers do not want girl babies.  Here  is the real  "war on women"! Ironically, abortion is fundamental to "feminism" today, but history shows quite the opposite. What value does society place on women, born or unborn? Biblical Christianity stands in stark contrast, placing value on humans who are created in the image of God. Lita Cosner writes, Abortion-rights activists, especially among the modern fem

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.

Evolutionary cosmologists get more things wrong than they get right. Using their presuppositions, they make predictions. (Don't we all?) The problem is, whenever the space probes get close enough to celestial objects that are the subjects of scientists' predictions, the preductions are incorrect. NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute These scientists do great calculations and can describe the present, but when it comes to explaining planetary origins, they do poorly. In fact, they make up some nice stories that have no substantive basis. But they must  have an ancient universe, because evolutionists  must  have huge amounts of time to plug into their conjectures. Creationists do not have these problems. Like Enceladus, Saturn’s moon Titan shows multiple signs of being far less than 4.5 billion years old – yet the press releases are strangely silent about the implications.   As we showed recently with Enceladus (8/7/13), planetary scientists become oddly silent

The little things do matter, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The more our science and technology develop, the more we can learn about the Creator's intricate design. For example, the Kinesin Linear Motor: We are also learning more about the things that harm us. Mark Armitage  is a scientist who is helping to increase our knowledge. He has been fascinated by magnifying things since he was young, and even makes micrographs. After he became an evolutionary scientist (following the crowd, believing because he thought that was the way scientists think), he became a biblical creationist. Among other things, he takes pictures of the microscopic world and has many technical publications. Meet a scientist whose work involves high-precision photographic enlargements of a microscopic world we seldom see … Mark Armitage talks with Tas Walker about ‘the things that are not’. ‘I distinctly remember when I was infected with the microscope bug’, recalls research scien

The Hardy-Weinberg Principle is taught to help give an understanding of gene frequency in a population. It is a useful tool when used accurately. Unfortunately, there is a bit of "bait-and-switch" happening with the term "evolution". People start out using evolution correctly, and then equivocate with molecules-to-man evolution. This takes a helpful principle and turns it into an inaccurate propaganda device. Public schools, colleges, and universities today teach the Hardy-Weinberg Principle in biological science courses, and many of them do so inaccurately. The inaccuracy of these teachings are simply due to either a misunderstanding of the application of the Hardy-Weinberg Principle and equation, or it may be due to a deliberate misinterpretation of its uses to further support and promote a “macroevolutionary” philosophy. We will discuss how instructors are using the Hardy-Weinberg Principle as evidence for molecules-to-man Darwinian evolution, why this metho