Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Biblical creationists often hear criticisms from atheists and evolutionists who prefer prejudicial conjecture to actual answers (Prov. 18:2 HCSB). I commenced to pondering this while watching Creation in the 21st Century  ( one of the few biblically sound programs on the Trinity Broadcasting Network), where host David Rives interviewed Mike Snavely . There was a brief clip of a trapdoor spider grabbing lunch ( here is a video clip of one in action ), and I thought about Adam naming the animals. There probably weren't any trapdoors in Eden yet, so where did that name come from? Medieval painting of Adam naming the animals /Agios Nikolaos Anapafsas, Monastery in Thessaly, Greece Scoffers will say, "There's no way Adam could have named all the animals over the course of years, let alone, one day!" Let's do some homework that certain people are reluctant to do. First, read the text carefully in Genesis 2:19-20. He didn't name fish

According to evolutionary mythology, humans evolved in Africa. Neanderthals were not partially-evolved brutes, but fully human . "Archaic humans" also had a way of getting around, and there is evidence that they were going into  Africa — which is a mite disconcerting for evolutionary paleontologists, but not a problem for biblical creationists. The true, detailed history of human migration is found in Genesis , not evolutionary speculations. If they didn’t expect recent genetic mixing from Europe into Africa, how certain are they about older human migrations? One thing is clear about early humans: they were a mobile group, often interbreeding with other groups. Ann Gibbons’ latest article in Science talks about a new genome from a human skeleton found in an Ethiopian cave. Dated by radiocarbon to be 4,500 years old, the genome shows unexpected mixing of African stock with Europeans. Gibbons writes about the surprising findings: To read the rest, click on "

Science is a systematic method for attaining knowledge that is dependent on the presuppositions of its users for the interpretations of facts. Christians who use naturalistic viewpoints and affirm an old earth are not only showing their lack of proper understanding of Scripture, but set in motion a domino effect of compromise from Genesis to Revelation. Old earth views are founded in naturalism, which has an atheistic basis. There are Christians who are firmly committed to an old earth because of what they consider to be "abundance of scientific evidence". Some are even theistic evolutionists (which I believe are essentially deists), and evolution requires "deep time". Many times, biblical creationists have faced unchristian, vituperative attacks from these people, and they frequently join forces with atheopaths in this derision. (It is almost laughable when people who hate God and his Word presume to tell us what the Bible "really" means; it brings

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen There are about 30 links provided for further reading, curiosity, and research. They can be springboards for people who want to do further research. Each should open in a new window or tab when clicked. I do not endorse every site, or even every article, so I do expect all y'all to utilize your own minds. As most people expected, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) voted to legalize same-sex "marriage" . This has serious implications for Bible-believing Christians , not only in the US, but everywhere. But it's not like the US was the first country to do this, just the latest to date . Let me point out right now that some professing Christians are expressing rage over the ruling. Frustration and righteous anger are understandable (especially when faced with the ridicule and gloating of "gay rights" supporters), but there is no justification for acting in a sinful manner toward homosexuals! Those who demand

A newly discovered psychological disorder classified under anxiety disorders-phobias is called literalgenesisphobia . This phobia is the intense fear that literal creationists are right and there is a God after all. This psychological disorder is rare phobia, but it is commonly seen in militant atheists and ardent adherents to the evolution paradigm. Brain scans have shown the lack of development in the critical thinking areas of the brain which, when compared to creationists brain scans, is seen to be underdeveloped and smaller than creationists. That is, the brain tissue that is used in the function of critical thinking which can be measure physically is smaller (therefore underused) in atheists, atheopaths and ardent evolutionists compared to the brains of creationists. Current research into this psychological disorder shows lack of social skills. They also exhibit inability to debate and present data empirically and coherently, resulting in maladaptive behaviours towards tho

When you see the green trees, red roses, blue skies with white clouds, a rainbow in the sky, stars at night, the Grand Canyon, the Great Barrier Reef, Highlands of Scotland, Moraine Lake, Blyde River Canyon, the people you meet, birdies chirping in the trees, you may be thinking to yourself that it's a wonderful world. That it is, old son, that it is. But it's also a wrecked  world. That's right, all the splendor around us is a remnant after the judgement of the Genesis Flood. I reckon that we can't imagine the splendor of the original creation, but God's people will see the new  creation (Rev. 21:1-5, Rev. 22:1-5). We can try to imagine that, but we know we're not even close. We hear about the supercontinent called Pangaea, which broke up into the land masses that we see today. There was supposedly another one before that called Rodinia. No, it doesn't mean land of rodents. Rodinia also broke up. The hypothesis is that Rodinia broke up, continents crash

No, it's not a snake. No, it's not a worm, even though it burrows. It's called a worm lizard, or an amphisbaenian. It has the equipment of a lizard (teeth, eyes, certain scales, backbones and so on), so that's how it's classified. Even so, the specific order is being reconsidered, since they used to be setting up camp with Squamata (scaled lizards), but they may belong in a different classification. Not that they care, they'll go on about their business no matter what humans call them. Two Iberian worm lizards / Image resized from original / Wikimedia Commons / Richard Avery Aside from being a passel of classification hassle, these critters baffle evolutionists because of their wide dispersal (biogeography). Evolutionists thought that they were spread apart when the ancient supercontinent Pangaea broke up, but that idea has changed because observed evidence contradicts it. Although their circular reasoning and old earth dating assumptions are errant, th

Bedbugs have been a nuisance for a long time. We hate them today, cowboys hated them, and archaeologists have evidence that ancient people hated the awful blood-sucking things millennia ago. Itches, pain, rashes, psychological difficulties, resistant to most pesticides — but at least these tiny critters don't seem to spread disease like malaria-bearing mosquitoes. If you're afflicted with bedbugs (it's nothing to be ashamed of, most people are likely to have the problem at some point), you may get some useful information at the US Environmental Protection Agency, click on " Bed Bugs: Get Them Out and Keep Them Out ". Image credit: CDC/ CDC-DPDx; Blaine Mathison Moving on to the purpose of this post, some scientists are claiming that there is evidence for evolution. Not hardly. Yes, they probably began drinking the blood of bats, and then varied into the version that afflicts humans. That's not evolution, Edna, that's variation and natural selection

Some scoffers claim that the Genesis account of the Noachian Flood are simply copies of other flood stories that were embellished by ancient Hebrew writers. Such views show not only an anti-biblical bias, but also poor reasoning and lack of knowledge of historical documents. For that matter, the Epic of Gilgamesh (one of the ancient flood accounts supposedly the true source of flood legends) is markedly different from the Genesis Flood account. Even a casual reading shows that the Epic  is mostly fantasy , with lots of polytheism and unbelievable material that probably wouldn't interest monotheistic Hebrews. When the flood account is inserted into the story, that part of it has a different tone, and shows similarities to the real Flood narrative in Genesis. For that matter, there are global flood legends around the world that have some remarkable similarities where the earth is covered by water and only eight special people survived. Pixabay / stux There is another account

Operational science does not support eukaryote-to-engineer evolution — especially DNA sequencing, despite the claims of some evolutionists. Darwin's tree of life may have seemed plausible in the past, but rogue data in gene neighborhoods are not cooperating with evolutionary ideas. Scientists using presuppositions, assumptions, cherry-picked data, evidence manipulation, and other unscientific methods attempt to preserve their belief systems; they present their stories as factual, even though they are what "could have happened", and not what can be demonstrably true. Other scientists are trying to re-draw the tree of life using microRNA genes. The results are still disappointing, as things refuse to fit the expected patterns. What we do see is support for the Genesis account of creation, where everything is to reproduce "after its kind". After all, God did not command, "Go ye and turn therefore into something else over long periods of time". This

Everyone has a starting point by which they interpret what they observe. Proponents of molecules-to-man evolution interpret their observations in one framework, and biblical creationists have a far different approach. Unfortunately for evolutionists, their paradigm continually disappoints and puzzles them. Pixabay / James_Valma (modified) Everything supposedly can be explained through evolution, but speech itself has been problematic. Observers were excited when an orangutan made purposeful sounds to communicate, so this supposedly points to the evolution of speech. Except that this one is an exception, and that it was raised in captivity. I reckon they won't learn that evolution fails to explain anything because evolution isn't true. We were created with the ability to speak, and that's the gospel truth. Only human beings speak. The syllables and words, phrases and sentences people use to speak their minds all over the world consist of rhythmic sequences of co

Those pesky microbes making people sick. But we were created with an immune system. Some people think this indicates there was disease before the Fall, and put forth some ideas that they hope will reconcile God's perfect creation with our disease-fighting capabilities. Some fall flat and are pretty much like faith assertions that are unsupportable from science and Scripture. However, we're full of the tiny critters, and our immune system does more than fight disease; not all viruses and microbes are harmful. If God originally created the world without death and disease, where did our bodies get their disease-fighting capabilities? Christians generally explain the origin of immune systems in three ways. These explanations, though, have theological and scientific snags. ...   Creationists need biblical explanations that are scientifically sound and not simply lighter versions of evolutionary lines of thinking. So, one way to begin is by asking: Does our immune system ser

There have been scoffers for many years who simply dismissed the Genesis Flood as a fanciful tale or a complete fabrication. (Worse, there have been liberal Christians who have agreed with atheistic interpretations of geology and said that the Flood never happened, that it was local, "tranquil", or some other nonsense.) Many flood legends exist around the world, and quite a few are only fit for jawing with folks to fill time while riding the lonely trail — nowhere near believable. Yet, many of the flood tales from around the world have elements in common with the Genesis account. The Great Flood / Artist unknown / PD Some scoffing scholars insist that since the "Epic of Gilgamesh" is the oldest legend of a global flood that we have on record, it must be the original, and Genesis is a copy of it. Even a superficial reading of the Gilgamesh story (written as a fantastical poem) shows that it's another story that has some of the same elements of the Genes

It's ironic that people who don't believe the Bible want to know about how things seem "old" in the Genesis account of creation, and then refuse to accept explanations that are offered. Fortunately, there are people who honestly want to know about that as well. Even though some well-meaning creationists have offered their ideas, they should've left their six-guns in their holsters instead of misfiring and making things worse. "Creation of the Animals" / Raphael / 1519 When reading Genesis, we can tell that Adam and Eve were walking and talking from the beginning, they were to tend to the garden, trees bore fruit, animals were brought to Adam, stars were shining — those mean that there was an appearance of age, right? Not hardly. "Appearance of age" is an incorrect and misleading term, and entirely subjective. But there's a better way to look at things, especially if I stop muddying the waters with this introduction. Extracted and

Even before the Rosetta spacecraft and the Philae probe met up with their targeted comet, some Darwinoids were cheering in anticipation that the results of the mission would disprove the Genesis account of creation. According to their evolutionary worldview, the Bible is wrong and the universe was formed from the Big Bang, and the earth was a hot, molten blob with no water. So what stagecoach brought the water here, then? "Why, comets, of course, don'tcha unnerstan' science, ya idjit?" No, we don't understand speculations that have no logical or evidential support. 4-image mosaic of images taken from centre of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko on 14 December 2014 ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM – CC BY-SA IGO 3.0 But hope for reasons to reject the Creator spring eternal, old son. From one fact-free wish to another, since the comet-water idea was debunked , they jumped to the idea that asteroids brought water to Earth, not comets (ya idjit). Still, they throw abou

Evolutionary scientists are proposing an answer to why we see more trees with leaves than evergreens and so forth. It seems that examination of leaf fossils of the K-T boundary gave them the idea that a meteorite impact 65 or so million years ago was responsible. The resulting climate change caused the extinction of the dinosaurs and also gave the faster-growing seasonal plants an edge in the changing conditions over the slower-growing plants. Also, it was said that survival of the fittest does not apply, and some species had built-in properties that helped them survive. Wait, isn't that what creationists say about adaptation to change? Found this big boy near my parking space. The scientists established a series of conjectures about changes in trees that have me stumped. For one thing, catastrophic processes are invoked by the alleged changes of the meteorite impact, and this does not fit uniformitarianism. But then, some evolutionary geologists back off from their dogma a