Piltdown Superman

EDIT: Click here for a great improvement on this picture . Big news: Fossil squirrels found in China. Bigger news: They were found in Jurassic rock layers. This is not surprising to biblical creationists, but poses some problems for evolutionary paleontologists because such complex mammals should not have existed yet according to their presuppositions. Worse for them, there is no appreciable change between the extinct rodents and modern ones (like those that irritate my wife by getting into the allegedly "squirrel proof" bird feeder). Excuses kick into gear, even though evolution is touted as a kind of irresistible force — except when there is no change, then "stasis" is invoked. Another reason this shouldn't be a surprise is that mammals have been found by paleontologists on dinosaur digs before . So, evolutionists are telling us things they know aren't true. There's a word for that, but I don't recollect what it is right now. It is a f

Pardon me for reification , but I'm going to say that observed geologic evidence screams, "Global catastrophic Genesis Flood" — a lot of water in a relatively short time. Old-earth geologists usually insist on uniform processes carving out canyons and things over millions or billions of years. Then they contradict themselves by saying arid Mars had surface features carved out by catastrophic floods. There is talk of wind sandblasting erosion on Mars, even though the atmosphere there is practically nonexistent. Wind erosion there, like here, would not allow surface features to be standing after huge amounts of time. Some geologists are scaling back their time estimations. Not to biblical timeline levels, but some drastic reductions just the same. Chryse Planitia on Mars, photo from Viking 1 / NASA It is interesting that some geologists are rethinking the whole thing, and seeing that some features on Earth were made by catastrophic processes like they supposedly h

The large icebergs that are seen today are dangerous (most of it is below water) but also impressive. It turns out that there were probably icebergs in the past that made today's bergs seem puny in comparison. What factory turned those babies out? freeimages / lyeager / " Antarctic Iceberg #4 " The Ice Age produced the big ones. Secular uniformitarian scientists cannot account for conditions that would cause the Ice Age, nor can they account for those icebergs. However, biblical creationist geologists' models based on the Genesis Flood give explanations for both the Ice Age and the big bergs. What is the recipe for making an iceberg? Scientists know the basics from watching polar-ice sheets. Huge chunks calve, slide off, and float away as icebergs. But that’s for modern icebergs. New research reveals evidence of ancient icebergs that would dwarf today’s frozen floating mountains, leaving secular explanations out in the cold. Researchers from Germany’s Alfr

The blind-faith religious nature of evolution shows itself in many ways: Icons, celebrity scientists revered as high priests, fanatical devotion ( thou shalt not speak ill of evolution, nor or speak ill of Darwin's anointed, lest ye be upbraided on unimportant forums and in spam ) — and especially the way evolution has been made into a kind of deity with intelligence and the ability to make choices ( fallacy of reification ). Keep an eagle eye out for it, and you'll see in various press releases and quotes from evolutionary scientists how evolution seems to be a living being. That fits, since evolution itself is an ancient pagan religion (see " Evolution: An Ancient Pagan Idea ", " Evolution is Religion, Not Science ", or ask some pagans at " Pagan Evolution ") . Blessed be the god of evolution, I reckon. Making evolution into a being shows in some circular reasoning and just plain bad science regarding faces. Evolution decided to make hum

There have been some science news reports with sensationalistic titles about "oceans" of water under the surface of the earth. Those may prompt readers to think that if you dug a hole deep enough, you could have a nice swimming hole. Not hardly. As we read at Creation-Evolution Headlines, "A claim of vast reservoirs of water deep in the earth is based on indirect evidence, and likely has little or nothing to do with surface water or floods" (see " Beware of Misinterpreting Water Claims "). "Earth Poster" / Wikimedia Commons / Kelvinsong Christians can be just as gullible as their secular counterparts, saying, "Aha! Mockers wonder where the water went after the Flood, and there it is!"  Rein in that filly, Freddie. Mockers who have a bent to disbelieve will still not be impressed, especially since the Flood water is still here; if the earth was smooth, it would be covered by water for a depth of over 1-1/2 miles (over 2.41 km).

The universe is not supporting deep-time cosmology and the Big Bang, among other established "facts". Once again, what has been believed by secularists is being challenged. W e find out that the more we learn, and the more that scientific equipment develops, there is still a great deal to learn. It seems that the most consistent fact about science is that many "facts" are uncertain and keep changing . Yet, many secularists keep citing things that are outdated and incomplete, dogmatically asserting that the earth and the universe are very old, and that there is a consensus about various forms of evolution. Messier 54, PD / NASA / ESA / Wikimedia Commons In cosmology, cosmogony, and astronomy, many speculations have been asserted as facts, and people spread them around. However, many of these (even long-established), have been overturned or are in serious doubt. The Big Bang itself has always had flaws, and more are found. Are black holes a certainty? Well..

Science is a useful tool. It is approached philosophically, and people interpret data based on their presuppositions and worldviews. It is interesting that some people will insist that the Big Bang, evolution, age of the earth , and other things are "facts" — until those "facts" change . The most effective approach to science is to organize data, make theories and be willing to discard theories when they do not hold up, or when evidence shows them to be wrong. (Amazingly, microbes-to-man evolution is held with religious fervor despite  contrary evidence.) Using a materialistic bias limits scientific investigation. “Science Is Not About Certainty” a noted theoretical physicist writes. For many people that might be a startling claim. Dr. Carlo Rovelli—one of the originators of “loop quantum gravity theory”—recently published an article discussing the nature of science. The piece, called “Science Is Not About Certainty,” makes some points that biblical creati

Should we feel sorry for evolutionists? Things that they put their faith in as "evidence", things that have been considered "facts", get dropped on the dusty trail of learning. But then, they accept many things presented without question. "The oyster's twist shows evolution", but this is done with assertion and conjecture, not with plausible models. One thing I keep trying to tell Christians and creationists is that our faith is not based on the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies (it's like trying to patch the sinking ship of evolutionary dogmas with more unfounded assertions). Science and evidence support our faith, but they do not make it. Oysters have the unfortunate distinction that they were one of the first examples of an alleged proof of evolutionary lineage in the fossil record (mooted by paleontologist A.E. Trueman in 1922).1 The ‘flat’ oyster, Ostrea sp., was said to have evolved into the coiled shell Gryphaea sp.

Some people are herded into the corral of "radiometric dating proves an ancient world". A herd mentality may not be such a bad thing if people were believing something that was the result of solid reasoning and good evidence, but the fact is, secular methods of radiometric dating are fundamentally flawed. Not only are there assumptions, but circular reasoning. And the circular reasoning is "validated" by additional circular reasoning. I reckon that the whole process is a wreck. Unfortunately, many Christians have bought into the atheistic conclusions and bad logic. Conditions during the Great Flood of Genesis play a significant factor in fouling up uniformitarian dating methods. Radioactive dating is a key concept in determining the age of the earth. Many secular scientists use it to dismantle the faith of Christians and cause them to accept uniformitarian assumptions that, in addition to being scientifically erroneous, demand a figurative and distorted interp

Darwinists try to distance themselves (or even deny) the racism in evolution, although that is well established . So what do evolutionary anthropologists do? Use more racism in their "research". The basic presuppositions are that evolution itself is a fact, and certain ethnic groups are less evolved than white people. In this case, the logic goes further downhill. A case of scientific racism? An anthropologist studied living Kalahari Bushmen for clues to the evolution of cognition. Human beings are long, long past any evolutionary stage anthropologists could claim they were going through 400,000 years ago when our ancestors allegedly learned to control fire. (Michael Balter in Nature asserts that date, even though evidence of cooking goes back millions of years in the evolutionary timeline; 6/17/09.) So what are anthropologists doing listening to the campfire stories of living tribesmen to draw inferences about our evolutionary past? To read the rest of this art