Piltdown Superman

While the word landslide is popular in elections, let's get more down to Earth (heh!) with the original meaning. Charles Lyell was a lawyer by trade and went into geology. His most famous book was Principles of Geology, which was published in three volumes in the early 1800s. It expanded on James Hutton's uniformitarianism (simplified as "the present is the key to the past"). Lyell, who lied about the recession rate of Niagara Falls , was a strong influence on Charles Darwin (whose only formal degree was in theology, not science), and Darwin read the first volume of Lyell's Principles on the voyage of the Beagle. Lyell's uniformitarianism was gleefully accepted by secular scientists as a means to deny the Genesis Flood, catastrophism, and the Creator God of the Bible. The fact that compromising Christians ceded science to secularists didn't help matters any. 2013 landslide in Colorado, image credit: US Geological Survey / Rex Baum , no endorsement

Proponents of minerals-to-man evolution tend to take a reductionist approach and reduce all life to chemistry. This comes from their materialistic presuppositions including no God and that evolution is a given. This dehumanizing worldview affects both scientists and us regular folk, since evolution is viewed as a science and, therefore, truth, so it spills over into economics, religion, politics, abortion, "scientific" racism, and more. Image credit: jk1991 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Materialism rules the scientific community, and data are interpreted through this view. Just follow the money, and you'll see that funding goes toward evolutionary goals. Scientists with a creationary worldview are not getting the grant money, no matter how good their credentials are. In fact, creationists are mostly blackballed. Evolutionary owlhoots are intolerant of their own their own kind who don't absolutely toe the line. An author said that an old carving looked like a dino

First, a story. Way back when I was much younger and James Madison was President, we were visiting my grandmother in the northern part of Michigan, in the lower peninsula. It was a small town (still is), and there was a parcel of land behind the house, just a field. This bored child went a-wandering. There was some activity from a killdeer, making all sorts of racket and playing at having a broken wing. I'd heard of such shenanigans to protect the young'uns, so I went in the opposite direction. I could imagine the call of the killdeer as saying, "Fleeee, baby!", and I found the little ones in the tall grass. Had sense enough to leave them alone. Ruffed Grouse , John James Audubon Other birds that lay eggs on the ground do this broken wing business as well, including the star of today's show, the ruffed grouse. They're not very big, and both man and beast consider them good eatin '. How can they keep from going extinct in a hurry? The Creator gave t

Video action is commonplace today, and we can pull out a camera, phone, or other device and record something that we can view instantly. (I marvel at how people can have a live video broadcast that is also being uploaded to places like YouTube, free, and I've never bothered to use the tools at my disposal to do it.) Technology can be fun! Step back a ways, and many of us remember watching movies that were on film, whether in the cinema or in school. Those kinds of movies were actually optical illusions, relying on the brain, film speed, and persistence of vision so we would not see the individual frames, but perceive actual motion. Movies on film that lasted a long time. What happened before? One gadget was Thomas Edison's kinetoscope, using film and that optical illusion thing. (A short video about the kinetoscope is here , and a kind of tour of the machine is here .) The earliest Western films were on the kinetoscope as well. Before that, there was a toy called the thaum

If you study on it for a spell, you'll notice that secularists have double standards, especially related to anything Christian or creationist: When we teach our children about biblical creation, we're "indoctrinating" them. When government-run secularist education centers give them materialistic and evolutionary material for several hours a day over a period of years, they're "educating" them. When evolutionists disagree about hypotheses and models, it's good for science. When creationary scientists disagree with each other or offer other possible interpretations of evidence, well, creationists cannot get along with each other. When atheists and evolutionists attack Christians and creationists, they're being "rational". When creationists present evidence and refute the attacks, we're "right wing extremist s" and " science deniers". When using quotes of evolutionists admitting they have problems, it's &q

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The soul has been a source of controversy for a mighty long time. What is it? Where does it reside? Is there a difference between soul and spirit? Some Christians believe that humans are sort of triune, saying something to the effect of, "You are a soul, you have a spirit, and you live in a body". This may reflect the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Others believe in only two aspects, with soul and spirit being interchangeable. Image credit: dan at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Secular scientists with their materialistic (often reductionist) worldviews contradict themselves. They use the laws of logic, but those are not material things . For that matter, some consider mathematics to be something pure, but numbers are also immaterial . The secular worldview precludes the existence of God and spirits, and yet, scientists search for the location of free will , which indicates that they believe there is a soul (or consciousness, if you will)

For me, stargazing is a wondrous thing, but I'm not good with constellations. F'rinstance, I don't get seeing Cassiopeia on her throne, just a kind of W shape. That one over there, a scorpion, you say? Not happening for this child, sorry. Odd that I can see figures in clouds but not in constellations. Especially on a clear night, there's all kinds of other stars making it hard to pick out the ones in the constellation. Big dipper (or "plough")? Yes, I can see that. And the little one, too. No, I don't see the Great Bear in it. Oh look, a shooting star! Starry Night over the Rhone , Vincent van Gogh, 1888 Those constellations have some mighty fanciful tales associated with them, don't they? What people may not know is that the same basic story is found in diverse areas of the globe, in different cultures. How is that? Getting into the history of constellations, star maps, and the biblical timeline, looks like this may help support the Genesis disp