Piltdown Superman

Although not a secret, it is not popularly known that the age of the Earth was derived from meteorites. (Calculate the age of the Earth based on something from outer space. Makes perfect sense.) Scientists have reasons for this. And they have assumptions. Lots of them. All based on ancient planet presuppositions, of course. Credit: Freeimages / Pedro Simao They also have good reasons for discarding data that do not comport with their presuppositions. I guess. An overview of radiometric dating follows, as well as a discussion of assumptions made and data rejected. Before 1955, ages for the Earth based on uranium/thorium/lead ratios were generally about a billion years younger than the currently popular 4.5 billion years. The radiometric evidence for a 4.5 b.y. old Earth is reviewed and deficiencies of the uranium/lead method are discussed. The basic theory of radiometric dating is briefly reviewed. Since 1955 the estimate for the age of the Earth has been based on the assumpt

Whenever there is a new discovery of fossils or bones, evolution's cheerleaders attempt to shove the data into their preconceptions and make it fit their worldview. Although the data are better interpreted in other ways, the evolutionists publish their "findings" (that is, their stories) and people believe what "real" scientists say. In this case, pieces of fossil face bones must  be evolutionary ancestors of humans. Right? No chance that they show variety in humans instead? The cover of the August 9, 2012 issue of the journal  Nature  featured the reconstructed face of newly-discovered human-like fossil bones described by Meave Leakey and colleagues in their report. Three new human-like fossil face parts from Africa have given evolutionists another opportunity to reiterate their confusing philosophy, but the data don't match their story very well. What was their first task upon discovering the fossils? According to long-time African hominid fossil expert

Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals [also stated as " they are all animals"]. — Ingrid Newkirk of domestic terrorist group PETA This is a different kind of post. For one thing, it is my own work. Also, it is not simply an introduction to someone else's article. Third, it is more philosophical in nature than scientific. You wanted a break from the lab coat material though, didn't you? Evolution detracts from the uniqueness of humans. Some evolutionists go as far as to demand animal rights on a par with human rights (if you discriminate against animals, you are a speciesist ). Since we all evolved and are related, they say, we should not be special just because we are at the top of the food chain. Some of these people devalue human life for the sake of animals. When Olympic shooting  medalist Corey Co

According to Biblical accounts and other historical sources, there were HoUS (Humans of Unusual Size). They were referred to as giants in these ancient writings . Have a care not to conflate the concept of fifty foot tall (15.24 meter) "giants" from fairy tales with the giants of antiquity. The giants of ancient writings were big, but let's not get ridiculous. Not quite... But why the antipathy? Some people would rather believe that giants of the past were space aliens rather than humans! After all, there were all sorts of large creatures in prehistoric times. There are hoaxes galore, but apparently no known fossils of giant humans. Then I read this from Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research: Evolution maintains that humans evolved from smaller, ape-like ancestors. But according to the Bible, humans were created in the image of God, and men since then have descended from Adam. The Bible also teaches that giants existed, further contrasting with th

People with a rudimentary understanding of biology should know that amino acids have both right- and left-handed forms. For amino acids to be useful, they must  be intolerant: Amino acids are left-handed only, one right-handed protein wrecks the chain, so why don't you right-handed thingies try down the street at the nucleotide shop and see if   they want your kind? The same-handedness rule makes the concept of even one DNA molecule arising by chance so tiny, it is impossible . A press release from NASA regarding amino acids in a meteorite was treated with the usual enthusiasm by the evolutionist crowd. That is, the information was plugged into their preconceptions, praised as further evidence of evolution — but not carefully examined. Yet again, they embarrassed themselves. A new suggestion of how life ended up with left-handed amino acids comes up short. A  NASA  Goddard press release reported that amino acids found in the Tagish Lake meteorite (British Columbia, 2000) sh

Casey Luskin gives his top ten problems with Darwinian evolution. These have supporting links. After that, he invites comments by asking, "What would you add"? A few months back I gave my  top three criticisms of Darwinian evolution  that I think should be taught in public schools. But the problems with Darwinian evolution run much deeper. Here are my top ten problems with biological and chemical evolution: You can participate if you wish after reading " What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution?", here .

Despite the fact that the iconic status of the peppered moth has been discredited as a proof of evolution , the faithful still attempt to persuade us that it is still evidence anyway. Something that the brilliant observant scientists of the past failed to brilliantly observe is the behavior  of the peppered moths. Not only does evolution fail as an explanation of variation, it hinders explanations because even more questions are raised. A new study shows that scientific research on moth camouflage does not require evolutionary theory. Evolutionary biologists from Seoul, South Korea filmed moths resting on tree trunks.  According to PhysOrg, they were trying to understand how moths in the wild orient themselves on the bark for greatest camouflage.  That’s a very different question than the ones asked by Kettlewell, Majerus and other past researchers who were looking for natural selection of peppered moths.  In those old studies, camouflage was a happenstance, not a behavior within th

Once again, an audio came along that fit right in and I had to share it. Keith Kendrix of Evidence 4 Faith interviewed astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle of the Institute for Creation Research. They discussed his new book, Stargazer's Guide to the Night Sky . Then they discussed evidence for a young Earth and a young universe. They briefly touched on "Anisotropic Synchrony Convention — A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem" (this ASC article is long and technical, available here .) Other fascinating items were brought up. The 49-minute MP3 of the interview is available here  for immediate download.

This has been astronomy week for Uncle Pilty. This installment is "sorta" in that category. There are many evidences for a young Earth and young universe, but they are ignored or discarded because they do not fit evolutionary preconceptions. Dr. Batten lists a few of them and gives supporting links. The irony is that the evidences presented use uniformitarian principles. Some interesting responses follow, including an analogy for the mental gymnastics that deniers of the facts will utilize. Also, an interesting letter from a misotheist who wants to "open your eyes to what is actually the truth" follows. That letter is typical of so many of evolution's cheerleaders that do not actually  read  the material, but they think they are qualified to discredit it. My suspicions are that they either have very limited attention spans, or (as seems more likely) are afraid to see that the evidence points to the Creator. Have a look. No scientific method can  prove  t

Radar Images of Lakes on Titan — NASA Since the abundant evidence for a young Earth and young universe does not fit the presuppositions of an evolutionary worldview, such evidence has to be explained away. Or ignored entirely. Case in point: Titan, a moon of Saturn (my personal favorite) has methane lakes. But if the universe was billions of years old, they should have evaporated long ago. Naturally, scientists have rescuing devices to keep their worldview intact — even though they are obviously forced, and have no supporting evidence. Again. Biblical creationists do not need to resort to cheap excuses. The Cassini spacecraft detected what appear to be lakes and ponds near Titan's equator. If so, one lake is almost forty miles long, 25 miles wide, and at least three feet deep. Natural processes on the moon's surface rain down methane mixed with hydrocarbons, but only near the poles. Near the moon's equator, natural processes evaporate the methane. So, after many millenn