Piltdown Superman

Geologists see evidence of the global biblical flood, but they are locked into their uniformitarian interpretive framework, so they have trouble reconciling the actual data with their presuppositions. All of the land on Earth was covered with water. "Karoo Landscape" image credit: Freeimages / Dominic Morel "Where did the water go after the flood?" Into the ocean basins is the short-form answer. Actually, the hypothetical continent of Gondwana supposedly broke up and the water flowed into the ocean basins in that scenario as well. This is borne out by observations as well, as the continents "rose". Once the waters of the Flood had completely inundated every piece of land on the earth, they began to recede, and they continued to recede for a period of about seven months, until the continents were dry. Where did the waters go? They flowed into the ocean basins which were widening at the time, or deepening, or both. Geologists actually cat

C.R. Twidale spent decades researching inselbergs , and has offered his findings in a uniformitarian framework. However, his findings (especially in regards to Uluṟu, formerly called Ayers) have some serious flaws.  Image credit: morgueFile/Kevin Connor In his paper for the Answers Research Journal, Ken Patrick proposes a better explanation that explains the data far more effectively. A famous and well known Australian inselberg, Uluṟu, is an interesting geological feature in that its geomorphology is still a matter of controversy among conventional geologists. Traditionally, Uluṟu’s stratigraphical history began hundreds of millions of years ago, being fashioned into its current contour only as recently as between 60 million years ago until the present. The process by which Uluṟu’s shape came into relief tends to be understood in terms of a two-stage weathering then subsequent erosion process. This paper will seek to show that problems with the current hypotheses must forc

This geology article is technical in nature. In two previous articles 1 , 2 Michael Oard discussed the possible boundary for the Noachian Flood.  morguefile photo/dhester Here, he spells out his disagreement with other creationist geologists ("I documented that among creationists there are several major Flood models with variable ideas. For the time being and in face of many geological and geophysical unknowns, such a situation is healthy, according to the principle of multiple working hypotheses"). Two evidences commonly presented for the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary being the location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary are: (1) Tertiary volcanism in the northwest United States, and (2) the cooling of ocean basalt while the continents rise. However, a close analysis of these suggests that they raise more questions than they answer and ignore contrary evidence, which supports the idea that the end of the Flood corresponds to the Late Cenozoic. You can read t

Time and again, we see that evolutionists make pronouncements from their speculations, and then the resulting "facts" get overturned. This is seldom rapid, but any reader of evolutionary propaganda who is not wearing his Darwin Spectacles will see the old shell game at work. These scientists are so locked into their materialistic framework that they are unable to see that the logical conclusion is that life was created, and evolution is unsubstantiated. morgueFile/click (very modified) When a bone or artifact is determined to be such-and-so million years old according to evolutionists' preconceptions, anomalies are found to force them to re-date the items or offer other excuses. For instance, human tools should not be found in the same location of apelike alleged ancestors of humans. Here, you can check it out. Recent stories on human evolution continue to illustrate ongoing problems that overturn long-held beliefs.  To hybridize or not to hybridize:  Some

And now for something completely different: A book review. Now, wait a moment. This is not a long, stale examination of the book. I simply want to give you some highlights and tell you why I am recommending it. Some information about the author, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, from Amazon: Dr. Safarti studied science at Victoria University of Wellington. He obtained a B.Sc. in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled "A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules". He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22. In 1999, his first book was published, Refuting Evolution, which countered a teachers guidebook by the National Academy of Sciences, Teaching

morgueFile/fhsfootball (modified) It is amazing how Darwin's Cheerleaders (especially those on the Internet) are ignorant of the actual facts of evolution. Instead, they fully accept bits and pieces of information that have been inserted into a presupposed evolutionary framework without examining the claims. These evolutionary explanations are conflicting and incomplete. But that does not stop the faithful from believing anyway! The following article shows flaws in the evolutionary assumptions in the snake transitional form, moth pheromones, fireflies, human height and more. It also shows that evolutionists are not  unified in their belief system, despite the insistence of evolution's popularizers. Click here to read " Evidences for Evolution Examined ".

stock.xchng/icekitty37 The following article is rather short, but technical in nature. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati discusses the problems that extraterrestrial life forms would not be able to overcome to visit our part of the universe. In a previous article, we showed that interstellar travel had intractable energy problems, simply in achieving the needed high speeds, and the huge impact energies at these speeds. And as will be shown, there are other problems, involving what are popularly called “g-forces”. Actually, the term “g-force” is misleading, because it refers to  acceleration  due to gravity. Under Newton’s Second Law, F = ma, or force = mass × acceleration. It is used because the weight force is proportional to mass, while acceleration is inversely proportional, so the acceleration of all objects due to gravity is equal. This explains Galileo’s apocryphal experiment of dropping a heavy ball and a light ball from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and finding that they hit the grou

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