Piltdown Superman

At the beginning of creation, everything was  מאד טוב, very good   (Gen. 1:31) . There was no death, suffering, mental illness, disease, deformities, and so on. Creationists have speculated that, when we hear about people with amazing abilities here and there, Adam and Eve would have been created with those all at the same time. Pretty good for someone who was taken from the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7) and the woman from the side of the man (Gen. 2:21), I think. But when Adam sinned, everything started going downhill (Rom. 5:12, Rom. 8:22).  Image credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures We were created in God's image, and amoeba-to-anthropologist upward evolution had no say in the matter.  There are some amazing abilities in the human body that scientists are studying — and enhancing, in some cases. They're using their intelligently-designed brains to find out the whats and whys. Perhaps some of our abilities, even in our biology, are glimpses into the perfect past. So

Those things called living fossils are animals, fish, plants and so on that were thought to be extinct for millions of Darwin years, and are discovered to be doing right well, thanks. They also look pretty much the way their fossilized ancestors looked. When some owlhoot evolutionists are questioned about why the things didn't evolve over all that time, they often give the ridiculous stock answer, "They didn't have to". This flies in the face of the way evolution is portrayed, as an inexorable force that has intelligence to select and modify. Raging Horn at Osprey Reef, northeast of Queensland, Australia Image credit: Richard Ling via Wikimedia Commons ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) So, they reckon we'll buy the story about no changes, no "environmental pressures", no "need to evolve" over all that time? No. The excuse may seem reasonable for one or two, but it's mighty poor in light of the many living fossils that have been found. The real exp

We frequently hear from secular astronomers about star formation in molecular clouds. No kidding? How long does it take? Oh, tens of millions of years if you accept deep-time cogitating. Fact is, nobody has ever seen a star form. That doesn't stop the cosmic evolutionists from stating their opinions as fact, thought. One creationist astronomer has the essential attitude of, "So what? Even if stars did form, they're using existing materials, and stars are not all that complex anyway". Seems reasonable to me. Circinus Molecular Cloud Complex image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / UCLA The years have not been kind to star formation proponents. They still have to find ways to defy the laws of physics, and give some kind of plausibility for their uniformitarian ideas. Why is this so difficult? Because science does not support the Big Bang, deep time, or cosmic evolution. Instead, science supports recent creation. In almost any standard university astrophysics text you

When presented with materials used to promote amoeba-to-atheist evolution, people tend to be all impressed with the brilliance of scientists (especially when they use expensive words meant for experts in their particular fields). Using a bit of critical thinking and spotting logical fallacies , you can see that things served up seem mighty tasty, but have no real nutritional value for the mind. Generated at GlassGiant A journal article about bilateral evolution seems impressive, but is saturated with fallacies, and it turns out to be nothing more than speculation. If someone is going to present conjecture, fine, but they should at least admit that it does not have any foundation in observable science. We all examine evidence and argue from our presuppositions, but at least biblical creationists let you know where they're coming from. Evolutionists tend to present their naturalistic viewpoints as proven science — after all, science is  a philosophy of interpreting data.

Old universe advocates are getting a mite consternated about the rings and moons of Saturn, and cannot account for their apparent youth. They are proposing some very interesting ideas to deal with the idea that those celestial objects may be younger than the dinosaurs according to Darwinist years. But speculation is not the same as science, even if people have degrees and lab coats. NASA / JPL-Caltech / Space Science Institute (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Their excuses are, to borrow from Chris Rosebrough, ad hoc ergo poppycock.  There are too many maybes and no actual evidence to back up their speculations, which are based on their deep-time assumptions. Why are we paying these people? They should realize that their conjectures are becoming increasingly outlandish, and admit that evidence shows that the Bible is right: everything was created recently, without the use of cosmic or any other kind of evolution. Stunning admissions show that secular astron

Have you ever been around a hummingbird after seeing a Star Wars  movie? Funny that their buzzy flying has a sound like a lightsaber. I almost expect to hear the bird say, "You should not have come back..." By the way, I've said this before, and I'll say it again: if you don't want to poison the cute little things, clean your hummingbird feeders often , you savvy? Good. Image credit: Anna's Hummingbird by Alan Vernon, ( CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ) These winged little marvels have been studied for biomimetics (where humans observe something in nature, claim it happened by accident, then try to intelligently design an application) for miniature flying robots . As if drones peeking in windows weren't bad enough. (For me, it's, "Mr. Drone, say hello and goodbye to Samuel Colt!" Privacy concerns , you know. But I digress.) The hummingbird frustrates bacteria-to-bird evolution. In fact, it frustrates other-bird-to-hummingbird evolution because it

When Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and others insist that intellectual and scientific progress are only possible through belief in evolution, they are actually promoting the dumbing down of Western civilization. (Sure, look what atheism and social Darwinism have done for the culture and technology of North Korea, for example.) Several Darwinistas have been not only insisting on using natural selection as the means of evolution, but point at alleged "vestigial structures" as evidence of onward and upward evolution. Researchers in Sweden are showing blatant stupidity — and getting their "research" published. Not only are they uninformed about the differences between Salmonella and cheetahs, they "prove" natural selection by making things unfit. Then they ignore other evidence and explanations that they should have examined, even from a naturalistic standpoint. Worse for these tinhorns is that their conclusions actually support the work of the Creator