Piltdown Superman

It may come as a shock to some people, but there are certain things that biblical creationists and atheists agree on. One of those is the rejection of knowledge, but we come at this concept from different directions. Atheists have materialistic presuppositions, and biblical creationists have (or should have) Bible-based presuppositions. It's interesting that Clinton Richard Dawkins would say that those of us who reject evolution fall into four categories: ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked. Seriously? Many brilliant and sane people reject evolution, so that leaves the possibility of wicked to consider. He's assuming that his naturalistic worldview regarding science somehow gives him insight into morality. There are atheist tinhorns who call biblical creationists "evil", but cannot justify their accusations. That's some mighty convoluted logic, old son. In fact, for an atheist to say something is wicked or wrong, he is tacitly appealing to the God that he k

It's not uncommon for an to come along and attack the Bible with prejudicial conjecture such as, "We can't believe the Bible, it was written by a bunch of illiterate Bronze Age goat herders!" If these owlhoots bothered to do their homework, they'd know that the Bible was written by people from a variety of occupations, including kings and highly-educated men as well as peasants. Maybe two or three were sheep and goat herders, but not "a bunch". Also, it's easy to laugh at these proponents of "reason" who add the "illiterate" part. Uh, if they were illiterate, they didn't exactly write anything, did they, pilgrim? Throwing in the words "fairy tales" in their attack probably gets them bonus points with their friends. More important than the ignorance of arrogant atheopaths is the fact that they are arguing from materialistic and naturalistic presuppositions. Terms like "Bronze Age" and so on are made up to

It should be safe to say that good music is not boring, and has elements to keep the listener's attention. Typically, songs have a beat, melody, harmony, and other elements. (Except the stuff that the strange woman in the upstairs apartment plays.) Jazz offers improvisation , composing and innovating on the spot. Real music is quite intricate. Image credit: Pixabay / sandid , modified with Clker clipart on Paint.Net Music and creativity are baffling enough for Darwinists , but it gets worse for them because our alleged cousins lack such skills. You cannot say to an ape, "Hey, Kala! Give us a song. How about one of the lullabies you sang to Tarzan?" Can't happen, old son. To make matters worse for evolutionists, birds (which are not closely related to us in Evo-Speak) have intricate and innovative musical abilities. This further shows that our Creator gave special abilities that show no signs of evolution. A recent paper by an international team of researcher

According to my clock on the mantlepiece, the universe is somewhere around 14 billion years old, give or take a few million years. Our solar system (and therefore, Earth itself) is around 4.5 billion years old. But my clock is set to secular timekeeping and not observed data. Image credits: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Space Science Institute That planet next out yonder after Jupiter, whaddya call it — "That's Saturn". I like the name, has a nice ring to it. Saturn has several rings, and they are showing signs that, according to secular deep-time reckoning, are quite a bit younger than the planet itself. Computer models are giving some wild notions, but the results are based on bad assumptions in the first place. For that matter, an exoplanet orbiting J1407 has a ring system that are going the "wrong" way. Big deal. It happens. But scientists have come up with some ad hoc "maybe an ancient catastrophe" made things go opposite what is expected. Wha

It's fascinating and even fun to see the intricacy of God's handiwork and beauty he's provided. But he also made some things that are dreadfully ugly — and least by human standards . At least they find each other attractive. One of these is called the hagfish, and it's blind. The hagfish doesn't seem to mind lack of vision, it can get along right well. It's cousin the lamprey can see. And no, neither one of them are eels, they just look like them. Two similar fish, one is blind, one has sight. Proponents of minerals-to-moray evolution claim that the hagfish's blindness is an intermediate state of eye evolution, but fossils filleted that idea: hagfish fossils show eyes just as developed as lamprey eyes. This wrecks one aspect of evolutionary storytelling, but they have can say the magic words , (in this case, "Convergent evolution") and bada bing, they have their rescuing device. Sorta. No evidence for what happened (or didn't happen) in

Those of us involved in biblical creation science apologetics ministries are subject to distractions, as are other Christian ministries. We need to do a sort of balancing act between possibly neglecting some things that are important to our readers (or viewers, or listeners), and indulging in our personal preferences. Another area we need to keep in balance is to avoid "tunnel vision", where we spend so much time on our area of specialty that we neglect good biblical teaching in other areas. Let me give you an example. There's a Page on Fazebook that purports to be a presuppositional apologetics ministry, but is bringing every topic horse out of the coral and riding it for a while. Some of the subjects are important, but making dozens of posts each day on a variety of topics (including pet doctrines like annihilationism, quantities of political posts) — people can feel hammered on. I've seen Pages that claim to be biblical creation science ministries do much the sam

While the word landslide is popular in elections, let's get more down to Earth (heh!) with the original meaning. Charles Lyell was a lawyer by trade and went into geology. His most famous book was Principles of Geology, which was published in three volumes in the early 1800s. It expanded on James Hutton's uniformitarianism (simplified as "the present is the key to the past"). Lyell, who lied about the recession rate of Niagara Falls , was a strong influence on Charles Darwin (whose only formal degree was in theology, not science), and Darwin read the first volume of Lyell's Principles on the voyage of the Beagle. Lyell's uniformitarianism was gleefully accepted by secular scientists as a means to deny the Genesis Flood, catastrophism, and the Creator God of the Bible. The fact that compromising Christians ceded science to secularists didn't help matters any. 2013 landslide in Colorado, image credit: US Geological Survey / Rex Baum , no endorsement

Proponents of minerals-to-man evolution tend to take a reductionist approach and reduce all life to chemistry. This comes from their materialistic presuppositions including no God and that evolution is a given. This dehumanizing worldview affects both scientists and us regular folk, since evolution is viewed as a science and, therefore, truth, so it spills over into economics, religion, politics, abortion, "scientific" racism, and more. Image credit: jk1991 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Materialism rules the scientific community, and data are interpreted through this view. Just follow the money, and you'll see that funding goes toward evolutionary goals. Scientists with a creationary worldview are not getting the grant money, no matter how good their credentials are. In fact, creationists are mostly blackballed. Evolutionary owlhoots are intolerant of their own their own kind who don't absolutely toe the line. An author said that an old carving looked like a dino

First, a story. Way back when I was much younger and James Madison was President, we were visiting my grandmother in the northern part of Michigan, in the lower peninsula. It was a small town (still is), and there was a parcel of land behind the house, just a field. This bored child went a-wandering. There was some activity from a killdeer, making all sorts of racket and playing at having a broken wing. I'd heard of such shenanigans to protect the young'uns, so I went in the opposite direction. I could imagine the call of the killdeer as saying, "Fleeee, baby!", and I found the little ones in the tall grass. Had sense enough to leave them alone. Ruffed Grouse , John James Audubon Other birds that lay eggs on the ground do this broken wing business as well, including the star of today's show, the ruffed grouse. They're not very big, and both man and beast consider them good eatin '. How can they keep from going extinct in a hurry? The Creator gave t

Video action is commonplace today, and we can pull out a camera, phone, or other device and record something that we can view instantly. (I marvel at how people can have a live video broadcast that is also being uploaded to places like YouTube, free, and I've never bothered to use the tools at my disposal to do it.) Technology can be fun! Step back a ways, and many of us remember watching movies that were on film, whether in the cinema or in school. Those kinds of movies were actually optical illusions, relying on the brain, film speed, and persistence of vision so we would not see the individual frames, but perceive actual motion. Movies on film that lasted a long time. What happened before? One gadget was Thomas Edison's kinetoscope, using film and that optical illusion thing. (A short video about the kinetoscope is here , and a kind of tour of the machine is here .) The earliest Western films were on the kinetoscope as well. Before that, there was a toy called the thaum