Piltdown Superman

We hear about first responders frequently in the news, those people who are the first to arrive at an emergency situation . Generally, people think of police, firefighters, medical personnel and the like. You and I have a passel of our own medical first responders, but you can't see them. Made at Atom Smasher They live in and on you, and help keep you well. I'm talking about viruses and bacteria that work with your immune system. People think those are bad things, but I reckon that it's because we only hear about the bad ones, or the good ones that got a mite confused and became mavericks . Originally, everything was created very good , but things started going downhill and degenerating. We still have a non-evolved, intelligently-designed system for dealing with infections and diseases. It’s the largest security force in the world. A teeming network of first responders that live on nearly every surface of your body, inside and out. They’re not part of the body, lik

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Secularists are just like everyone else, having a sense of right and wrong. However, they are unable to determine where it comes from, and try to believe that God is not the source . This doesn't work. Some folks try to figure out how it evolved, which leads to further inconsistencies. Biblical creationists do not have this problem. Made at Image Chef When a professing atheist says that something is bad or evil, he or she cannot give a foundation for why . In fact, they are standing on the biblical worldview when declaring something evil or  good, instead of their usual "survival of the fittest" paradigm. (Concepts like altruism throw a monkey wrench into the works, as they cannot be explained through evolution .) Further, they cannot account for the laws of logic, which are not material, nor are they reached by consensus.  Atheists are notoriously bad at both logic and morality. Suppose an atheist dislikes something a creationist says b

How could Adam have named all the animals? I'll allow it's a fair question, but scoffers and under-informed Christians seem to read Genesis 2:19, then use the modern definition of species, see that modern taxonomy has millions of them, and assume it either didn't happen or was simply an allegory. Nobody could have that much time, even the "very good" newly-created man, they might say. Adam Naming the Animals, Theophanes of Crete , Wikimedia Commons Of course, it would help if they read a mite further to Genesis 2:20 and they would see that he gave names to livestock, beasts of the field, and birds. (Reading things in context is a good way to guard yourself against false teachings in general.) That rules out a whole passel of species right there. But what really went on? A bit of science as well as Scripture puts things into perspective. How could Adam have named millions of different species on Day 6 if it was only 24 hours? This is a common objection to

It seems that whenever a new planet outside our own solar system has been found that may  be in the habitable zone, secular astronomers get happy. The science press goes wild and starts passing around sensationalistic reports like fire water at the Darwin Ranch's picnics. Even more gleeful are in the pseudoscience of astrobiology, getting paid for offering speculation and guesses as actual science. These folks reckon that if there's a planet with a chance for life, then they can validate evolution on our own planet. If you study on it a spell, if evolution did  happen on another world, it's a mighty big leap of logic to claim that it proves evolution happened here. Proxima Centauri image credit:  ESA / Hubble / NASA As the philosopher Bugs Bunny asked, "What's all the hubbub, Bub?" A planet has been spotted in that habitable zone of our nearest neighbor, Proxima Centauri. As a kid, I saw television shows and movies with space aliens claiming to be fro

We hear about living fossils, those critters that show up in the fossil record under different names than their still-existing counterpart. Proponents of fish-to-physicist evolution get burrs under their saddles when living fossils are mentioned because they show flaws in their belief system . For that matter, some anti-creationists have said that we  invented the term living fossils, but they are a mite uninformed, possibly dishonest, because it was conjured up by Charles Darwin . Image made at RedKid.net The overwhelming majority of fossils are marine invertebrates , and we get fish, plants, and so on. Mammals, not so much. When you tie on the feed bag at your favorite eatery, quite a few items on the menu could very well be the living counterparts to creatures that have been fossilized and given different names. Since the "fossil record" is kind of catawampus (the fossil progression only existing in textbooks and evolutionary propaganda videos), the best explanatio

Evolutionary scientists work on the origin of life, but they raise more questions than answers. Their conferences don't seem to help matters a whole lot. Despite evidence against them from both secular and creation science sources, some scientists are clinging tenaciously to a couple of dominant conjectures on abiogenesis (chemical evolution); how life arose on Earth. Assembled at Atom Smasher Even the simplest forms of life are extremely complex, and contain a great deal of information so they can function. One bit of speculation involved an "RNA World" of primordial soup, so a special RNA enzyme was produced in a lab. Right, so highly-controlled conditions by people with schooling and specialized equipment, assuming what the world's conditions were like at the beginning, have been able to prove that this one enzyme happened by chance. See " Life from an 'RNA World'? " for more on this idea. Then we have the hot down south hydrothermal ven

Proponents of common-ancestor evolution tend to believe that, with the help of natural selection, the gradual accumulation of mutations over a long period of time can make an ape-like creature into a human. That may sound reasonable on the surface, but the idea is a bit too simple.  Image credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net /  M - Pics To bolster their argument, evolutionists often cite the falsehood that "humans and chimps are 98% similar", which was bad science from the get-go. The alleged high similarity does not tell anywhere near the full story. From there, they may jump to another bit of bad science, the falsehood of "junk" DNA, which has been an embarrassment to Darwinistas. The simple inconvenient truth is that genetics is hostile to evolution, but friendly to creation. Hello, I have had a question about apes-to-man evolution involving mutations. I’ve read on your website that mutations don’t add any genetic information. So my question is, is it possib