Piltdown Superman

Sometimes, simpler is better. Extremely complicated machines that perform multiple functions can be susceptible to breakdowns, and simply wearing out. For example, the "all-in-one" machine that does copies, faxes, document scanning, printing and so on can have one problem that makes the whole thing stop, and you're without all of those functions while it's getting repaired or replaced. Likewise, having several simpler machines working in concert can have the same problem. Another example, your car has many things depending on each other, but a critical component can make it so you're not going anywhere (such as when my starter broke down last year). You can get by with a faulty car part, but not always. Inside each of us, there are astonishingly complex machines. Lots of them. Different kinds. Some are at work inside the cells, performing maintenance and copying of DNA and other things. They keep themselves going, and have many backup systems in place, an

More studies of Earth's moon are getting evolutionary space scientists all frazzled. They require "deep time", and evolution requires huge amounts of time or else the story won't work. But the more they cognate on space stuff, the more they find out that their discoveries don't reconcile with their tale-spinning. Today, we see that the man in the moon is trolling secularists. Full Moon with Earth's Horizon and Airglow Visible at Left Image credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Despite the desires of participants in the Deep Time Rodeo, the moon once had a strong magnetic field. In addition, there are other features of the moon that say, "I'm young!" Naturally, secular scientists dance around the evidence and make up excuses to avoid the logical conclusions of a young Earth, moon and solar system itself. Ponder this under tonight’s full moon. Scientists now say the moon once had a magnetic field stronger than

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Everyone has a worldview. It is comprised of axioms and presuppositions. They can be cultural, experiential, based on opinions, education, and so on. Some people deny having a worldview, but we cannot function without it. Scientists use their worldviews as their starting point, and are not the epitome of sterile objectivity that many people believe them to be. Worldviews and Presuppositions I believe that the main reasons atheists and anti-creationists detest presuppositional apologetics are: We do not elevate any philosophies (including science philosophies) above the Bible, which is our foundation, and freely admit that we have our own presuppositions Presuppositional apologists analyze worldviews and their underlying presuppositions, and cognitive dissonance results when an atheist or evolutionist is shown that his worldview is irrational We do not take much stock in the "wisdom" of unbelievers because that violates what Scripture tel

Almost from the beginning, there have been people who wanted to find ways to deny God. With increasing ferocity over time, such denials have reached the irrational level of attempting to deny that God exists in the first place. One of the cornerstones of the religion of atheism is evolution, which is itself an ancient pagan religion that has been given a veneer of "science". You can have all the axioms you want, old son, but when they build on arbitrary assumptions, you have not really built anything scientific. (For that matter, there are owlhoots that try to confuse you by conflating "evolution" and "science", then they can mislead you by saying that creationists are "anti-science", which is a flat-out lie.) Atheism has its own origins mythologies that are just as incoherent, unscientific and irrational as atheism itself. But people foolishly rebel against the Creator, putting their faith in false reason and conjectures about origins. Onl

Regular readers know that creationists emphasize the importance of definitions. I thought feedback was when you put an open microphone in front of a speaker that goes to eleven and you get that ear-piercing woooo noise. Or that when the Big Corporation tells employees, "We value your feedback", while deleting your comment. Now I know a new definition of feedback, and it's a mighty important concept, especially since evolutionists cannot account for it. Gary Wedemeyer and The Deacon / US Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management Engineers know about feedback regarding mechanical things, but it's vital in biology. Ever watch a horse and rider in an event like, say, a steeplechase race or barrel racing ? Or maybe you've watched a cowboy lasso a wayward cow, loop the other end of the rope around the saddle horn, and both horse and rider work together to get the cow under control? Not only are those matters of skill, training, and experience, but

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Happy New Year! Not that I think there's anything special about changing calendars or New Year's celebrations, but it's a good time to stop and plan. Some of my readers may know that my goal is to get these written and scheduled from 3-7 days ahead of time. But that's short-term planning, I reckon this is about longer-term planning. A side note for people who like to make resolutions: Don't get carried away. If you make a big list, you'll probably get discouraged trying to do too much. If you make a big list, fine, but I suggest that you do just do a couple of resoultions. In a month or three, do a couple more. Where was I? Oh, yes. I'm back behind my unlicensed assault keyboard, bringing you evidence that refutes the fundamentally flawed evolutionary worldview, and supports the reality-based biblical creation evidence. The big attention-getting holidays are over with (including Thanksgiving for Americans), and there's no

Although there is abundant global evidence for the Flood, the British Isles are an area that warrant special study. Uniformitarian assumptions keep leading researchers on dusty trails to dead ends and wrong destinations. Great Britain was completely submerged at one time during the Genesis Flood, but uniformitarian geologists refuse to accept this, and often will often refuse to examine the evidence. For example, Siccar Point in Scotland does not have much information about it because of uniformitarian assumptions; this is the same kind of bad science that has held back research in biology (such as "junk" DNA) and other areas because they think they have things all figured out. FreeImages / Ben Nevis via Carn Mor Dearg Arete / biscuits17 Radiometric dating is no account because of the bad assumptions involved (knowing the beginning "parent" quantities, the decay rates, and the ending "daughter" amounts). Further, those decay rates have been show

So what was it really that done in them dinos, anyway? Some people claim that "science knows" what happened to them, but "science" knows nothing. After all, science is not a sentient being. Also, even thought the dominant theory among secular scientists is that an asteroid smashed into the earth, that raises more questions and speculations, such as why mammals didn't all die, too. There are actually many guesses as to why the dinosaurs cashed in their chips , and some parts of the "theories" that scientists are not so forthcoming about, as you'll see in the article linked below. Image assembled from components at Clker clipart Some are going to volcanic activity for the demise of the dinosaurs. Or maybe a combination of volcanic activity, long-term decline, and the asteroid. Oh, boy. May as well add in the constipation theory to the volcanoes and fireball from the sky. Or we can use the biblical creationist models of the Genesis Flood, th

The gas known as methane is known to exist throughout the universe. Most of the stuff on Earth is made through various biological processes. Methane is in places where it is accepted that there is no life, just as the gas giants in our own solar system. When it was detected on Mars, people got excited, thinking that it may be the product of life. Gale Crater on Mars NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona (slightly modified) Many evolutionists think that Mars is the most likely place in our solar system outside of Earth to have life. They play the odds, even though the odds have been greatly reduced . (For that matter, the chances against life on Mars are a million to one.) Biblical creationists generally dismiss the idea of life elsewhere in the universe because of scientific reasons against evolution, and more importantly, from scriptural interpretations. The Bible doesn't flat-out say that there's nobody home out there, but that's the most likely interpretations.

Aside from being the name of a color, amber is fossilized tree resin. Paleontologists love it, because it trapped insects and things, and preserved them. Nowadays, scientists can examine the fossils. (Amber with bugs in it is also used as jewelry, which strikes me as a mite odd.) A new discovery of an ant beetle in amber is called a "transitional fossil". Really? Credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures Mayhaps one reason there's so much disagreement about "transitional fossils" (supposedly something evolving into something else) is that the definition of the term is so loose. I reckon it means that something looks like maybe it could be similar to something else. This new ant fossil? They're really reaching when they call it "transitional". If ancient history according to Scripture is true, then what should we expect to find in animal fossils? Surely excellent body designs would top the list, closely followed by a lack of "transitio