Piltdown Superman

It has been shown many times that radiometric dating has a passel of difficulties. These include circular reasoning, presupposing deep time, unwarranted assumptions, and more. Samples tested by various methods provide wildly differing results, including lava rocks of known ages. Does the eruption make a difference? Tungurahua eruption image credit: FreeDigitalPhotos / xura This does seem like a reasonable question on the surface. I saw a comment at The Question Evolution Project about radiometric dating and lava of known ages. He figured that everything would be reset to zero, so old rock that became molten would appear young but is actually very old; a kind of reset. Arbitrary assumptions based on lack of knowledge raise more questions than they solve. Biblical creationists point out these flaws in uniformitarianism because the evidence indicates a young earth. Once again, our feedback is about radioactive dating, which seems a major roadblock against Christians believing

Biblical creationists have been using the 1980 eruption at Mount St. Helens as a powerful illustration of the Genesis Flood on a smaller scale. However, minerals-to-mineralogist thinking has been befuddled by the rapidly-recovering ecosystem. What has been observed is well in line with creationist views. Credit: Flickr / Pacific Northwest Research Station (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Scientists understandably believed that the blast zone was destroyed of all life. However, biological legacies  that existed before the eruption still existed. Since the Master Engineer designed living things to keep life going, little things began to thrive and replenish the soil, then other organisms joined in. Adlers and other trees are growing next to the remains of dead trees. What is observed fits neatly into the creation paradigm. United States Geological Survey research hydrologist Jon Major has published several reviews in remembrance of the radical eruption of Mo

When we hear about apemen in Western countries, our thoughts probably first turn to the speculations of Charles Darwin. We know that Darwin did not invent evolution because it was an ancient pagan religion. The concept of apemen, cat-people, and others also predates Darwin. Orangutan can be translated as "man of the forest" Credit: RGBStock /  Adrian van Leen There have been myths in many places of odd creatures and people attached them with pagan beliefs. Today we have scientific methods of analysis, but when people tried to categorize these creatures, sightings of orangutans, baboons and such were corrupted into other characters. When people began to be scientific about it, they didn't have much to work with. Then Charles Darwin was influence by these to deny the Creator's work to plug into his version of evolution. The whole thing was a confused mess. This paper discusses the presence of belief in ape-men, and ape-women, prior to Darwin. Beliefs regarding

When Darwinists tell the tale of whale evolution, people should be able to liken it to a just-so story without much effort. But no, naturalism demands stories that resemble, "Life evolved in the sea, some went on land and evolved further, others went back into the sea and became whales". Because evolution. The Whale Beached  by Esaias van de Velde, 1617 Since they have no actual science to back up their story, evolutionists began blubbering until they came up with the idea of using phylogenetics. However, we already saw that this is based on personal preferences, omitting important information, and circular reasoning (see " Phylogenetics — Based on Worldviews "). Piling up speculations and fake science has become far too common in evolutionism, but hey, give the people what they want, right? Although phylogeny is easy to dismantle by knowledgeable people, Darwin's cheerleaders attempted to use genetics. It's interesting. Some genes are not the same i

According to the narrative of atheists and evolutionists, God has no place in science. They conveniently suppress the fact that the foundations of modern science have a Christian basis , and an atheistic environment is antagonistic to its development. Indeed, the fact that Charles Lyell wanted to set geology free from Moses gives lie to the claim that natural philosophy (the word that was used before science ) was always materialistic. We have a trio of articles about how materialists have kidnapped science and tied it up in the root cellar at the Darwin Ranch, then drag it out when they can pretend it supports their worldview. Ironically, science is impossible without God ! Merchants of minerals-to-materialist evolution celebrate people who support and promote their agendas. John Tyndall was an activist that sought to remove science from its true origins, and other sidewinders in the X-Club helped him along the way. Later atheistic philosophers are cheering his efforts and

Whenever there is a noticeable celestial object in the night sky, people tend to make efforts to see it. As well they should. Annual meteor showers are interesting. Comets, however, garner more attention, possibly because they are less common. Have you ever stopped to consider them? Credit: Unsplash /  Tim Dennert F'rinstance, comet C/2020 F3 (NEOWISE) was discovered, and was eventually close enough to be seen with the naked eye . (By the way, it's thought that those annual meteor showers are from the debris of comets.) Comets can only last with an upper limit of 10,000 years, which is far too small to fit old solar system narratives. Various rescuing devices are concocted using the principle of Making Things Up™ and then passed along as science. So, they have to be replenished. One of the alleged sources for comets is the Oort cloud, which has no observational evidence and the concept is self-refuting; it can't work. (One jasper with Atheism Spectrum Disorder decl

As stated before, scientists who ride for the biblical creation brand are like their counterparts in the secular science industry. Not only are they educated and credentialed, but are not always in lockstep when it comes to scientific models. Heavily modified from an image at Pixabay by Jeff Jacobs One major difference between the camps is that biblical creationists believe that the Bible is true, but models will come and go. Secularists have been dishonest for money and prestige. There are a few scientific models for the Genesis Flood among creationists, but the two best known are Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and the Hydroplate Theory . Some people passionately promote the Hydroplate Theory and consider it superior to Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. However, most creationists find serious flaws with it. If it is superior, then it would be the best of the worst — sort of like the nebular hypothesis  for the formation of the solar system is bad, but the others fail even more. Mo

While I want to cut some slack to evolutionists who are locked into their paradigms and do not think creatively, the secular science industry is infested with science deniers. The atheistic naturalism narrative is more important than facts and real science. Assembled with components from Clker clipart More and more fossils are referred to in terms of exceptional preservation, revealing evolution-defying details (like the fully-formed complex trilobite eyes ). Although there were indications that some fossils were not fully permineralized ( such as the use of octopus ink ), young earth evidence stormed the gates of evolutionism. All sorts of rescuing devices were utilized beyond reason; some things don't deteriorate (apparently if it is Darwin's will). Although there are soft tissues and such cropping up frequently (such in this recent duckbilled dinosaur dig ), they are preserved through the "exceptional conditions" that must have been common.  Now, thought

Imagine if you will a butterfly doing butterfly stuff on a nice sunny day. Suddenly, a cloudburst! Those drops of rain are mighty huge when compared to a butterfly. You might expect that it would be pummeled to the ground along with many others of its type. Not happening, Hoss. Banded Orange Heliconian image credit: Pixnio / ulleo With extreme magnification, it has been revealed that the Master Engineer has designed those delicate wings to take the punishment. Many factors must be in place so the insect can survive, but the best you'll get from Darwinists is along the lines of invoking the Stuff Happens Law . That's not science. Okay, I admit most folks have probably not thought to ask this creation question. But a bigger question gets answered when we examine the fantastic butterfly features that counter the force of falling raindrops. Butterfly wings are quite thin. How do these tiny creatures cope with raindrops that land at 22 miles per hour [35.41 KPH]? Cornell

Biblical creationists must deal with questions about natural evils, including parasites and the diseases they transmit. The details of such things are very involved and many professing Christians are unable to provide adequate explanations. Evolutionists are also challenged. Blackfly, Simulium damnosum, transmits river blindness Credit:  CDC/ Dr. Jesse Hobbs (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Scoffers ask, "If there is a loving God, how could have have made such things?" These people are actually indulging in prejudicial conjecture and straw man arguments (in this case, the false " fixity of species " view). Not only are they disparaging the Creator's skill and integrity, but arguing from the worldview of atheistic naturalism. That is, if they honestly want an answer from a biblical creationist, they must allow us to argue from our  worldview. Indeed, this is not an argument from science, but is actually theological and philosophical in n