Piltdown Superman

Click for larger Everyone knows where stuff came from, yes? Everything had to have a source — didn't it? Where do articles like the ones you read here (or follow links to read) come from? The answer may surprise you. You might think that someone wrote this article. But of course, you would be mistaken. Articles are not written by people. They are the result of chance. Every intelligent person knows it. There might be some people who want you to think that articles are written by people. But this view is totally unscientific. After all, we cannot see the person who allegedly wrote the article. We cannot detect him or her in any way. The claim that this article has an author cannot be empirically verified, and therefore it must be rejected. All we have is the article itself, and we must find a scientific explanation for its origin. Since no intelligent source can be empirically detected within this article, empirical science must look to the chance processes of nature

Edited 10-29-2012, 9-25-2021 I've experienced this evolutionist dogmatic attitude many times. Part 1 is here . What follows are some of my experiences that are used to illustrate the irrational behavior to which misotheists and anti-creationists can descend. Now , regarding harassment... There are many kinds . Getting blasted in forums and on Weblogs is common, and to be expected. They are exercising their freedom of speech, even though they seldom have anything interesting to say. But s ometimes they kick it up a few notches, even to the point of stalking. A fellow claiming to be a physicist at a junior college was rather annoying, wanting my attention on his highly forgettable blog-o-fallacies , which included an oft-repeated lie about the Catholic Church and Galileo, which is easily refuted (Galileo was criticized by the scientific community of his time, not "religion"). It is "a given" that people like this with poor reasoning abili

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Edited 3-18-2017 Because Nye has engaged AiG in a public way, and after some extreme hostility by secularists directed at Drs. Purdom and Menton that showed up on websites and Facebook pages, I decided to do two things: 1. post my second Nye video on YouTube, viewable on a recent blog; and 2. extend an invitation to Mr. Nye to a public debate on evolution vs. creation. — Ken Ham This week, we are going to take a break from the scientific evidence that refutes evolution and affirms creation so we can look at some more philosophical ideas. There is an announcement to be made and some points to prove about bad attitudes. (One Facebook comment contained the Stalinesque remark, "Evolution is a fact, and participation is mandatory".) Any skilled totalitarian knows that long-term success involved capturing the minds of children. Proponents of evolution are willing to lie to children to accomplish their ends . Bill Nye is a darling of evolutionist

MorgueFile People who are locked into a uniformitarian, old-Earth, evolutionist viewpoint constantly have to deal with (or attempt to simply dismiss) evidence that does not support their presuppositions. Case in point: An Arlington fossil site has a mix of land and sea creatures that support creationist scientist Michael Oard's hypothesis regarding the Noachian flood. A new cache of fossils found in Arlington, Texas, contains plenty of clues that are best explained by Noah's Flood. More specifically, the circumstances surrounding these remains match a hypothesis proposed by creation scientist Michael Oard that describes how swamp plants and land creatures could have mixed with sea creatures several months into the year-long Flood. According to Scripture, five months passed after the Flood began before its waters had completely covered the earth (Genesis 7:24). By then, all air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures not on board the Ark were dead or dying. According to Oar

According to a Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model, the mantle and crust of the Earth shifted violently during the year of the Noachian Flood. Apollo 17 "Blue Marble" — NASA If the planet was indeed covered with water, where did the water go? If the Earth was smoothed out, it would be covered with water for a depth (depending on the estimates) of 1.6 to 2 miles, so there is rather a lot of it. The continents and mountains rose, the water ran off into the newly-formed ocean basins according to this model. NASA's Image of the Day for January 25, "Blue Marble," is a composite of images taken by the Suomi NPP satellite that provides an exquisite view of the earth from space. This is the latest in a series that began with the famous "Blue Marble" photo taken in 1972 by the Apollo 17 crew. This image can help answer a question that creationists often hear: If the entire earth really was covered during the Flood of Noah's day, then where did all

Geologists see evidence of the global biblical flood, but they are locked into their uniformitarian interpretive framework, so they have trouble reconciling the actual data with their presuppositions. All of the land on Earth was covered with water. "Karoo Landscape" image credit: Freeimages / Dominic Morel "Where did the water go after the flood?" Into the ocean basins is the short-form answer. Actually, the hypothetical continent of Gondwana supposedly broke up and the water flowed into the ocean basins in that scenario as well. This is borne out by observations as well, as the continents "rose". Once the waters of the Flood had completely inundated every piece of land on the earth, they began to recede, and they continued to recede for a period of about seven months, until the continents were dry. Where did the waters go? They flowed into the ocean basins which were widening at the time, or deepening, or both. Geologists actually cat

C.R. Twidale spent decades researching inselbergs , and has offered his findings in a uniformitarian framework. However, his findings (especially in regards to Uluṟu, formerly called Ayers) have some serious flaws.  Image credit: morgueFile/Kevin Connor In his paper for the Answers Research Journal, Ken Patrick proposes a better explanation that explains the data far more effectively. A famous and well known Australian inselberg, Uluṟu, is an interesting geological feature in that its geomorphology is still a matter of controversy among conventional geologists. Traditionally, Uluṟu’s stratigraphical history began hundreds of millions of years ago, being fashioned into its current contour only as recently as between 60 million years ago until the present. The process by which Uluṟu’s shape came into relief tends to be understood in terms of a two-stage weathering then subsequent erosion process. This paper will seek to show that problems with the current hypotheses must forc