Piltdown Superman

Edited 8-28-2021 This is a different kind of article, mostly written by someone else. His material appears further down the track. The was originally sparked by a militant anti-creationist who insists on spamming people. My associate asked to be removed from the list, and there was additional correspondence. I was given permission to use his material, but I am not using the letters to which he is responding, as most are unnecessary and tedious. Many anti-creationists pretend to be brilliant. However, their material is full of emotional language, ad hominems , straw men, repeated assertions, lack of science comprehension, double standards, circular reasoning, and many other misuses of logic. Also, it's amazing that these owlhoots want to call someone "evil". Okay, so what if we were? Why can't we act like atheists? After all, they have no foundation for morality. We are just bundles of chemicals acting in accordance to their  dictates. Misotheists have no basis for

Secular geological explanations for fossil-bearing rock sequences causes several anomalies that they cannot explain. This is especially true in the Midcontinent Rift in North America. A tremendous amount of lava was produced, and geologists wonder why the thing didn't turn into another major ocean. North American Basement Rocks (Midcontinent Rift is called Keweenawan here) / USGS / PD Once again, what is observed fits much more realistically into the Genesis Flood model of biblical creationists than the ideas of their secular counterparts. Specifically, the "fountains of the deep" in Genesis 7:11 may be explained, and be an explanation, instead of the speculations of uniformitarian geologists that only create more questions. Most of the fossil-bearing strata on Earth are comprised of six megasequences. Secular scientists believe they were laid down over millions of years, but this assumption prevents them from describing some prominent geological features—feature

Ichthyosaurs. Those varmints are causing consternation for evolutionists. They can't figure out where the "fish lizards" of dinosaur times came from (hint: they were created, not evolved), so they give in to some interesting speculations on them. Additional news makes things even worse for Darwin's acolytes. Varieties of ichthyosaurs. WikiComm / Nobu Tamura , compiled by Levi Bernardo ( CC BY 3.0 ) Although they looked like dolphins and breathed air, they were cold-blooded. Since they're probably extinct (evolutionists think they were well-suited for their environment, so extinction is another stinker for them), the most likely explanation is that they died in the Genesis Flood. Another testimony of the Flood is that there are soft tissues found in ichthyosaur graveyards. Also, a mother that apparently died in labor and the young were rapidly buried. Ichthyosaurs were marine reptiles that looked amazingly like dolphins, which, though resembling fish, are

To reuse an old joke, "Evolutionists must be in great physical shape. After all, they get a lot of exercise by running down creationists, side-stepping relevant facts, and pushing their luck".  The "Cambrian explosion" is a layer in the geologic column where fossils of many fully-formed multicelled animals "suddenly appeared", with no transitional forms. It has been a source of frustration and attempted explanations for many years. But the magical realm of conclusion-jumping may bring joy to the faithful. Microfossils were found in rocks that are considered older than the Cambrian layers. They don't know quite what was fossilized, but evolutionists are confident that by ignoring evidence and logic, and shoving evolution into the observations, that they can solve the enigma of the Cambrian explosion. The magic of evolution! They still can't get past the fact that the Noachian Flood is the most logical explanation. Are Megasphaera microfoss

Earth is in a special spot, and obviously the product of the Creator's design because slight variations will mean that life is not possible. (That's the short form of the Teleological Argument, which some people believe is flawed . The argument was briefly mentioned in an earlier post .) Yet, here we are by God's plan. It's more than just our orbit and our sun, we have help from other riders on the cosmic trails (the other planets). Back in 1972, I had a copy of Thrilling Science Fiction, a bi-monthly publication of short stories. (Turns out that they were reprints, but I didn't know or care.) One was called "The Seventh Planet" by Les Collins (Cole) . Funny how I recollect some of it after over 40 years. Anyway, some traveling astronaut made contact with space aliens who wanted a home. They said they wanted to remove a planet so they'd have room for their own, or something like that, and asked if they could remove the seventh planet (this is back

As you can see, this is the third installment in a series on radiometric dating. ( Part 1, on the most common forms of radiometric dating methods, is here . Part 2, on the isochron method, is here .) Uniformitarian geologists rely on a number of assumptions to make their dating methods work. Unfortunately, the assumptions are unrealistic. On a side note, did you know that there is a huge assumption made about the age of the earth? It is not determined from terrestrial rocks, but from meteorites ! The assumption is that everything formed at the same time, and meteorites are purer than the rocks on our own world. Old son, that's circular reasoning. Back to the main topic now. In Part 3, the Potassium-Argon dating method is examined. Although considered to be the most reliable, this method is so loaded with assumptions, it is actually unreliable and unscientific. Once again, a proper interpretation of the evidence points to a young planet. Radioactive dating methods—many of w

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Every once in a while when creationists use the term "living fossils" to show flaws in evolutionary ideas, someone comes along with a comment like, "That's a term made up by YECs to attack evolution!" That's the opposite of the truth. But what if Young Earth Creationists did make up that term? Words and phrases are made up all the time. So if we did make it up, somehow it wouldn't be legitimate — but it's all right for atheist evolutionists like Clinton R. Dawkins to make up the word "meme" ? Double standards, you can but we can't. But we didn't. The first known use of the term "living fossil" seems to have been with Papa Darwin himself . Like his successors, he used an observation and then guessed about an explanation. When people do it today, it's called "science". Since some people want to cling to their beliefs despite the evidence, I'm going to show you that the t

Evolutionists have a fundamentally flawed worldview, and it frequently hinders real science. Like so-called "vestigial organs" and "junk DNA" , if something is not understood, it is assumed to be a leftover from distant evolutionary past. Dolphins have been studied for many years, and their ability to use sonar has been known. So, what about electroreception? Like some other animals, the Guiana dolphin can detect electrical impulses. It's those pits on the beaks that make it happen. Evolutionary scientists did not bother to research this area because of their assumptions; if they had assumed it had been created for a purpose, hey let's find out what it is, this interesting discovery may have been reached long ago. Of course, since the discovery has been made, they use the nonsensical circular reasoning of "convergent evolution". That is, they "know" that evolution is true, but have no means of showing how dolphins evolved this abi

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen "Science" is treated by many people like a kind of pantheistic force, or even a deity. It is personified, and phrases like, "Someday, science will find a cure/pill/answer". (No, science will do no such thing. Scien tists , the people who use the philosophy and methods of science, try to do that.) Likewise, scientists have a position of adoration, especially in Western cultures. This reverence for science and scientists contributes to the fallacious philosophy of Scientism, where all that matters can be reduced to, and explained by, scientific means. Indeed, attitudes of Scientism are going beyond the bounds of science . There's a joke floating around that goes something like this: "Scientists say that most people will believe something if you begin a statement with, 'Scientists say'" . There's often truth in humor, and I think many people see the truth in this one. Sure, scientists do quite a bit of good. But t

Some of us are regretting living in a cold, snowy climate for all or part of the year. A bit of contrast helps the perspective, old son. The woolly mammoth lived in the cold. While it didn't have to worry about cleaning off its vehicle and braving the roads to go to work, it's also extinct. You're not. Be thankful. Stay safe, especially if you're not ready for that face-to-face discussion with your Creator yet. Anyway, new research has changed some theories of both creation and secular scientists. It was previously thought that the mammoths were not properly suited to cold climates. One reason for this was that because there were some actual carcasses found, skin samples did not reveal the ability to produce oil and other things needed for life in the cold and snow. Better research and better samples show that yes, they did have the necessaries for where they lived. Scientists are needing to revise their theories. Biblical creation scientists stand on the author