Piltdown Superman

It will come as a shock to many people, but Charles Darwin was actually a biblical creationist. No, he didn't want to be, and he never knew it himself. The problem is that science, logic, morality, laws of nature, and more are not possible in an worldview based on materialism, atheism and evolutionism. Those are irrational paradigms. We expect laws of nature to be the same every day (or every minute). When I put my foot into the stirrup to saddle up, I expect to swing up and then sit in the saddle, not launch off into space because gravity suddenly changed. How can you perform science when things are changing? Yet, an evolutionary view is that life, the universe and everything are the products of time, chance, random processes, mutations and all that. Laws of logic are not material; you can't trip over the Law of Identity, for example. It can be described and used, but not seen or held. In a random universe, laws of logic will pretty much be nonexistent and make it impos

Evolutionary scientists have been speculating about conditions on a primordial earth. The failed Miller-Urey experiment was based on the assumption that our planet had a "reducing" atmosphere with gasses that prevented or removed oxygen, but scientists later found that oxygen was present early on. Oxygen is a paradox, because most life forms need it to survive, but something trying to evolve would be killed by it. So those owlhoots cling to their faith and try to cognate when oxygen arrived or formed on Earth. Without actual evidence, of course. Methane bubbles rising from the sea bed / Image courtesy of the NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program. There are life forms that live in extreme oceanic environments, such as those in deep  thermal vents . But there are things living in shallower, colder areas where methane seeps up from the ocean floor that are used, according to presumptions, to gauge changes early on our planet. Methane was one of the alleged primordial gasses in

Although some people consider evolution to be a biological theory, Darwin's ideas have been used to formulate and justify many negative philosophies. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, authors of The Communist Manifesto, were happy about Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.  Karl Marx said that it "provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle". Hitler was a Darwinist , the philosophies of eugenics are evolution-based, racism was "scientifically" justified by evolution , abortion has been supported by false evolutionary claims , and so on. Unfortunately, many liberal "Christians" also embrace evolutionism and shipwreck their fragile faith. Industrialist Andrew Carnegie (with his hero Charles Darwin added) People will find ways to justify their bigotry, selfishness, greed, and pride. (For that matter, see the kinship of atheism

Did cowboys of the old days ride across the land of Nevada and visit Fly Geyser? Not hardly. Oh, sure, they probably rode on the land itself, but the geyser didn't exist yet. It's only about a hundred years old, and its origins are a strange combination of natural processes, human activity — and maybe a bit of accident. Fly Geyser in Nevada / Podruznik / PD Some of the same stone that is found here is stuff that uniformitarian geologists say takes millions of years to form. The Genesis Flood had radically different and very extreme conditions that affected global geology, and Fly Geyser is yet another item that refutes secularist paradigms. In Nevada, there is an unusual water feature known as Fly Geyser, so-named as it is found at Fly Ranch, near the town of Gerlach, Washoe County. In the 1960s, a drill hole previously bored into a natural, underground source of water began gushing heated water up at the ground surface, creating a geothermal hot spring. Rock mineral

Although evolution is an ancient religion, it has become mostly associated with biology. Well, it had  been. Evolutionary thinking have since come to influence many areas, including various philosophies. Using a naturalistic base, people have presumed that evolution is true, and then based worldviews on that belief. Some try to derive ethical behavior from evolution, but cannot account for altruism and self-sacrifice, nor can they deal with innate values of what "ought" to be, which flies in the face of the deterministic view of what "is". The only rational basis for morality is biblical Christianity. David Hume, by Allan Ramsay Using "Hume's Guillotine", Brenton H. Cook shows how three evolutionary-based views of ethics are incomplete, and even self-refuting; the Naturalistic Fallacy is persistent. The problem of establishing an ontological basis for morality has troubled materialistic philosophers since Darwin. This paper demonstrates that

Evolutionary scientists are presenting speculation as actual science again, basing their reasoning on assumptions about the unobservable past. Someone left the gate open on the corral, and the horses of speculation are wandering into the Not Evolution range. That is, why  something evolved, since natural selection is supposed to be purposeless. Young Basement Cat getting acrobatic on a flimsy wooden drying rack. This was before she became a heifer. Scientists like this seem dour. Play not only evolved, but evolved for a purpose, never mind that these are mere assertions. Often, play takes creativity, especially in humans who are clowning around for entertainment purposes. Instead of using the utilitarian route, how about considering that the only purpose is to have fun, and the Creator granted us this bit of joy? Yes, your dog enjoys play, say biologists, and so do birds, dolphins and many other kinds of animals. How did “having fun” evolve? Current Biology’s first issue o

Researchers studying "fairness" in humans did the most logical thing: they studied animals. Sure, makes perfect sense. Not hardly, old son. How about studying humans? But no, they study animals. Not surprisingly, the researchers assume that evolution is true, and manage to not only indulge in typical circular reasoning, but raise more questions than they started with. Also, the results could more appropriately reveal that fairness was put in humans and some animals by design, not by blind chance evolution. How does it make you feel when you put forth just as much effort as the next guy, but he receives twice the reward? Unfair! But how did people acquire the sensibilities involved when assessing fairness? Certain animals recognize unequal rewards too, prompting researchers to try and unravel the origins of fairness. Publishing in Science, Sarah Brosnan from Georgia State University and Frans de Waal of Emery University reviewed studies on fairness in animals. Their re