Piltdown Superman

Rocks falling through the sky can be interesting, and those quick streaks of light indicate for us that a meteor burned up in the atmosphere. Most burn up, and tons of dust lands on Earth. No, they don't know quite how much, but it's a lot. When rocks do not burn up and actually reach the ground, then they're called meteorites. Big ones are rare, so there's no call to be worrying about them. Meteor image credit: NASA (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Meteorites have a lot to tell us. (No, they don't talk, and if you're hearing talking meteorites, I'll observe you from a safe distance.) We can learn from meteorites by studying them, especially the chemical composition. Secular geologists presuppose that they are the best things to use for obtaining the age of the earth through unreliable radiometric dating methods because they're not from Earth. Creationary scientists also have hypotheses about our planet's age that differ g

Believers in evolution and deep time get on the prod when soft tissues are discussed, mainly because they cannot exist over millions of Darwin years. Lately, the most frequent discussion on soft tissues involves dinosaurs, but they are found in other areas, such as the ink in a fossil ink sac that was used to draw a picture . In a similar manner to soft tissues, fossil plants are not cooperating with the evolution narrative. Gingko leaves in autumn, Wikimedia Commons / Joe Schneid  ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Even after the alleged millions of years, original plant molecules and chemical bonds were found — and a term that brings the concept of entropy to mind, thermodynamic stability, was used. Worse for Darwin's disciples, plant material was essentially unchanged between those in the fossils and living counterparts. I reckon that the term living fossils may be applicable here. Yee ha boy howdy, evolutionists were frustrated twice in one study! Truth is, the earth is not billions of ye

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen We've seen several times before that evolution was not the brainchild of Charles Darwin, and had been around since way back when. It is actually an ancient pagan religion , and had received some "scientific" adjustments before Darwin became its chief popularizer . Darwin's disciples revere him as a "great scientist", as well as the other 19th century propagandists for evolutionism. Except that most were not scientists at all! Many creationists point out that Darwin had no formal scientific training, and was actually a backslidden theology student. (I'll allow that he did make some good observations while learning in the field, however.) We also point out that old earth advocate Charles Lyell was a lawyer. Several others that influenced Darwin and the revival of evolutionism had no scientific training. "That's not quite fair, Cowboy Bob. Geosciences are comparatively new, so they weren't giving away those

A favorite argument by biblical creationists and advocates of Intelligent Design against Darwinism is irreducible complexity. The simplified version is that everything must be in place at the same time, from the beginning, or nothing works or makes sense. This applies to the human eye and even down to the molecular level. Papa Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” He also said that he could "find no such case". I reckon he didn't try to see the evidence, just like his disciples today — who have even less excuse because of advances in science and technology. Matthew 13:14 comes to mind. Anti-creationists say that irreducible complexity "can be explained", but their arguments can be summed up as, "I found someone on teh interwebs that says irreducible complexity isn't so, and he says what

One day when her seashell sales booth was not seeing much activity, Suzie decided to do some diving at the Great Barrier Reef. She saw herself a passel of sea snakes, but she didn't pay them no nevermind because most are not aggressive, despite having some extremely powerful venom. Then she noticed the turtle-headed sea snake and alerted scientists. You can't see the turtle-headed sea snake because it's hiding. Actually, I couldn't find a usable image, so here's one of its habitats, the Great Barrier Reef. Image credit: NASA /JPL-Caltech/BIOS (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents). It seems that a version of the contrived non-science of "melanism" is being brought back into the evolutionary icon corral after being discredited in the peppered moths fiasco . Now it's a sea snake that changes color, which is being touted as evolution in action. Katie, wake the neighbors! We got us some bona fide evolution happening! No, not really. W

Most people in these parts are most familiar with the shape of chicken eggs, and may have seen (hopefully without touching) wild birds' eggs in nests. Turns out that shells of those chicken eggs I fried up in the skillet are a common shape among birds, but there are several varieties. An ambitious study of bird eggs was undertaken to try and determine a pattern to different egg shapes. Credit: Freeimages / Krzysztof (Kriss) Szkurlatowski Like with any serious endeavor into observable science, possible answers are obtained but other questions are raised. Unfortunately, the researchers did the typical homage to Darwinism, and unsuccessfully attempted to link bird and dinosaur eggs. What secularists are opposed to admitting is that different birds have different egg shapes for different purposes because they were designed by the Master Engineer. Just what advantage a particular egg shape offers has long been the subject of scientific speculation. Depending on a scientist’s wo

There are currently somewhere around 118 elements in the periodic table, although some of them are synthesized and a few have unknown properties. If you dismiss those, there are still quite a few "established' elements. Secular scientists believe the heavier elements were made by supernovas, making life possible. Carl Sagan said that "we are made of star stuff", and tinhorn Lawrence Krauss blasphemed, "Forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today". Does the story about exploding stars causing heavier elements (and life itself) hold up under science, or have secularists saddled up the wrong horse again? Credit: NASA /ESA/HEIC and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) Astronomical observations of distant supernova remnants only show small amounts of some heavier elements. Cosmologists speculate from their assumptions that, despite any evidence, supernovas formed the heavier elements. In reality, they really do not know how those elements