Piltdown Superman

Genesis 1:1 is not only the first verse of the Bible, but also foundational, because the other miracles make sense. The hands at the Darwin Ranch are going to a great deal of effort to work around this powerful but simple truth, using arguments akin to throwing trail dust (and, uh, other stuff on the trail) into the air. Image courtesy of the Earth Science and Remote Sensing Unit , NASA Johnson Space Center, who is not endorsing this article . Since everything that has a beginning has a cause, some atheist owlhoots are saying that the universe came from nothing . And they're not only serious, they're calling their worthy-of- peyote -induced-hallucinations "science". Never mind the First Law of Thermodynamics, Einstein's general relativity, and even common sense. David Hume taught that same "something from nothing" belief, but Elizabeth Anscombe pointed out that if a banana dropped onto your plate, you'd be thinking of every other possible ex

One of the simplest evidences for a young Earth that frustrates secular geologists is the rates of erosion. That is, if our planet was as old as claimed, even using uniformitarian rates of erosion, we wouldn't be seeing the mountains that are clearly there today. Cliffs of Dover, 1890 / Image credit: Library of Congress We see rapid erosion happening today, and it's not fitting into long age schemes. Sections of cliffs fall into the sea in England (don't stand too close to the cliffs of Dover, big drop-offs happen a little too often for comfort), and Yosemite Valley has big chunks falling about once a year. Recently in Dorset, England, bad weather washed a massive section of a cliff into the sea revealing scores of ammonite fossils. Creation scientists are interested in this cliff fall because substantial erosion was accomplished in literally seconds. It didn't take hundreds of thousands to millions of years of slow and gradual erosion. The cliff fall at Dors

Darwinoids are lacking in the ability to use logic in science, plain and simple. At least, that's a reasonable conclusion, what with the heap of bad reasoning that we see. Relevant data are excluded, other explanations are discarded, presuppositions are locked in, and more. Acorn worm / Image credit: NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program, INDEX-SATAL 2010 Since we don't know what happened in the distant past, evolutionary scientists infer relationships between organisms. Again, this is presuming evolution. Reasoning goes something like this: there are similar genes between humans and acorn worms who are descendants of our ancestral worms, therefore, evolution. (Looks like it should be in the bottom of a bottle of tequila as a marketing gimmick .) Sure, I'm a worm. So are you. But neither of us has to be, since our Creator has made it possible for us to become his own children! (John 1:12, Romans 8:15) Aside from that, a skillful designer will not start from scratch; parts un

Near Death Valley National Park , there's a "detached unit" called Devils Hole. (Don't confuse that Devil's Hole State Park up north of me in New York. If you go there, stop by and give me a howdy.) Don't expect to do a lot of wandering around, you're barking up the wrong tree because it's restricted to scientific access for the most part. Especially if you want to take a gander at the Devils Hole Pupfish. (It's clever Latin name incorporates its location, Cynprinodon diabolis — diabolis, diabolic, devil — get it?) The pupfish is the rarest fish in the world. Image credit: Olin Feuerbacher / USFWS These puppies live in a very harsh environment that would kill off other fish. Evolutionists have to revise their deep time stories in light of the evidence. Old stories did not hold water, and good science shows that there is no evolution. In fact, evidence supports not only the design of the Creator, but rapid adaptations per biblical creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This short article is informational, and a bit of a rant. As regular readers are aware, February 12 is Question Evolution Day . Other readers have just been made aware. Isn't it great how the sharing of information works? Anyway, I have posted links, made videos, written articles, and other things to promote the event. Many people have expressed interest and enthusiasm. Feel free to download this image to use as a profile icon or use it to show your support in other ways. Part of awareness-raising is to make an "event", such as this one on Facebook . I've received responses from people who are biblical creationists and agree with what QED is all about that are along the lines of, "Thanks for the invite, but I'm busy that day". I get mighty puzzled about that. Did they read the material or watch any of the short videos in the link? Let me commence to laying things out. I'm not asking anyone to come to Kingston, New

Evolutionists believe that their belief system has predictability, but that is usually inferred through fallacious reasoning: "If life evolved from a common ancestor, we would see genetic features shared. We see genetic features shared, therefore, life evolved from a common ancestor". If you study on it for a spell, you'd see that those jaspers are using fallacious " false cause " reasoning, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc , or maybe the Texas sharpshooter fallacy . For that matter, I've dealt with false cause myself, where some tinhorn claims that I changed something in one of these posts because he posted about it in a forum or made a comment. Except that I've seen their claims regarding my motives and actions after I made the changes. See what I mean about learning to spot logical fallacies being helpful in daily life as well as origins science? Hebrew Orphan Asylum / Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 2.0 In the aforementioned gene similarities,

There were several views of geology floating around in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, including multiple catastrophes, the Genesis Flood, and gradual processes. James Hutton made headway in what is now called uniformitarianism with views that reject the biblical account of creation and the Flood, and has been called the father of modern geology. Charles Lyell took the reigns and galloped forward with his Deistic views which sought to remove God from geological science, and his polemic influenced Charles Darwin. Image credit: Pixabay / tpsdave Lyell was educated as a lawyer, and Darwin's education was in theology. These "great scientists" promoted anti-God polemics that influenced far too many people. Although it's tempting to make lawyer jokes, it is a fact that lawyers are trained to get their point across. (Did you ever notice that in American courts, lawyers are not sworn to tell the truth?) In the spirit of evolutionism and uniformitarianism, Cha

A major problem for uniformitarian geologists is the decay of the Earth's magnetic field. The thing is decaying at a measurable rate , and if the Earth is as old as they say it is, then way back yonder, the field would have been impossibly strong, and they've known this problem for years. So, they theory is sick and needs to be fixed up right quick so they don't have to admit that the evidence shows a recently-created world. I recommend that you read the excellent article, " Earth's Young Magnetic Field ". Secular geologists know full well that they need the Earth to appear old because evolution requires long ages. Can't admit that our planet isn't so old after all. A rescuing device was presented that needs work, and has some amazingly bad flaws. A new theory to maintain Earth’s magnetic field looks like a case of special pleading to rescue a dogma. Keeping Earth’s magnetic field going for billions of years is a major problem, because its st

It gets a mite disconcerting for "deep time" adherents to promote their uniformitarian views in the light of conflicting evidence, but they keep on doing it. This time, it's the extinction of the woolly mammoth and other animals that is causing a problem. Image credit: FreeImages / Ainhize Barrena The common image of woolly mammoths, sabre-tooth tigers, and other critters in icy wastelands is somewhat misleading, as there were warm periods during the Ice Age and plenty of food available for grazers. Three basic ideas for the mass extinctions include climate change, hunting them to death, and illnesses from humans. None of those make sense. Proposing that they were killed off because of global warming (sorry, no way to make it anthropogenic) is really grasping at straws. Although it's dismissed out of hand without examining the evidence and plausibility, the post-Genesis Flood Ice Age model proposed by biblical creation scientists offers much more

Purveyors of mold-to-monkey evolution will point to what they call vestigial structures as proof of their belief system, where the standard definition of "vestigial" is something that was useful in our evolutionary past, but is now completely (or almost completely) useless. This is based on circular reasoning and making assumptions: how do you know what happened in the distant past? One of the most common examples cited is the human appendix, which can be perfectly healthy but removed anyway, based on evolutionary assumptions. Jerry Coyne redefined the word : "A trait can be vestigial and functional at the same time. It is not vestigial because it’s functionless, but because it no longer performs the function for which it evolved ” (emphasis in original)". And he knows the original because...? Although the appendix was shown to be important to digestion , Evo Sith like Jerry Coyne,  Live Science , and others persist in the "it's vestigial" fal