Piltdown Superman

The planet Uranus had long been thought to be a star, what with its slow orbit, distance from the sun and all. Creationist scientist Sir William Herschel finally determined that it was neither a star nor a comet, but a planet. He also discovered its two largest moons. Credit: Voyager 2 Team, NASA Uranus is not all that thrilling. A ball of gas similar to Jupiter and Saturn, with a density that indicates a core of various ices. No sense in making plans to colonize that one. But this planet has some characteristics that are quite intriguing, such as its unusual tilt. These also add to the list of items that thwart evolutionary cosmogony and support creation science. Especially since Russ Humphreys predicted its magnetic field, and was proven right . Detailed study of Uranus with Earth-based telescopes has been difficult due to the extreme distance. The Voyager 2 spacecraft provided the most detailed images to date when it flew past Uranus in 1986, generating pictures of a nea

Creation science is a very hot topic these days!  The debate between Ken Ham and Bill "I Play a Scientist on TV" Nye will happen very soon,   Creation Sunday   is coming, movies about Noah and the Ark are going to be released (including   a creationist version with the real account ), the   Genesis 3-D  movie   is in the works, a recent survey shows that   people are not accepting evolution nearly as much as atheists would like , a site lamented that   2013 was "a terrible year for evolution" . And there's   Question Evolution Day . Question Evolution Day   is, on the surface, about basic human rights: We can say that we question (or reject!) evolution, and should be able to do so without loss of intellectual, academic, professional, speech and other freedoms. But it is important on deeper levels, including why it is important theologically and that evolution is a foundation to the religion of atheism — both of which are fundamentally

The presuppositions of evolutionists can be startling at times. They proclaim "EvolutionDidIt", even when there is no mechanism, evidence or credibility for the claims. For example, take the honey bee. The more we learn, the more amazing it is. The navigation becomes more and more complex the more we learn, all the way down to the genetic level. Since humans share some of the same genetic material, they invoke the viciously circular reasoning of homology and claim that "it's deeply conserved in evolution". Their communication "waggle dance" is not really understood, but still, "It's evolution wot done it!" Honey Bees via Public Domain Files It makes far more sense that the evidence indicates the Creator, who used similar elements and mechanisms for similar purposes in similar organisms. Designers do that kind of thing. Ask an engineer. The uncanny ability of honeybees to remember and communicate the location of sweet nectar has be

A new method of determining the age of the Grand Canyon is doing more harm than good. The Evo Sith are still clinging to their interpretations of uniformitarian geology, but the evidence indicates a global Flood. This latest method gives widely differing ages for different sections of the Grand Canyon. Image Credit: US Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Some evolutionary scientists are now saying that because there are differing ages in the testing methods, there must be several different canyons that were united later on. Like with radiometric dating, there are assumptions, interpretations and other pitfalls with the data. This will probably raise more questions than answers. If they took of their Darwin spectacles and used the Noachian Flood perspective, scientists would have more consistent and believable results. Is the Grand Canyon old or young? Both, geologists are now saying. The latest theory, though, is unlikely to end the 140-year

After I posted this, questions and objections were raised. I did some further digging, and all I got was biased "This is a fake!" material, plus some "This is real, we're the Natives!". Since I'm not comfortable with it, down it goes. -Cowboy Bob

Evolutionary planetologists used their observations filtered through presuppositions and assumptions, giving us a view of the planet Mercury as a big chunk of rock. Some of those assumptions made sense, since Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun. Credit: MESSENGER Teams, JHU APL, NASA When it comes to cosmology and cosmogony, however, Mercury is a rather recalcitrant messenger. Instead of being a hot ancient rock, it is showing signs of a much younger planet than was previous expected. This is no surprise to biblical creationists, but causes discomfort to evolutionary scientists. Especially when creationist predictions are affirmed. In 2011 the  Messenger  spacecraft began orbiting Mercury, using its suite of sensors to study Mercury’s chemistry, magnetism, atmosphere, geology and landscape. Being the closest planet to the Sun, Mercury is subject to space weathering (heating, micrometeoroid bombardment, radiation, and solar wind interaction) of extreme intensity so evolu

Poisoning the Well is a surprisingly common informal logical fallacy. People will try to influence others before someone has a chance to be heard. It can include other fallacies such as the ad hominem ("to the man"), genetic (based on the source of information) and others. It is subtle and common, and frequently experienced. Libel, slander, idle gossip and so on all can lead to poisoning the well. Atheopaths, anti-creationists and other assorted trolls use this attempt at manipulation as a matter of course. The MP3 can be downloaded here .

We know that Hitler was an evolutionist , and no, he was not a Christian . Other tyrants were atheist evolutionists . (Today's vitriolic evolutionists are scary in their own right.) Some of those re captioned Hitler things are hilarious, and I had to try my hand at it when I got the inspiration to have him upset about Question Evolution Day . It's nice that there's a template for it . Takes some time to get it right, though. Oh, and the actor that played Hitler? Excellent work. So anyway, this video is just under four minutes.

A few months ago, I was included in a reply to mail from Haywire the Criminal Cyberstalker. (He is blocked from my account, but I was included in the reply because he was attacking me as well as other creationists.) This served as my introduction to John Heininger.  Haywire was commenting about John's "tactics". John replied, " I always relish people who can appreciate "my tactics"... I hate to think that I go to all the trouble of devising clever tactics that no one appreciates or notices. So, I have again reattached "The Dating Game Assumptions" article in PDF format for you to share around." I was given permission to reproduce it, and did some minor editing of formatting, a couple of typos and such. HOW TO PLAY THE DEEP-TIME "ASSUMPTIONS" DATING GAME How to use ASSUMPTIONS to determine the age of the universe and the earth!  ASSUMPTIONS are extremely important when you don't have any solid facts to prove yo

Secular scientists declared sections of DNA to be "junk" — leftovers from our so-called evolution. Actually, it was from evolutionary assumptions and bad science that caused this . They did not see what they were looking for, so they did not bother to investigate further and wrote it off. Creationists rejected the "junk DNA" designation. After further investigation, creationists were proved right, it's not  junk .  Further genome studies add to the problem for evolutionists. More functions are found that are very complex and essential for life. Although evolutionists want to live in their fantasy world and pretend that there is no Creator, their own studies clearly show that the opposite is true. It would be in their best interests to find out what our Creator has to say. It was once believed that the regions in between the protein-coding genes of the genome were wastelands of alleged nonfunctional “junk DNA.” However, we now know that these previously m