Piltdown Superman

A post was made about how archaeology supports the Bible, and an atheopath said that it never has, never will. To be blunt, that is stupid as well as bigoted. Geology also supports the Bible. In fact, the cities of the plain in Genesis 19:29 KJV that God destroyed have apparently been located . Lot and his family leaving Sodom , Peter Paul Rubens, 1625 Sodom was a big place, and it had some smaller states around it. In fact, it was a nice place, and that's why Lot chose to live there when he parted from Abram (Genesis 13:8-12). When Lot was warned and forced to evacuate the exceptionally sinful area, they  fled to Zoar .  The Bible tells us about fire and brimstone that destroyed the area, and geological evidence has been found to support this. By the way, when Lot's wife looked back and turned into a pillar of salt, it wasn't just a quick glance over the shoulder. It would have been a case of lagging and longing. Remember, the angels compelled Lot and the others to leave.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen During October 9-11, a free online viewing of  Dismantled: A Scientific Deconstruction of the Theory of Evolution was announced. It was publicized here as a component in an article to discuss false accusations by atheists of Christian profiteering. We will focus on the movie itself now. Image taken from a screenshot of the trailer by Back2Genesis Dismantled  raises the question early on, a question that people have wondered for millennia: Where did everything come from? There have been many speculations throughout time, but the main considerations can be narrowed down. One is that life, the universe, and everything are the result of blind natural processes and chance; we are lucky accidents. The other idea is that the book of Genesis is real history. Rational people want evidence to support ideas. The movie makes the case for the differences between operational  and historical  science. Some people get on the prod about this (including a scientist who is a Chr

Stars come and go, or so they say. The most spectacular exit from the cosmic stage is by a supernova. Astronomers have several ideas on how stars make their exits, but nobody has actually seen a star form. Galaxy NGC 2525 with supernova SN 2018gv Credits:  NASA , ESA, and A. Riess (STScI/JHU) and the SH0ES team; acknowledgment: M. Zamani (ESA/Hubble) Modified at Big Huge Labs (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by anyone) Sure, secular astronomers and cosmologists make claims that there are "stellar nurseries" and such, but those are based on presuppositions of cosmic evolution. Biblical creationists know that God created the stars during Creation Week, and some creationists think that it may  be possible for a star to form because God also created the laws of physics, elements, and all, but that would not really be a big deal. There is no empirical evidence of stars forming. Because creation is running down, we have seen and will continue to see stars expir

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Quite a spell back, I picked up a book called Dragon Teeth  because I had a hankering for a Western story. As I commenced to reading it, I realized that this story touches on some areas of my interest and study: dinosaur fossils. Original image from Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures Dr. Crichton (he obtained his MD but turned to writing instead) had several manuscripts stored and in process when he died in 2008. Some of them were completed by others , sometimes drawing from his notes. Dragon Teeth  written in 1974, but was discovered much later, retouched, and subsequently published in 2017 . Dragon Teeth  is about the early years of American paleontology. No dinosaurs running rampant biting heads off. Only fossils. It is a historical novel based on actual events in what is known as the Bone Wars . (It is interesting that Crichton used the word dragon  several times in the text. Biblical creationists believe there is a great deal of historical evidence th

Want to come over and see my place? I designed it with you in mind, and if you step inside, I can show you a good time. As a matter of fact, you probably heard about my reputation for pleasing women... Credit: Wikimedia Commons / JJ Harrison  ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) How did you like my impression of the great bowerbird? I've seen human versions of the male bowerbird, and it's tempting anthropomorphize by assigning human behaviors and my values to a critter, so let's move on. These are down 'Straya and New Guinea way, and are grouped with certain catbirds that have a greater sense of morality (sorry, there I go again), what with being monogamous and all. There are ten species of bowerbirds, and they get their name because, well, they build bowers . They work hard to make them aesthetically pleasing. If you set down your ring and can't find it later, it may not have been a packrat that picked it up, but a bowerbird getting the place all gussied up. Yes, they use a variety of

Sometimes people are a mite casual in their use of the word dinosaur , using it to mean woolly mammoths, sauropods, plesiosaurs, pterosaurs, and so on. It is easy group them all together, though, because they lived at the same time. Credit: Flickr / theilr  ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) Many believers in dust-to-dinosaur evolution insist that certain dinosaurs evolved into birds. They tend to "see" signs of feathers in fossils, ignoring other (and more reasonable) explanations. Some extravagant claims have been made regarding filaments on pterosaurs, and then unwarranted guesswork was passed off as science. What's a Darwin devotee to do when the same things are not unique to pterosaurs, but are found in dinosaur fossils as well as carcasses of marine reptiles, sharks, and the like? It would be helpful to admit that the Creator made these things, and to stop pretending that they are looking at skin collagen, not protofeathers. In December 2018, researchers claimed to have found feather

There are some things we know because we know them. You know? That is, we have some things we presuppose without verification. When we discover that we had something wrong, we are often surprised. Since this is human nature, it happens in science as well. Dr Sherry Mayo operating the XuM ultra-high resolution X-ray microscope Photo by Mark Fergus for CSIRO ( CC BY 3.0 ) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents; this is a picture of a scientist doing science stuff) If you study on it, things that are taken for granted and "conventional wisdom" can be overturned with a bit of research or testing. Sometimes that startles us reg'lar people, and I reckon it does the same for scientists. One example is that because of their presuppositions of deep time and evolution, carbon-14 dating of coal, diamonds and other items was slow in happening because they "knew" there would be no carbon in them. There was carbon in them after all, and those of us who support rec

A spell back, we saw how some of Darwin's disciples were erroneously asserting that a certain artery in the arm was evolution in action . That was a detailed example, and we can see that it was not simply an outlier. Mostly Made at FotoFunia Numerous instances of fake science presented as evidence of molecules-to-magician evolution are seen here, with links to other sites for more information.. They presuppose that evolution happened, never questioning if  it happened, then assume that whatever they see in nature (or think  they see) helps them further understand it. Although we have been taught that evolution takes a very long time, somehow it is so flexible that rapid changes are conflated with evolution and used to support it. Except that there really is no actual evolution happening. Still, they conjure up the spirit of Darwin (blessed be!) to give themselves credibility and get money for their phony baloney jobs. Naturalism and denying the work of the Creator is more important

Even though I am not listening to it as I write, sometimes I like some hard rock. So do geologists (but this is a fallacy of ambiguity because of different definitions of hard rock). In geological terms, concretions  are very hard rock that uniformitarian geology cannot explain. Arizona concretion image credit: Smithsonian /  C Gilmore "Arizona Concretion" would be a good name for a hard rock band It may seem that geology is rather simple. You learn some expensive words and identify rocks, but there is much more to it. Geologists also deal with chemistry, biology, and other natural sciences. The article linked below makes this evident. Because this article was published in the Journal of Creation , it has some technical lingo. Concretions  are basically pieces of harder rock embedded in other rock. They vary in size from huge boulders that threaten to flatten Indiana Jones to bits and pieces that are easily overlooked. Concretions are probably formed by diagenesis , where se

One of the deep-time myths that gets carried around is that wood takes millions of years to become petrified (turned to stone). Even secular geologists now know something creationists have long said, that it depends on conditions, not time. Building built in 1932 made of petrified wood that is inaccurately claimed to be 175 million years old. Credit: Library of Congress / Carol M Highsmith (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) There are many anecdotes and actual examples of organic compounds being fossilized of sorts, and even sacks of flour turned to stone . What follows is a simple story about a piece of petrified wood that has a somewhat interesting background, and it illustrates once again that conditions are more important than time for this process. Years ago, an attendee at an ICR Back to Genesis seminar approached me with a fossil he and his daughter had found while on a hike in Washington State. It was obviously petrified wood, which is common in many lo