Piltdown Superman

Even though it is statistically for complex things to happen without design (such as a single DNA molecule forming), evolutionists maintain that if there is enough time, evolution can happen. This is absurd unless you are an orthodox fundamentalist evolutionist, desperate to maintain the faith in spite of contrary evidence. Dr. D. Russell Humphries has written an introductory article on the age of the Earth . Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. Spiral galaxy NGC 1232 in constellation Eridanus (photo courtesy of European Southern Observatory).    Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) a

One of my contentions with evolutionists is that to accept the alleged "fact" of evolution, I have to suspend too much disbelief. It makes sense to me that laws and facts tend to work in the same manner on a regular, predictable basis. Yet, when examining the diversity of nature, I see everything "evolving" differently. This sounds like intricate design rather than utilitarian adaptation and mutation. Another example is this scent of love scenario: Love is calling in the temperate forests of Australasia. An exotic perfume (called a pheromone ) floats in the air, sending an irresistible message to the males of just one species of insect—the Fungus Gnat—that a female Fungus Gnat is nearby and desires a mate. A male gnat answering the call finds that the amorous female appears to be located within the flower of a Greenhood Orchid. When a male gnat lands on a protruding part of the flower called the irritable lip or labellum , the lip, which is hinged, s

It keeps amazing me that fundamentalist evolutionists and Big Bang adherents cling to their faith in the theories despite scientific evidence against their validity. It takes creationists and Intelligent Design proponents to take news in the physics and astronomy journals to thoroughly discuss these flaws, but scientists should be discussing them instead of giving a "by the way" mention to the latest observation. A gamma-ray burst passed through two far-distant galaxies on its way to earth, illuminating them like a cosmic backlight and shedding new light on models of the origin and structure of the universe. Images from the event stunned some astronomers, because they show that the chemical makeup of these apparently young galaxies is far too mature to fit with the Big Bang theory. "These galaxies have more heavy elements than have ever been seen in a galaxy so early in the evolution of the Universe. We didn't expect the Universe to be so mature, so chemica

It infuriates atheists when other atheists become Christians. (Watch for the "no true atheist" fallacy, where the person was not really an atheist because of conversion.) Similarly, evolutionists become angry when someone is going to be intellectually honest and realize that the evidence points to Something Higher. Perhaps they do not come to faith in Jesus Christ right away, or at all, but they do abandon the ranks of "Evolution did it!" Then, they are attacked, ostracized, ignored, bad-mouthed or whatever it takes to neutralize the effect of losing a qualified scientist to the Intelligent Design (or, gasp, creationist) community. Especially since evolutionists have to protect their interests against the fact that the numbers of defectors is increasing. Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini are arrving late to the Darwin doubting party, but are welcome attendees none the less. Below are some welcoming remarks from leading scientific voices in the intel

It is difficult for me to decide what puzzles me most: The gullibility of the people who accept pronouncements of  evolutionary scientists as if they were ex cathedra, or scientists who make up ridiculous excuses to explain away flaws in their theories. Perhaps the worse problem is that people are unable to think things through for themselves, while the rest of us will look at their "explanations" and say, "What?" To sing the praises of evolutionary cosmology astronomers are looking for planets outside the solar system. After all, since life supposedly evolved on Earth, it must have evolved elsewhere, right? Mind you, we have speculations, guesswork, "scientists think", "maybe", "perhaps" and other deep technological terms that you and I cannot hope to understand from the wisdom of evolutionists. If I had known that wishful thinking was a prerequisite for being a scientist, I would have followed through and become one long ago. A

Great! How did you know it was my  car? Click for larger image

Two molecules in the retina—vitamin A and a protein named "opsin" that together make "rhodopsin"—capture single light photons. When light strikes the vitamin, it changes shape and becomes the molecule "11- cis -retinal." This in turn changes the rhodopsin's shape. When light activates enough of these molecular switches within the light-sensitive cell, they cause downstream biochemical systems to amplify and send the signal from the retina, through the optic nerve, and to the brain. This complex photochemical reaction is at the heart of what allows eyes to detect light and send signals that the brain can form into meaningful images. When light strikes vitamin A, the molecule bends at the 11th carbon bond. In other versions, or "isomers," of this chemical, the bend could occur at the 9th, 10th, or 13th carbon atoms. Curious to find out why vertebrate and squid eyes use 11- cis -retinal instead of another isomer, researchers tested the v

The following article is the second part of "Untangling Uniformitarianism", by Dr. John K. Reed (Ph.D., geology). He is the principal engineer at the  Westinghouse Savannah River Company . Part 1 is linked here . Uniformitarian geology has opposed biblical history for over two centuries. Most creationist critiques focus on contrary empirical evidence, but this series pursues a logical and axiomatic critique of the “four-definition” formulation of uniformitarianism. Three of these facets—stasis, gradualism, and generic uniformity—fail to support the concept. The remaining “uniformity of process,” also called  actualism,  seems on the surface to work well, but can be addressed by seeking justification of its use as an axiom of natural history. Actualism rests on uniformity, and uniformity in turn on causal continuity. These concepts can be evaluated relative to the worldviews of Christianity and Naturalism by the truth test of coherence. Naturalism fails that test, but Chr

Hubble deep field/NASA Evolutionists are in disagreement about when, where, how and especially why evolution allegedly happened. (God forbid that they discuss "who".) Taking the problems further back in time, cosmologists are pretty well clueless about the origin and evolution of the universe as well. The deeper we see into space, the more galaxies that we find. And that throws off the presumed age of the universe . Let's face it, we have piles of "theories" based on other theories, wishful thinking and guesswork. Perhaps no realm of inquiry is as fraught with fantastic speculation as the origin of the universe. Theories of how it could have come about naturally have regularly been proposed and discarded as new evidence surfaces. Ongoing studies seem to have merely widened the gap in understanding how it began—or even how it currently works.  For example, astronomers have observed that the earth has hundreds of parameters fine-tuned for life. Thi

Many anti-creatonists embarrass themselves by making statements that show not only their ignorance, but their extreme biases and lack of honesty . One claim is that "creationists are not scientists", which is easily eliminated [ 1 , 2 ]. Another false claim is that creationists are not "peer reviewed" [3] . It makes absolutely no sense to submit evidence disproving evolution to a group of biased evolutionists! Would an evolutionist submit a paper attempting to disprove creation to creationist scientists? What an amusing concept. The fact is, however, that creationists do  have peer review [ 4 ]. The main item that I wish to present to you today discusses the insulting, libelous  claim of some owlhoots that "creationists do not contribute to science, nor do they publish". Although it is not a recent publication, the following article still manages to put down the lie. In his book The Monkey Business (1982) paleontologist Niles Eldredge wrote that no a