Piltdown Superman

morgueFile/carmemlucia (modified) Despite the presuppositions and wishful thinking of evolutionists, it is statistically impossible for life to have arisen by chance in outer space. Just for the sake of argument, if we granted that there really is life (or the building blocks of life) out there , there are some substantial difficulties for that life to arrive intact on Earth. The notion that life somehow originated on another planet and then came to Earth via outer space holds a wistful obsession for many evolutionists. This is because: They have been unable to explain the origin of life on Earth, and even the ”simplest” living cell is now known to be unimaginably complex. As life has been found deeper and deeper in the fossil record, and so in older and older strata according to evolutionary dogma, many are now saying that there has not been enough time for life to have evolved on Earth; thus an older planet is needed. Of course, postulating that life began on another

morgueFile/cyblor (modified) Despite the disingenuous claims of some people that "evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life" , we keep hearing about evolutionists attempting to explain the origin of life.  (Some have pushed the question backward, thinking that life had its origin in outer space, but never mind about that now.)  Of course, the logical conclusion of a Creator is streng verboten in a naturalistic framework, so experiments and speculations about abiogenesis continue. (Amazingly, the discredited Miller-Urey experiment is trotted out and dusted off every once in a while.) All of these experiments to explain the origin of life without the Creator are ironic, because they require calculations, planning, equipment, intelligence and design. 

stock.xchng/amalrik We keep seeing that evolutionary scientists are locked into their preconceptions and are unwilling to change their frameworks to fit the data. They also insist on their assumptions, including that the decay rate of the radioactive materials used in the measurements is constant . Although there is abundant evidence for a young Earth, such data are discarded as "wrong" because they do not fit. People believe the stories that the age of the Earth is "proved" by radiometric dating, but are unaware that the dating methods disagree. In fact, they disagree a great deal. And yet, it appears that many of the scientists are comfortable with the conflicting data. Even when the age of rocks are actually known, radiometric dating is amazingly inaccurate. How weird is that? When it comes to measuring the ages of things, we are told that there are a dozen different radioactive dating methods and that they all give the same answer. Do they? Fossil wood

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