Piltdown Superman

Secular astronomers are much out of little, and in this case, they're making a planet. Not really much of a surprise, since they conjure up stars from "dark matter" that only exists on paper. Why not use mighty sketchy evidence to build "LkCa 15b"? There's a passel of guesswork and speculation going on, but it's asserted as something they know  is happening. Image modified from Clker clipart Supposedly, the dust around a distant star is making a planet. However, there is not much to go on other than speculation, when direct observation is needed. They are also ignoring science, which is a grave mistake. Worse, they are ignoring God's Word, which plainly tells us that the universe was created recently, and is not creating itself through cosmic and other forms of evolution. A team of astronomers claims to have direct evidence that a giant planet is in the process of forming. How strong is this claim? The planet, known as LkCa 15b, is one o

Way up yonder between Mars and Jupiter is the asteroid named Demeter — oh, sorry, that's the Greek version. The asteroid is Ceres, named after the Roman god of agriculture. That must explain the wheat and corn fields on it. Actually, it was large enough to be considered a planet from 1801 when Giuseppe Piazzi discovered it, and reclassified as an asteroid in the 1850s. A passel of asteroids have names , but Ceres is the most impressive. Occator Crater on Ceres in false colors  Credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA/MPS/DLR/IDA (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Another impressive feature is the way Ceres causes serious consternation for secular astronomers. Yet again, cosmic evolutionary expectations are not met, and scientists receive surprises — surprises that indicate a recently-created universe. I reckon the dwarf planet makes them grumpy, and not happy, Doc. You can read about the surprising salt, bright spots, DAWN spacecraft, and how Ceres is upsetting evol

For some reason, a whole heap of critters died off in a thing that is called the Permian extinction or "The Great Dying", but secular geologists are hard pressed to come up with a reasonable explanation. Indeed, there are differing ideas as to what happened, when it happened, and how long it took. Geologists examining a fossil of mostly-toothless Tillie  Dicynodon are cognating on how other geologists have the whole story backward. Pencil drawing of Dicynodon by Nobu Tamura / Wikimedia Commons CC BY 3.0 We know that scientists change their ideas when new information comes to light, but evolutionary ideas change very rapidly because their dust-to- Dicynodon  paradigm is faulty to begin with. Creationists also change their views according to the evidence, with one major difference: models can come and go, but the starting point of the Word of God stands. Genesis Flood geology is a far better explanation than the material that secular geologists present, and the followi

An article from 2003 shows the attitudes of the uninformed toward creationists. (If you study on it, you'll see that anti-creationists and evolutionists in general have worse  attitudes toward biblical creationists nowadays.) It's common for them to misrepresent us, which is unfortunate because if you want to debate an opponent, you should at least understand and present what he actually says instead of making straw man arguments. Indeed, I've seen stuff attributed to me and wondered, "Where'd he get that?", which did not deserve a response. But then, many of these people aren't exactly known for their cogitating skills. Prairie groundsel / Image credit: US National Park Service There are several varieties of groundsel, and depending on your point of view, they can be wildflowers or noxious weeds. Yeah, keep your horses and yourselves from common groundsel ( Senecio vulgaris ), it's poisonous to your horses, cattle, and yourself. Not so sure a

Most people have probably indulged in woolgathering about going forward or backward in time, maybe to warn Wild Bill Hickock to sit with his back to the wall in that poker game , warn yourself to stay home instead of going out on a certain night, cheating on the lottery numbers, or somesuch. Time travel has been the subject of many science fiction stories in printed and visual forms. But can it be done? There are things to deal with in physics, logic — and theology. Restored police box in Glasgow, Scotland / Image credit: Freeimages / Jon Stout There are many logical problems involved with going back in time that can make for interesting campfire discussions, but the paradoxes are insurmountable. Going forward in time? A form of that is possible according to Einstein (and was a key part of the Joe Haldeman novel The Forever War ), but probably not in quite the way many people might think. What an experience it would be to have a time machine! Just imagine traveling into the f

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Wishing you all a Happy Calendar-Changing Day! Well, there's nothing all that special about New Year's Day, and many cultures past and present established different dates and customs for their new year. Although I believe in setting goals and enacting them at the best possible time, January 1 is convenient in some ways — especially since those late-year holidays that many of us observe are taken care of. I'm ready to begin 2016 with my unregistered assault keyboard and hoping to equip all y'all who are willing to read. I agree with other writers who have said that people like some of the personal stuff, so this article will have a bit more of that than usual.  Image credit:  NASA/JPL-Caltech/SSC , who would certainly  not  endorse the contents of this site! But — why me? Why am I doing this?  Seriously. There are many people with more intelligence, charm, good looks, skill, education, and experience than I have who say some of thes

It's getting to become a common thing, just press play to hear approval for things that are passed off as "science". We've seen many times some amazingly unscientific speculations presented to the world as scientific advances, especially in areas related to origins. The Darwinism supporters in the press are all-fired joyful about sharing it with the world, often embellishing the "discoveries".  If people had a mind to, they could examine these speculations and see that there is no actual science  involved, just expensive words given with authority. To hear Darwinistas tell it, the consensus is that evolution is true, and scientists are all in agreement. Not hardly! I reckon they're getting more and more desperate to avoid facing evidence for the Creator, don't you? A scientist examines Earth animals, and has a guess as to what aliens would look like Evolution treated like an entity with the ability to learn  Evolution is like a computer

Proselytizers of microbes-to-monkey evolution are known to point out that humans and chimpanzees have some things in common, even citing spurious data about genetic similarities . EDIT: The preceding link is now out of date and in dispute. See " A Fresh Look at Human-Chimp DNA Similarity " (which was published the same day as this post) and " New Study Indicates Chimp DNA is 88% Similar to Human DNA ". Further research is planned. (Of course, the seventy percent genetic similarity that we have with sea sponges often goes unmentioned.) Using assumptions, circular reasoning, and other bad arguments, resemblances are used to show that we evolved from a common ancestor. Restrain your equines, Ernie, there are some problems here. The check's in the mail. Image credit: morgueFile / lightfoot The hands at the Darwin Ranch are not known for their efficient reasoning abilities. Ignoring data and alternative explanations are common over there, and in this case,

A new gibbon fossil has Darwinoids singing the same old song: "Look! Evolution!" Not hardly. As we have seen many times before, advocates of germ-to-gibbon evolution will "see" evidence for their conjectures where none exists, as well as giving credit to the puny god of evolution for any kind of change in an organism. Image credit: Pixabay / skeeze Now there's a newly discovered gibbon fossil that some people think may shake the family tree. Actually, it's a case of, big deal, since the usual "convergent evolution" and other convenient evidence-free machinations for evolution are invoked. More than that, the fossil is probably just another extinct variation on gibbons, does not give information about ancestral relationships, or anything useful other than being something shiny for evolutionary biologists to play with. The fossil Pliobates cataloniae could upset the accepted evolutionary concept of our remote family tree, or at least the s

There's a false claim by anti-creationists that the term living fossil  was invented by creationists. Even if that were true, such a claim would be meaningless. But the fact is, it goes back to Charles Darwin his own self, and other non-creationists use it as well. You savvy? A "living fossil" is something that exists today and is essentially unchanged from those found in fossils alleged to be millions or billions of years old. Chambered nautilus image credit: USFWS Sure, evolutionists have excuses for that. One is that it didn't need  to evolve. Right. Even though they claim that other creatures faced genetic mutations and environmental pressures that brought about evolution, but many things were unaffected? On one had, evolution is an irresistible force, but on the other hand, it doesn't happen. That's a policeman's exit (cop out). It seems that some people will come up with almost any excuse to deny the obvious: life was created recently, and evid