Piltdown Superman

Standard evolutionary thinking will not allow for ancient people to have any great intelligence levels. After all, they evolved up from the slime through various stages including ape-like brutes and eventually to human form. Evolutionists do not know where intelligence came from except the ad hoc explanation of "EvolutionDidIt". When advanced techniques in lifestyles, architecture and so on are discovered, I reckon it's a bit disconcerting to them because their presuppositions are out of whack. Göbekli Tepe (Turkish for "Potbelly Hill") was an unimpressive site, mostly ignored for about 30 years. Then Klaus Schmidt noticed some interesting things. Now  the site is impressive, since there are examples of architecture, artwork and construction that are interesting — and mysterious. Now they have to study on how this fouled parts of their belief system. These discoveries do not fit with evolutionary assumptions, but are completely in line with biblical creatio

That story about the origin of the universe popularly known as the Big Bang has to keep evolving. (Some people get upset about that name and when people use the term "explosion", but they need to cut some slack to people who use those words because such usage is completely understandable , even if technically inaccurate.) Currently, it is considered a period of inflation. A few times, "proof" of the Big Band or inflation has been presented, only to be found seriously lacking. Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team The "proof" of the inflation of the universe was supposedly found in cosmic microwave background radiation imprinted by so-called "gravity waves", but this was quickly put in doubt  because it was probably nothing but dust. Now it looks like data from the Planck satellite will put that proof six feet under where it belongs. It would be really something if proponents of the evolution of the universe would admit that the evidence reveals t

In the evolutionary scheme of things, origin of life ideas require absence of oxygen on a primordial earth. Abiogenesis does not work, despite the claims of proponents of the failed Miller-Urey experiment . That's because oxygen will cause such life to cash in its chips . Creationists (and some evolutionists) have known for a long time that Earth has had, and must have, oxygen from the beginning. This deals aces and eights to origin of life conjectures. It also throws a wild card into the draw for speculations about extraterrestrial atmospheres. Free oxygen is death to life trying to evolve, but it was present early on, being formed naturally from atmospheric carbon dioxide. What is life? What is the meaning of life? Astrobiologist Chris McKay says it’s a tricky question, but on Astrobiology Magazine, he offers a contrasting challenge: “in the search for life in our solar system what is needed more than a definition of life is a definition of death.” And what does it m

Anti-creationists dismiss creation scientists through prejudicial conjecture and poisoning the well, claiming that creationists' explanations are essentially, "GodDidIt, that's all". Some serious investigation of creationary materials will show that this is incorrect. While admittedly there is a grain of truth to the "GodDidIt" claim, creationary scientists do not stop there; they want to know how God did it, and more. Some evolutionary theories of the formation of the solar system, including planets, comets, satellites and so forth have occasional plausibility from a historical science perspective, but have many failings under scrutiny. Essentially, when cosmological theories break down, ad hoc explanations are rustled up and added in, but those theories should be put out to pasture. "EvolutionDidIt" or "NaturalProcessesDidIt" are unhelpful. "Starfield 3" from Sad Monkey Designs Creationists have pointed out the num

People like Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Laurence Krauss and others believe that when people lack belief in evolution, they are hindering the progress of science (equivocation fallacy, "evolution" and "science"). Evolutionary thinking has consequences; it is not just a theory of biology, but a worldview with many negative results. Nobody is saying that if you believe in evolution, you're a racist. Nor can I find anyone who thinks that racism is caused by evolutionary thinking. But evolutionary thinking accelerated racism. One of those negative results is making racism scientifically acceptable. After people began waking up to how racism cannot be scientifically justified, and when it became socially unacceptable, evolutionists were distancing themselves from their own history. (Biblical creationists who stood by their Scriptural presuppositions that man is from "one blood" have been proven justified.) When I posted " More Modern Evoluti

Critics of creationists will often complain that all we do is pick at flaws in evolutionary theories, so why don't creationists round up some research? Well, busting evolutionary broncos is often quite easy because Darwin's Cheerleaders frequently fail at critical thinking, and there are numerous flaws in what is considered evidence for evolution. They get ornery when we point out those things. But more than that, anti-creationists seldom do their homework, preferring prejudicial conjecture instead. If they did scout around the Web, they would learn some starting things that interfere with their biases. Creationary scientists actually do research, write papers, have jobs in scientific fields, publish in peer-reviewed journals and more. Although the Bible is their foundation, they still conduct "real" science, including life sciences . Here is an article by Dr. Jason Lisle from the Institute for Creation Research about activities in biology, DNA, stratigraphic c

A basic fact of human nature is that people interpret what they observe according to their worldviews — we all have our starting points. These worldviews are based on presuppositions which can relate to valid and invalid axioms, experiences, biases and so forth. I have long maintained that despite the opinions of many, scientists are not dispassionate and unbiased; they have something to investigate and try to prove. Biblical creationists presuppose that the Bible is God's written Word, and interpret evidence in light of it. Evolutionary scientists presuppose that evolution, deep time, materialism (in the majority of cases), and other things are true. Creationary scientists present models and so forth based on their worldviews, just like evolutionary scientist do the same thing. Everyone has the same facts and evidence, there are no "creationist facts", and no "evolutionist facts". As I indicated, the worldviews tend to dictate how the evidence is evaluate