Piltdown Superman

Evolutionary cosmologists and cosmogonists rely on their naturalistic presuppositions about the origins of the universe and solar systems, then interpret their observations accordingly. Evidence for exocomets (comets that are beyond our own solar system) has been found. They think that these give support for their "deep time" conjectures, but this is not the case. Some evolutionist owlhoots are so locked into their worldviews that they call anyone who disagrees with them "liars", and refuse to honestly examine the evidence! "Landscape with a comet", Heorhiy Narbut, 1910, PD For a long while, creationists have reckoned that comets fit their own presuppositions far better, and point out that they are testimony of a young universe. One of the main reasons is that comets (especially short-term ones) should have been burned out long ago in an old universe. To preserve their fundamentally flawed worldview, secular cosmologists rely on the Oort Cloud a

Once again, proponents of evolution and their enthusiastic (but often irresponsible) press go off at full gallop, claiming to have found a missing link. "Transitional forms" are supposed to be abundant, and there would be a huge number of them that cannot be disputed. In reality, every possibility is big news. That should tell you something right there, since transitional forms do not really exist. This time, it's a supposed transition between marine ichthyosaurs and a land-based creature. The evolutionary tale is that life evolved from the ocean onto land, and then some things decided to evolve so they could live in the sea again. Here we have something that looks kinda sorta like a stubby version of the ichthyosaur, so evolutionists tack on presuppositions, numerous speculations, imaginings and outright guesswork to present this as "science". The new fossil is incomplete, but they still think it's an amphibian. Much faith, little substance. Ichthy

The human ear is a marvel of engineering and efficiency. Our sensory cells are in liquid, but the ear transfers the energy of sound waves that travel through the air, though that liquid, into something that we can understand. It turns out that the katydid has tiny ears on its legs. After very detailed and careful examination, it was discovered that their ears work like ours. What do evolutionists do? They give credit to the magical sky fairy of "convergent evolution", where there is no evidence and only blind faith to bolster such a belief. They would be obliged to be honest and admit that the evidence shows the work of the Creator. Katydid ears are only 600 microns (1/40 inch) long, smaller than a rice grain. And they are on the legs, not the head. The new discovery is a tiny and easily overlooked tube, filled with oil under pressure—it bursts when opened. So the researchers used microscopic CAT scans to analyze it. The katydid has an eardrum connected by a lever to a

Here's something to cogitate on. According to evolutionary reckoning (presuppositions, circular reasoning, making stuff up and so on), the solar system evolved billions of years ago. Based on that time frame, the planet Mercury, Earth's moon, assorted satellites throughout the solar system should be inactive rocks.  Not hardly. There are signs of "recent" volcanic eruptions even by evolutionary time scales. Worse for evolutionary scientists, other celestial objects are being recalcitrant toward "deep time". Observed evidence shows a young solar system. Naturally, the scientists make assertions and excuses without plausible models, or just ignore what they see, in order to cling to an ancient universe. To see their bad news, saddle up and ride over to " Mercury, Moon May Still Be Erupting ".

One way to see if a worldview has validity is to look for arbitrariness. Making truth claims that have no support is a red flag. There are people who claim that atheism is the natural state of a newborn infant, and religious views are added in. If you cognate on that for a while, you'll realize that it's irrational and unsupported. Unfortunately, there are people who spread that balderdash, and I reckon it's because it comes from someone they admire who shares their existing naturalistic presuppositions, and it sounds "intellectual". Truth is, this "born atheist" claim is the opposite of the truth. The truth is something evolutionary thinkers don't like: Children think like biblical creationists! Teaching evolutionism and that natural selection is a means to evolution is unnatural. People have to suppress what they're born with in order to use evolutionary thinking. That's one reason that there are atheistic professors who want to eradic

Most people know that intestines contain bacteria. These are essential for proper digestion, and they also help repel pathogens. Studies of mice show that when they have illnesses, the intestines manufacture food for the bacteria, which help the critters recover more efficiently. The intestines are not only for digestion, but also for staying healthy. This relationship between the microbes and intestines is another instance where everything has to be in place at the same time from the beginning, or nothing happens. That is, it could not have been a product of evolution, but instead shows the work of the Creator. Scientists purposefully made mice sick to test how the creatures’ intestines—and the microbes they harbor—would react. They discovered details behind a remarkable relationship that, when working well, keeps both parties healthy. Intestinal germs form part of a complicated digestive system, with different species lining up in ordered but dynamic layers to help break down

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen If you study on it, you'll see that people who are called "intellectuals" or the "intelligent s ia" have often been in a class by themselves. It's usually been more of an informal social class than anything else, and not really involved with economics (such as "upper middle class"). It seems to be a symbiotic relationship. Generally speaking, many people who are considered intellectuals are aloof and look down on common folk. Yet, commoners tend to look up to the intellectuals. Then the contradiction sets in, with us regular folk viewing the intellectual elite (and those who consider themselves so, without good reason) with distaste. (People are not anti-intellectual, but as for me, I'm anti-arrogance .) So people seem to have a love-hate view of intelligent s ia. Somehow, having a degree is supposed to mean that someone is a genius and able to perform well. But it gets ridiculous: A woman working in the human

What determines if something can be considered a "science"? Normally, it seems that certain things need to be studied in some detail, and it becomes a science. Nowadays, something can be declared to be a science because it supports evolutionary preconceptions. The fairly young pseudoscience is getting tax money for studying something that isn't even there, but uses assumptions and hypotheses based on materialistic evolutionary ideas. I reckon that our tax money could be spent on more useful things than on bolstering anti-God ideas. Astrobiology has yet to establish that it has a subject to study, but NASA is giving millions of tax dollars to multiple teams, including SETI researchers. It’s no surprise that Astrobiology Magazine published smiling faces from 7 teams joining the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI) that will be receiving an average of $8 million in taxpayer funds. Here’s the stated justification: You can read the excuses (oops, sorry, it did say "

There was a time when fossils were explained as impressions in rocks of things that died, were gradually covered, then the sediment turned to stone. If the teacher had time, we were told about petrification as well. With modern technology and scientific advances, fossils are a treasure trove of information. The insistence on gradual processes over millions of years has persisted, defying actual thought. A fossil fern has been examined, and it is amazingly detailed. Scientists can even look at spores, chromosomes and cells that were caught in the middle of division! Does this support gradual, long-time fossil making? Is there any sign of evolution between this fossil and modern ferns? Not hardly! While the scientists admit to a rapid burial, they arbitrarily assigned an age to the fossil, and it still manages to disrupt their timeline. The best explanation for this fossil is in terms of the biblical creationist model from the Great Flood of Genesis. Researchers from Lund Univer

A month ago, I posted about the most common form of radiometric dating methods . Some scientists are recognizing that these have some serious problems, and have decided to saddle up a different horse. They are proposing a new model called isochron dating.  The math looks good, but there are still some major difficulties. These include several assumptions (including an old-earth fudge factor), and yielding results that are not only contradictory, but wildly inaccurate for rocks whose ages are actually known. The Bible is quite clear about the origin and timeframe for the creation of Earth and the cosmos. If Scripture is inaccurate in this, then how can it be trusted in anything else? Some evolutionists throw out theistic evolution (God using evolution as His creative process) as a philosophical panacea, with the goal of leading people to conclude that Genesis is a myth. Like Nimrod of ancient times, they know they must provide an alternative (i.e., naturalism, specifically scienti