Piltdown Superman

We have been through this origin of the moon stuff before, but they keep gnawing on those old bones. Dipping an old bone in sauce may make it taste better for a spell but it is still an old bone. None of the stories make sense, but naturalists need an origin story, so the best of the worst is the impact theory. The story goes that Earth was a molten blob, and another inconsiderate planet came along and smashed into it. Instead of rendering both planets a mess of cosmic splatters, Earth evolved into what we have today, and some stuff formed the Moon. Yes, secularists believe such things, and NASA is sliding downhill with the rest of the secular science industry. Artist's concept of planetary collision, NASA (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) NASA brought this thing to the fore because they were playing with a video game. "That's silly, Cowboy Bob!" I took that term from the article featured below because it fits. Researchers were tinkering with makin

Russell Watchtower, who heads up the Ministry of Truth at the Darwin Ranch, is a mite perturbed. He is contacting planetary scientists to offer his assistance. We have seen numerous times how cosmic evolution stories are constantly being refuted by information sent back by space probes, such as Saturn and its moons . Titan is the largest of Saturn's moons, and it has an atmosphere. The stripped-down explanation is that what is observed is not consistent with an old solar system, but Mr. Watchtower is excited about a new effort to get around the facts and keep Titan appearing ancient. Artist's concept of Cassini and Titan, NASA / JPL-Caltech (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The methane in Titan's atmosphere should have periods where it converted into ethane and other things. Over 225 million Darwin years, it would have formed significant ocean. Cassini found a little but not what was expected, since the truth is that the universe was created far more rece

After many years and a great deal of expense, the James Webb Space Telescope was put in orbit.  Secularists have high hopes for the JWST regarding the Big Bang and life beyond Earth, and were greatly relieved that it is working properly. Now they think they can check out cosmic evolution. It should be kept in mind that we are talking about preliminary findings, and peer-reviewed material takes longer to become available. It's the nature of that beast. We need to look back to see why all the ruckus. JWST deep field galaxy cluster SMACS 0723, NASA / ESA / CSA / STScI (usage does not i mply endorsement of site contents) Regular readers have seen material on how the Big Bang, a concept that was mostly established in the early twentieth century, is often Frankensteined with new parts stitched in (rescuing devices). Although a tenet of faith for materialists who claim to love facts and science, there is no empirical evidence for the Big Bang. Lots of theory, lots of attempted confirmat

Remember when people thought that there could be life on Mars, but it would be difficult because Mars is such a desert? Then scientists pulled bottles of snake oil out of their carpetbags, saying that Mars not only had water long ago, but oceans and possibly a global flood? Good times, good times. The folks at NASA had their Curiosity rover checking out the planet, even spotting a crab and a lady , but provided disappointment for Earthlings when Gale Crater turned out to have no signs of water. Later, Perseverance landed in Jezero Crater in 2021. Jezero Crater imagined as a lake, NASA / JPL-Caltech (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents Nope. Ain't got none here, neither. What may have looked like sedimentary rock was actually igneous. They "saw" evidence of water because they wanted to, and maybe they neglected to be dutiful scientists and consider other possible explanations for what they observed. After all, evolutionists do not consider evidence of the Cr

Secular cosmologists and cosmogonists continually look for evidence of deep time out there, thataway , to support their preconceptions. Probes to other planets in our solar system provided data that surprised them. Later probes astonished them, as planets, moons, and so on did not act billions of years old. They also have a fondness for bigger and better telescopes. The Hubble was expected to provide insights into the Big Bang and extra-solar planets. The Big Bang busted, and exoplanets are consistently uncooperative in providing possible homes for life. Cartwheel Galaxy, NASA , ESA, CSA, STScI (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The next big thing was the ambitious James Web Space Telescope. There were many things for this expensive project that could have gone wrong, but it's there and working just fine. (Some people expected images that would only be useful to scientists because it worked on infrared, but those were adjusted for the human eye as well.) Even more

It amazes this child that sciency folks believe in things they cannot see or test, but dark matter is at the top of the list along with the Big Bang, cosmic and biological evolution, deep time, and all that good stuff. Creationists tend to reject dark matter because it is a rescuing device for the Big Bang. Also, it can only be inferred, not observed. When searching for images at NASA, I noticed that there were numerous articles where scientists were amazed because the supposed dark matter did not behave in a manner that secular cosmologists expect. Some are getting on the prod about how it constantly defies explanation, and are proposing a replacement. Hubble image of galaxies, NASA , ESA, & J. Lotz & HFF Team (STScI) (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) A few secular cosmologists believe in Modified Newtonian Dynamics. It is thought that this approach to science offers better explanations for what is observed that trying to use dark matter. Of course, the majo

The Big Bang has been frequently Frankensteined with rescuing devices when observed data do not fit the deep-time narrative. After all, it has very little resemblance to what was proposed early in the twentieth century. Biblical creationists are not the only ones who reject the Big Bang . Some folks think that, according to their physics, the universe should not even exist ! Others are beginning to ride for the oscillating universe brand again . A new observation may cause more secularists to abandon the Big Bang, or at least do some more Frankensteining to salvage it. Tucana Dwarf Galaxy and 47 Tucanae, ESA / Hubble & NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) It is thought that there is a supermassive black hole at the center of our own Milky Way galaxy. (Fun fact: Galaxy  is ultimately derived from the Greek word  galaxías , part of which means milk .) A black hole cannot be observed because of its immense gravitational force — not even light can escape. They eat

As a biblical creationist, this child has challenged atheists and evolutionists about why they feel compelled to convert us to their worldviews. After all, they could simply go about their business, quietly snickering to themselves. Using that principle, why bother to refute Flat Earthers? Ironically, atheopaths often use an ad hominem  such as, "You doubt evolution? Betcha think the earth is flat, too!" (The president of the Flat Earth Society is an evolutionist and believes in global warming .) More importantly, some professing Christians believe Flat Earth propaganda, and twist Bible verses so they can pretend to be superior to the rest of us. Polaris time exposure, Unsplash / Javier Esteban Many articles refuting Flat Earthism are listed here , several of which are by the author of the article featured below. This time, claims that Polaris, the North Star, are refuted. The first one is based on perspective, not science: that the star does not move. This is easily refuted

Generally speaking, the term hard science  applies to empirical sciences that are used to observe, test, measure, and repeat things. This also means something should be verifiable. Otherwise, a hypothesis has no practical value and could be pseudoscience. Mathematics and physics get into the workings of the universe, whether the velocity of the coffee cup your cat pushed off the kitchen counter upon impacting the floor, to astronomy and such. Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion explain a great deal, then came Uncle Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. String Theory 2, Flickr / parameter_bond (Public Domain) There are still may things unexplained by various areas in physics, so new ideas a proposed such as string theory, loop quantum gravity, and others. But they have no empirical evidence. In 1984, the Wendy's hamburger chain had an advertising campaign, " Where's the beef? ", stating that their food had beef, but others did not give much. The advertisem

Anti-creationists often berate biblical creationists for a "rejection of facts", and the unwillingness to change our minds. Well, we do not have an a priori  commitment to materialism. Many of the "facts" we reject are simply stories. It is common for evolutionists and the uniformitarian geologists who obediently give Darwin billions of years (so he can weave his spell) by using fake science. A just-so story is told, and when it runs into scientific trouble, it can be rescued by more bad science. Such is the case of the Great Unconformity and Snowball Earth. Combined Flickr images: Snowball Earth by  guano   and Great Unconformity by  brewbrooks  (both are  CC BY-SA 2.0 ) The stories are plausible at first glance, but are loaded expensive words, essentially blinding the public with science jargon. People who use critical thinking as well as honest scientists who are trained in the appropriate areas are not as easily fooled. Have you seen the part of Monty Python and

Although none of the hypotheses trotted out to explain the origin of the solar system are successful, the flawed  nebular hypothesis  (accretion) is the best of the worst , so that is what secular cosmologists use. It also brings additional problems and raises numerous questions. That big swirl supposedly formed the sun and all the planets. Although Venus, Earth, and Mars have superficial similarities, there are several important differences. Venus has an extremely slow rotation, and runs the opposite of the other planets, for one. Includes images from NASA, especially  STS-116  (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) It would seem that Mercury, that rock closest to the sun, would be the hottest planet. Venus is far hotter because of trapped heat from greenhouse gasses. Secularists want to know why, but thwart themselves from getting real answers by presupposing a faulty origin of the universe — also, by fanatically believing in and assuming evolution. Hope for finding life

Let me run this up the flagpole in the fort and see if anyone salutes it. Christians believe in an awesome God as described in the Bible. He is infinite, yet is mindful of us (Psalm 8:3-4). Scientists keep on exploring and learning, then developing new technology to continue exploring. Cells that were considered simple are extremely complex. At the other end, astronomy, planetology, cosmology and so forth continually yield new discoveries. If created beings had the Creator all figured out, he would be a puny God. Disk galaxy NGC 7814 credit:  Sloan Digital Sky Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Materialist get high and mighty, making pronouncements about the universe, then they realize that science doesn't support atheistic and deep-time views for cosmic evolution. Then they commence to utilizing the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™ because evidence is recalcitrant toward their speculations. There are also new discoveries in space that cann

When watching a television program recently, I heard a character use the old remark that since there are so many stars up yonder, there must  be millions of inhabited planets as well. Interest in this obviously increased with the discovery of extrasolar planets. Astrobiologists (astro, but no biology) and other scientists have come up with the habitable zone . It has to be just the right temperature so water can be present on a planet, and they expected to find a passel of thise planets. It did not go well. Assembled from various public domain images, plus a modified NASA / JPL-Caltech image; they do not endorse this site The Goldilocks zone isn't having much luck. It has been modified to include several other factors, such as the temperaments of stars planets are orbiting, space "weather", and more (see " Hopes for Extraterrestrial Life Dimming .") Although Darwinoids spread the false claim that abiogenesis, a.k.a. chemical evolution , has nothing to do with e

Scientists are all a-twitter at the Joint European Torus (JET), which is a plasma experiment in Oxfordshire, UK. A torus can be defined as a hollow donut, a disappointing snack prospect. Actually, this is an experiment to obtain energy through fusion. Something kids learn in school is that the sun is powered through the nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium. That is, those atoms smashing into each other and releasing energy. While there is quite a bit of energy in fission  (splitting atoms), fusion does even more. Joint European Torus, Flickr / Kevan  ( CC BY 2.0 ) Scientists have been attempting to harness fusion power for a mighty long time, and the power output of this was...not that impressive. However, they have to start somewhere, and this is the best performance yet. Hope was renewed. In a not completely inaccurate remark, it was said that they created a miniature sun. In comparison to the simplest cell in biology, a sun is not very complex. Interesting that these types believe

Operational science is not something people normally associate with creation, it is something that belongs to atheists, so Christians need to stay with more spiritual or even prosaic professions. Not true. Christians and creationists are involved in many fields of science — and for good reasons. Most of the founders of modern science were Christians, and even biblical creationists. (Some atheopaths try to deny this with outrageous claims, such as those people had to pretend to be believers or be executed. When challenged, they cannot back up their claims.)  Science needs the proper environment  in order to thrive. Artist's concept of ULA Atlas V launch,  NASA  / JPL-Caltech When it comes to rocketry and space exploration,  Wernher von Braun  (a Christian who is maligned by atheists) was instrumental for American progress. In addition, he opposed evolution and naturalism. His work was for the glory of God. There have been several astronauts of note in the space program who were prof

It is clear that secular scientists are committed to the idea that the earth, the solar system, and even the entire universe are billions of years old. Although most scientists for hundreds of years believed that everything was fairly young, geologist James Hutton proposed an old-earth view, which was expanded upon by lawyer Charles Lyell, who wanted to " free the science from Moses ." His agenda was revealed. Charles Darwin was influenced by Lyell's  Principles of Geology while on the voyage of the Beagle , and he incorporated deep time into his speculations on evolution. Pixabay / jodylehigh Many Christians jumped aboard the deep time thing, possibly to look smart and be accepted by atheists. Moving forward and looking upward, cosmologists and cosmogonists got the bit between their teeth and galloped toward expanding deep time ideas to make the entire universe seem ancient. Of course, there have been many difficulties with the idea of an old earth and solar system in m

We have seen numerous times that celestial bodies have been recalcitrant to cosmic evolution and deep time beliefs. Stars, planets, all that good stuff may appear to be billions of years old, but people often get that idea because they accept the opinions of secular scientists. Space is a busy place, what with comets, asteroids, orbital motions, and unseen things such as gravity and radiation. These things affect each other as well as larger objects in the cosmos. No wonder the rings of Saturn cause consternation to naturalists. Artist's conception of Cassini and Saturn,   NASA / JPL  (useage does not imply endorsement of site contents) NASA sent Cassini up there to tool around for about thirteen years, and many interesting things were reported back about Saturn, its moons, radio emissions, rings, and more. Unfortunately for secularists, numerous things were found that refuted deep time and prompted a passel of rescuing devices. Thermal stress (such as on our moon) disrupts the ri

The majority of scientists today presuppose materialism, which means there is no Creator, no miracles, and so forth. Conversely, biblical creationists and some in the Intelligent Design community presuppose what is abhorrent to secularists. The beliefs of materialists cause major scientific problems for them. Before materialistic naturalism became the a priori  driving force in the secular science industry, most scientists believed in creation. Those who reject the Creator cannot rationally explain energy in the universe. Ironically, they invoke unscientific philosophical explanations. Big Bang abstract, Pixabay / Gerd Altmann Two of the most important laws of physics are at play when considering the origin of energy. First, energy can be neither created nor destroyed, which is a summation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. (Amazingly, matter and energy are forms of the same thing.) Second, entropy: A summation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics  is that everything runs down. Materia

Back in 1996 while people were listening to their Spice Girls CDs and lining up to watch Independence Day , news was announced about a meteorite that had been discovered in Antarctica that was proof of life on Mars. Darwin's votaries were lighting candles, and the secular press was going hog wild. As we have discussed before, proponents of atheistic materialism skimp on research. They leave questions unanswered, and their discussions even raise more question. Ignoring many things, they congratulate themselves and collect grant money.   Top view, Antarctic meteorite ALH84001 / NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Those owlhoots also tend to use dreadful logic along the lines of: If evolution were true, we would see evidence of life beyond Earth. A meteorite that may be from Mars could show signs of microbial life. Evolution is true. There is no Creator God. Hail Darwin! Blessed be! While I haven't seen such an egregious display of affirming the consequent ,

For decades, governmental and private organizations have been studying space. Some of it was politically motivated at first, but these days, it is primarily in support of atheistic naturalism. Since there is no room for God in that worldview, they dreamed up their own creation mythologies. The current mythology, a highly-Frankensteined Big Bang, continually needs to be patched, repaired, and propped up. One result of the Big Bang is the formation of planets, weakly explained by the best-of-the-worst ( Best-in-Field Fallacy ) accretion theory. Most exoplanets are hostile witnesses. Artist's conception of a hot Jupiter,  NASA / ESA / G. Bacon (STScI) (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Technology has advanced greatly, so the detection of extra-solar planets has become rather commonplace. Even amateur astronomers are doing it. However, from cosmic to biological evolution and everything between, speculations are not supported by evidence. TOI-2109b is, like other hot