Piltdown Superman

One of the criticisms of the biblical timeline is the growth rate of coral reefs and atolls. Using uniformitarian assumptions which include that growth rates today are the same as growth rates in the past, calculations supposedly prove that the Bible is wrong. However, as we have seen numerous times, "the present is the key to the past" plus other assumptions backfire. Coral Reef, Virgin Islands — USFWS / Gary M. Stolz / PD Reefs grow more slowly than coral. Reefs have varying growth rates, and can be very rapid. Complicating factors are found in the Eniwetok Reef in the Marshall Islands. This thick reef is not entirely reef, because about a mile of it is limestone resting on an underwater volcano. But still, questions arise as to how the entire package can appear the way it does in relation to Flood models. Creation scientists have proposed models based on theories and observations that offer a very plausible explanation. Modern ocean reefs can be quite massi...

In a recent post, articles were linked about how whale fossils sent to museums were faked . Naturally, some atheopaths were in full denial mode and making ridiculous accusations even though the evidence was right in front of them. They preferred to attack the people presenting the information, just going haywire when their paradigm is threatened with reality. There is no reasoning with some people. Flood Waters — Monet, 1896 In a similar fashion, Eric Hovind of Creation Today was helping people in the aftermath of flooding in Pensacola, Florida . He posted a video and wrote an article about it , and did the unthinkable for angry atheists: discussed the Genesis Flood. Eric witnessed (and ministered in) the aftereffects of a local flood and tried to tell people that a lot of water in a little time would have worldwide effects. Worse than that, though, is the reminder of God's judgment in the past, and that there is a coming judgment. He was misrepresented (atheists do tha...

As discussed in several articles here, secular ideas and models for the origin and evolution of the universe have serious problems. Some are amazingly bad, such as saying that an exoplanet is a twin of Earth, except that it's too hot and uninhabitable . Uh, excuse me? These scientists will propose various ideas of how the solar system itself, certain moons, certain planets, comets, asteroids and so on formed. Unfortunately for them, actual scientific evidence does not comport to their conjectures. Planetary orbits are "wrong", some are retrograde, some have moons that cause additional problems and surprises. Here, we have a three-part series discussing some of the recent discoveries in the solar system and why they cause problems for secularists, but are not a problem for those of us who believe what God said. “Surprise” or “puzzling” are the most common words in news reports about bodies in the solar system. Here are recent examples that discuss the inner planet...

The Evo Sith tell creationists to go to a natural science museum, maybe we'll learn the truth about evolution. However, a great deal of "artistic license" occurs since so many fossils and skeletons are extremely incomplete. More than that, there is dishonesty in museums . But the problem is big. Very big. Gray Whale / Wikimedia Commons / doryfour Evolution is bolstered primarily by ideology and a faulty worldview, not by actual science. This is shown by the repeated instance of recalled papers, biased peer review and even fraud. Here, we have the big news that scientists who supply museums with alleged fossils admit that they are fake. Creationist do not have to resort to such tactics. Ironic, since they accuse us of being irrational, rejecting evidence and believing on blind faith. Bob Enyart speaks with Dr. Carl Werner about the filmmaker's interviews with the scientists who supplied the primary whale evolution "fossils" to the world's lea...

Evolution is a series of conjectures based on obfuscation. Although it has a veneer of scientific plausibility, there is no actual observable scientific evidence to support it. Some of its proponents admit that life cannot arise on Earth by chance, time, random processes, mutations and so on, mainly because DNA is too complex. Instead of admitting that the evidence points to the Creator, they prefer to push the problem out into space. That's right, life came from out there, even though it could not survive the trip here . A recent news report claims: “a detailed analysis that the human genome displays a thorough precision-type orderliness in the mapping between DNA’s nucleotides and amino acids. ‘Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of symbolic language … Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing.” Thus, Vladimir I. Shcherbak of al-Farab...

Evolution is conjecture about the past using some scientific applications in an attempt to justify presuppositions. Secular scientists start with an a priori commitment to their evolutionary worldview. In areas of real science, a theory or hypothesis is modified or rejected in the face of compelling contrary evidence. With evolutionism, however, facts are modified to fit the so-called theory. PD This is clearly illustrated in the case of a fossil pterodactyloid that was discovered in China. Paleontologists wanted to plug it into a place in their timeline and say it was a "progenitor" of older creatures. However, they also say it was probably capable of flight. So, they tell tales and force-fit the facts into their preconceptions. It makes far more sense to admit that they were created, and created far more recently than their existing paradigms will allow. Fragments of a pterodactyloid fossil from China indicate it was fully capable of powered flight, despite being...

Evolutionists dislike it when creationists bring up the fact that there are no true transitional forms in the fossil record. Part of the problem is that they understand "transitional" differently, with a vague definition similar to "a motorcycle is a transitional form between a bicycle and an automobile". We will point out that there are only a handful of candidates for true transitional fossils, where something is clearly on the way to becoming something else. There are no undisputed transitional forms, and evolutionists get angry when we quote paleontologists to that effect. We should see a huge numbers of fossils showing sequential progression (remember, there are billions of fossils in existence), but we see nothing of the kind. Bob Enyart and Fred Williams of Real Science Radio discussed the lack of transitional forms on their "Missing Fossils" show, click here to go to the page so you can listen online or download the show .

Some of Darwin's Cheerleaders think that they have a killing stroke against the biblical timeline by saying that counting tree rings reveals that some trees are older than the Genesis Flood. While this dendrochronology has some useful applications and can give general ideas, it is not a settled science. Credit: morgueFile / beglib The old adage of counting the rings to determine the age of the tree does not work as well as many people think. It is based on the assumption that a tree will yield one ring per year. However, trees can produce multiple rings in a year, skip a ring or produce indistinct rings. Other factors need to be considered. Dating a tree sounds simple—just count the number of rings from the trunk’s outer edge to its center and you discover the number of years the tree was alive. Secular researchers have determined that a few rare trees have more rings than the number of years since Noah’s Flood. Debater Bill Nye recently used these tree studies to chal...

Some misotheists begin with the assumptions that they are somehow more intelligent than theists because they pretend that there is no God, and that theists are incapable of rational thought. Especially biblical creationists. Wrong. They seem willingly ignorant that many of the greatest scientists of all time have been biblical creationists, and they exist today as well . Rejecting evolution on both theological and scientific grounds does not mean that someone is stupid or uninformed; such assertions are fallacious. It's ironic when atheopaths use logical fallacies to tell us they're smarter than we are! Sometimes, it becomes difficult to distinguish between the fallacies, especially when they are blended together. Is the above only prejudicial conjecture, or does it include the genetic fallacy? At any rate, we can see that it is an attempt to berate creationists from someone who has unwarranted presuppositions. This begins to show that Christians and creationis...

"Tweets" are  Public , Not Copyrightable  Proponents of evolution will sometimes attempt to distance themselves from the problem of the origin of life itself. Some will deny that evolution has anything to do with that subject (which is news to writers of textbooks, Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos, David Attenborough's First Life  and so on). But still, they defend the arbitrary, circular reasoning of the  failed Miller-Urey experiment  and try to find explanations for abiogenesis, even though it violates scientific laws. The most logical explanation is that life was put here by the Creator. Goo-to-you, molecules-to-man, chemicals-to-cats,abiogenesis—all these terms refer to the essential starting point for evolution of life through natural processes. Yet in a massive review published in the American Chemical Society’sChemical Reviews, researchers report, “The origin of life is a fascinating, unresolved problem.” And it will remain unresolved for them u...