Piltdown Superman

There are supporters of old earth theology who insist that the Bible does not indicate the age of the earth. True, there is nothing explicitly saying that the world was created on 9 AM Oct 3, 4004 BC, or something similar. OECs (Old Earth Creationists) sometimes claim that biblical creation (YEC, or Young Earth Creation) is something new, and belief in an old earth has been the default position of Christians throughout church history. Not hardly. Belief in recent creation has been taught by the church fathers and the reformers , and getting an ancient planet or universe out of the Bible only comes through eisegesis . Malicious Advice Mallard does not want you to learn from the sources. Although church fathers and Reformers can help establish facts of history and offer important insight into Scripture, they were not writing Scripture itself. The opinions of people aren't as important as what Scripture teaches, and what can be reasonably inferred from the Bible. (Some ow

Millions of professing Christians around the world are celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead on this day (1 Cor. 15:3-8). It is also commonly called Easter (sometimes  mistakenly attributed to pagan sources ). If there was no resurrection, we would all be wasting our time (1 Cor. 15:17-20). But he did rise from the dead, and those of us who put our faith in him are children of God (John 1:12). Why would creationists be excited about this? Because Jesus is God the Son, the second person of the Trinity. He is the Creator (Col. 1:16, John 1:1-3) of all things. Although we are all sinners (Romans 3:23) and worthy of death (Romans 6:23), we have been redeemed by the blood and resurrection of Jesus (Heb. 9:15, Gal. 4:5, John 11:25). Salvation is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9), and those who humble themselves can receive this gift on God's terms, not ours.  Imagine...the Creator of the universe is living in me, and I am secure in my salvation, even though I don&#

The realm of values and ethics is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview. Darwinists believe in survival of the fittest where the unfit are eliminated, so why should they care when a scientist actually displays the natural result of an evolutionary worldview? For that matter, when a disingenuous anti-creationist troll calls a creationist a "liar for Jesus" or an article a "lie fest", he or she is appealing to a non-Darwinian worldview. When atheists and evolutionists complain that something is wrong, and that there is a better way to live and act, they are actually showing that their own worldviews are incoherent, so they rustle the biblical Christian worldview and brand it as if it was their own. In addition, scientific methods are not just the stuff of using sterile, impersonal facts. Don't get me started on peer review fraud ... There are competing philosophies in the scientific community about what defines a law, "tacit knowledge"

No, it's "Ledi Jaw", not  "Jedi Law", Luke. The Evo Sith want it both ways: Either there's an abundance of fossils, artifacts, and transitional forms to make goo-to-you evolution an indisputable fact, or there's still a big search for the "missing link" between humans and our alleged ape-like relatives. Seems that whenever anthropologists and paleontologists come up with something, there's a big uproar in the scientific community and the press proclaiming triumph. What do they have now? Part of a jaw. Mighty sparse bit of material to make pronouncements by. There's nothing to compare it with, no skull, no way to judge the overbite. Not much at all, but they're still talking "missing link" material. This reminds me of another critter that was built up from very little — watch yourselves, you may wind up with another Nebraska Man fiasco if you're not careful. Some misotheists got burrs under their saddles when

This is the sixth in a series on radiometric dating. (Actually, I think of this one as part 5B since Part 5 laid the groundwork.) If you want to catch up or review, get your bookmarking apparatus and think bones ready: Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 , Part 5 . Or you can feel free to read on anyway. It has been established that radiometric dating methods are unreliable, showing widely-varying results, and even yielding millions of years for rocks of known age. These methods use several assumptions and circular reasoning. There are many other methods that show the earth to be far younger than secularists would like, but I reckon that they have to use bad science in order to preserve their old-earth evolutionary paradigm. Other radiometric dating methods have been attempted, but these, too have assumptions and are flawed. This series has summarized radioisotope dating models, their assumptions, and how those assumptions mistakenly lead to a “deep time” picture of our univers

The purchase is final for our headquarters building. We have already moved in and made it comfortable. No, we are not going to vacate the other buildings that we are using for regional offices and warehouse space (partly because relocating upsets the velociraptors), but at least we have a central location. I can't live there (legally), so I'm still in the trailer park. Here is the picture: The fun continues at full gallop, as we also have purchased commercial property for a gift shop. That's right, a gift shop. You can get your Uncle Pilty keychains, TQEP magnets and a corral full of other goodies. We've even installed a cheese, coffee and tea bar! Here it is: Here is the manufacturing plant that makes our merchandise: "That sounds great, Cowboy Bob! How can I find out more?" Glad you asked, old son. For further information on this momentous event, including hours and locations,  click here . To read an important message for today, click on

Mockers sometimes say that Proverbs 26:4-5 are a blatant contradiction. If they'd bridle their enthusiasm, they might see that those verses are put together for a reason: It is a contrast, not a contradiction. Unbelievers do not like what God says about them (Psalm 53.1, Romans 1.18-22), but I reckon I'm not going to argue against the Creator of the universe to please others. Believers are to defend the faith, but we must do it biblically. When someone says, "Leave God (or the Bible) out of this and let's debate on neutral ground", that's saddling up someone else's horse to ride. You're answering the fool according to his folly and being just like him. But you can reflect back to him and show him his folly so he isn't such a clever fellow in his own eyes. (Dr. Jason Lisle has some information on the "Don't Answer, Answer" strategy .) If you bring yourself down to the unbeliever's level, old son, you're not going to get a

It's amazing how evolution can be considered scientific when there are so many credulity-straining stories told in its promotion. Speculations are asserted as facts without any plausible models, just piles of stories worthy of entertainment around a campfire on a cattle drive, but not much else. In addition to the speculations, facts are conveniently ignored. Someone may want to ask, "Are you actually listening to yourself, pilgrim?" Image: NPS.gov Proponents of evolution insist on an old earth, even when the evidence is against them. How can animal fat still be on stone tools that are supposedly half a million years old? Organic material has a way of disappearing in a short time; horse apples on the lone prairie don't last very long, and they're not exactly something desired by much more than bugs and bacteria. Evolutionary thinking has our ancestors being stupid brutes because they recently swung down from the trees and hadn't evolved much intellig

For many years, proponents of goo-to-you evolution have been creating a false war between "science" and "faith". The truth is, there is no conflict between the two. There are Bible-believing scientists today, and there have been throughout the formation of scientific methods. The real problem is between worldviews. "But Cowboy Bob, we use science, you use faith!" Not hardly. Science, and the "scientific method", is a philosophy about interpreting evidence. Historical science (such as creation and evolution) use scientific methods and interpret evidence according to presuppositions. A secularist sees a fossil and believes it's millions of years old, while a biblical creationist sees evidence of the global Genesis Flood, for example. Unpopular Opinion Puffin has an unpopular opinion — signed, Captain Obvious Unfortunately, people are only given one side of the story: evolution. Evidence for creation is dismissed out of hand, often ti

The general theory of evolution has been disingenuously (and fallaciously) equivocated with science for years now. But evolution is not  "science". In fact, evolution fails the criteria for being a scientific theory! Get yourself to cogitating on this: evolution is not testable, repeatable, or observable (see the video at the bottom of this post for more). Oh, sure, proponents insist that evolution has been tested and observed, but that's from small samples and playing games with words (using the fallacy of equivocation by referring to "change" and "variation" as evolution). And nobody saw microbes evolving into all the life forms we see today. Image provided by Why?Outreach I reckon that evolutionism is getting more desperate all the time. There is a considerable amount of fact-free storytelling, and when the data becomes inconvenient, they use the scientific method of Making Stuff Up™. Although the structure of the "theory" is wrong