Piltdown Superman

Darwin's true believers are a mite confused, and have trouble keeping their stories straight. Some will tell the falsehood that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution , and then support cheating on OOL research . Following that, they commence to making up rescuing devices to explain away the impossibility of abiogenesis. Way back when the excuse factory was attached to the propaganda mill and ran off a diesel engine, the concept of an " RNA World " was put forward.  Isn't that a song? You know, "Its an RNA world where evolution flows, no one owns a piece of my enzyme —" "You're thinking of ' Five O'Clock World ' by the Vogues, Cowboy Bob!" via GIPHY Anyway, evolutionary desperadoes said, "We don't need no stinking DNA, we can have RNA evolve all by its lonesome!", or words to that effect. Essentially, they are relying on magic, not science, in their efforts to deny the logic of the Creator.

Imagine some cowboys at the campfire on the trail: "I see you got that fire built up pretty high. Ain't that a tad much for heatin' up beans?" "Normally, yep. But I'm making coffee, it's gonna be a long night". "Well, hope that firewood's loaded up with phlogiston." "What's phlogiston?" "The stuff that makes things burn. If it don't have no phlogiston, it won't burn. Johann Becher explained combustion back in 1667. You really should do some science reading now and then." Too bad the dude doing the explaining didn't read further, or something more up to date. While phlogiston was the dominant scientific theory for a spell, Lavosier became skeptical and determined that it was oxygen , not phlogiston (the dark matter of the 16th century?) that caused burning. RGBStock / Krzysztof Szkurlatowski Unlike Darwinism, phlogiston theory had some explanatory merit. Like Darwinism, the idea of ph

An interesting story about the merging of neutron stars (who did not bother to consult the Federal Trade Commission on their merger) involved some interesting information on their history and detection. This necessitates material on gravity waves, and some of Uncle Albert Einstein's work. From there, we were given some Big Bang cosmogony, chemistry, and chemistry's weird great grandfather that nobody likes to talk about: alchemy. The Alchemist / David Teniers the Younger Way back yonder in medieval times, some folks were attempting sciencey stuff by attempting to convert base metals (copper, lead, tin, and so forth) into gold. Imagine the devastating impact on economies if they succeeded! Alchemy was distantly related to chemistry for reasons that should seem obvious. We get exceptionally dense neutron stars commencing to merge, and the interaction supposedly produced a passel of gold. Problem is, it's all based on Big Bang presuppositions on the origin of the uni

As carbon is to living things, silicon is to rocks. Silicate minerals comprise most of the rocks on Earth, and silicon is extremely compliant. Carbon wanted to have a party and invited other elements. The noble gasses remained aloof, what with being noble and all. The fun started when silicon showed up, since it mixes well with a passel of other minerals. The garnet gemstone has silica in its composition. Credit: Morguefile / arien Silicon is plentiful, and its ability to combine with other elements gives us a tremendous variety of shapes and colors in rocks. More than that, our Creator engineered silicon so we could use it in many applications and improve our earthly lives. Not just function, but our viewing pleasure. So why do minerals have so many different shapes and colors? The answer tells us a lot about God’s love and care for us. He created a small set of basic building blocks, out of which the earth could provide the amazing variety of minerals we need to build places

Today's post is going to take a different approach. Instead of showing flaws in evolutionary reasoning and presenting examples in nature that affirm special creation, we can see how our Creator has given us many things we need to improve life on this busy blue marble. To quote Ian Juby , "Your brain was intelligently designed, and God wants you to use it." Credit: jk1991 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net In Genesis, God gave Adam and Eve the dominion mandate to fill the earth, subdue it, and have dominion (Gen. 1:28). Seems to me that the dominion part includes making good use of what he's given us. By the way, subdue does not mean pillage . We are stewards of God's creation, and accountable to him for how we take care of it, you savvy? We know and love water, for example. Some folks realized that if it's good for helping us cool down, it can be good for other things. Hey, water cut a lot of rock during and after the Genesis Flood, so how about using it in mi

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

In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey had a notion to do an experiment to back up the assumptions that, using science and and intelligently-designed apparatus, life could form by chance. The obtained some amino acids, and Darwin's Cheerleaders were overjoyed that chemical evolution had a basis in their worldview. However, the experiment has long been discredited (they used a trap to remove the amino acids from the environment so they wouldn't be destroyed), and the "reducing atmosphere" concept of the early earth has long been abandoned. Image modi fied from Yassine Mrabet   /Wiki media C ommons Of course, this bit of historical science used assumptions, and they wanted to test their ideas to see if they worked. Scientists do that. However, even though the experiment is invalid, when creationists point out its many flaws (including that it argues against  abiogenesis ), evolutionists will circle the wagons to defend it. A newer attempt to bring the experim

Lithium is the lightest metal. Big Bang proponents make predictions on what they expect to find that bring to mind the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent . "If the Big Bang happened, then is seems mighty likely that we'll find certain elements in certain quantities. We find them, so it must have happened." Sorry, Hoss. There are other possibilities for your observations — if they're correct. The amount of lithium doesn't fit the theories.   Not all scientists, secular or creationist, accept the Big Bang. Lawrence "Theoretical" Krauss insists that the Big Bang is true, and gives "evidence". Some of the elements match predictions of Big Bang proponents, but his material on lithium is false. (I could be like some anti-creationists and say that he's lying, but I don't know that he's intending to deceive. It's possible, sure, atheists do that, but I won't casually make that possibly libelous affirmation — unlike som

Another example of the intricate complexities that we see all around us is in the chemistry of human pregnancy. There are seeming paradoxes in the changes that seem to be understood now. Image courtesy of  David Castillo Dominici  / FreeDigitalPhotos.net Although it is obvious that such intricacy is the product of the master Designer, evolutionists blindly place their faith in time, chance and random mutations. The onset of pregnancy presents an apparent contradiction. Ovulating and initially pregnant mothers experience an increase in progesterone. On the one hand, this hormone signals the immune system to back down and lay low. That's critical, because otherwise her body would fight and kill sperm cells as though they were unwelcome invaders, and she would never become pregnant. But on the other hand, progesterone reduces cholesterol levels in her body. Too much progesterone would doom a developing baby, who requires cholesterol. Why would one action both promote and p

The past two weeks have had some complicated material on DNA and so forth. Next week, we will look at some shorter and less "heady" material. Library of Congress/F.B. Johnson (modified) One of the problems with evolutionism is when its fundamentalists accept the pronouncements of scientists and educators, even when the information is inaccurate, misleading, outdated and even fraudulent. (In some ways, it is not entirely the fault of the faithful, as they are not given knowledge of evolutionism's failings and errors  1 , 2 ,  3 , and being a liar for Darwin is acceptable to evolutionists  4 .) Then these fundamentalists spread bad science. When the general public are not skilled in chemistry, they can be fooled. Evolutionary biochemistry has some serious problems: Chemical stability, chemical reactivity and chemical selectivity are noteworthy. According to modern evolutionary theory, the recipe for life is a chance accumulation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, a