Piltdown Superman

Common sense tells us that humans and chimpanzees are not really that much alike. Amazingly, Darwin's Cheerleaders insist on using the idea that similarities in human and chimpanzee DNA is a really big deal, but there are many differences. In fact, there are irreconcilable differences in brain cells as well. Evolutionists are trying to explain away the data, and creationists are happy to be proved right. Again. New research adds to an ever-lengthening stream of discoveries that confirm exactly what a Bible-believing scientist would expect—humans are distinct from chimpanzees. They should be, if they were created in the image of God, not as an imaginary pre-human primate. The study, published in American Journal of Human Genetics , investigated DNA methylation patterning in human and chimpanzee brains.Two observations from this research support the biblical origins of mankind. In a process called methylation, cell systems add methyl groups to some regions of chromo

From the Ministry of Irrelevant but Somewhat Interesting Material: This post was scheduled for 08.09, 10-11-12 , Eastern Daylight Time, New York, USA. It seems that some evolutionary scientists are not happy about the findings of ENCODE. The findings do not support the presuppositions of an evolutionist worldview. (One arrogant assumption was that since they cannot find a use for something they do not understand, they label it as "junk", leftover from our imaginary past evolution.) The data fit the biblical creation model without any problems, but evolutionists would rather force-fit the data into their faulty premises than accept the better explanation. Dr. Georgia Purdom continues her discussion about the ENCODE project. If you missed Part 1, that is here . In part two I want to discuss the opposition of many evolutionists to the ENCODE findings. Rather than put words in the evolutionists’ mouths, I will let them speak for themselves as to how they regard approxima

"Prove to me that creationism is scientifically valid with peer-reviewed papers!" First of all, creationists do  have peer-reviewed scientific journals, and are published in other scientific publications . But what of the secular peer-review process? It is seriously flawed and biased . We should not be surprised, really. Evolution is about the survival of the fittest, after all. If submitting a fraudulent paper will improve someone's life, then they are acting like a Darwinist should act; they do not have a consistent moral standard. Creationists, however, do have a consistent moral standard . Unfortunately, the problems are not confined to research on origins or other irrelevant, impractical matters. Rather, they involve real science that impacts people's lives. And the fraud is increasing. Ethicists are becoming alarmed at the explosive increase in scientific fraud cases – and those are just the ones that were caught. Fraud on the Rise It’s a tru

Graphic liberated from Sye Ten Bruggencate   A debate challenge has been issued to Bill Nye , but so far, he has shown no interest in backing up his assertions. If he is even remotely aware of his poor logic skills, he is wise to hide: If we raise a generation of students who don’t believe in the process of science, who think everything that we’ve come to know about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text, you’re not going to continue to innovate. Statements like this are fundamentally flawed and should be disappointing to any of his fans who actually know about science. Not only is he appealing to emotion and making a straw man fallacy , but he is equivocating evolutionary philosophy with practical science . The truth is, evolution is not at all important to true scientific and technological development! (For that matter, the Dobzhansky myth that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolu

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen In some ways, the spirit of scientific inquiry has little or no resemblance to the real goal of "a system of acquiring knowledge"  [ 1 ] . Since people look to science for answers and turn science into the false religion of scientism, where "science" is a kind of entity and the final arbiter of truth [ 2 ] . Science is used as a political tool — the scientists themselves are often used to further political agendas. For example, Adolph Hitler attacked Albert Einstein and "Jewish physics" in 1931 by enlisting one hundred scientists to denounce him. (Einstein made a simple but strong point: "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough".)  [ 3 ]  More recently, global warming has been a political tool for the leftists' green agenda, even with the dishonest claim that it is "settled science" [4 no longer available] . Heidi Cullen embarked on a coercive campaign "advocating that broadcast meteorolog

Eugenie Scott, anti-creationist, anti-Intelligent Design atheist and popular liar for Darwin , made dog matic assertions about so-called "junk DNA". Even when this radio show was made, she sounded ridiculous with her assertions, obfuscation, dodging, dishonesty and basic silliness. This rebroadcast with additional comments shows the strength of the creationist position. Since the Web page is full of information, you may have to search for the download or streaming audio links. Let me help with that, they're near the top: Click here to access the debate .  

Uniformitarians do not seem to grasp reality. Their worldview causes them to interpret data in convoluted ways, and when the evidence does not support their presuppositions, they come up with even more implausible explanations.    morgueFile/mconnors  Of course, this includes dismissing better explanations out of hand. Unfortunately for them, more and more evidence supports the Noachian Flood model. Earlier this year [2012] , a well-known geologist stood with a group of people at the rim of Horse Shoe Bend, Arizona, (figure 1) and declared that Noah’s Flood could not have formed this feature. During an energetic event such as Noah’s Flood, he said, the water would flow in a large gush in one direction. According to this professor of geology at a university in California, the winding course of the Colorado River indicates that the river had low energy and would have been flowing just above sea level at that time.  You should carve out a few moments and read the rest of "H

Some peculiarities of the plant fossil record are b est explained by the Noachian flood model, and by existing floating marshes. Certain rock layers hold fossils of unique and extinct plants that had hollow tube-like structures, which probably made them lightweight and able to float on peat mats before they were buried and fossilized. A recent video from the United States Geological Survey featured scientists studying a giant modern floating marsh field in Louisiana.2 This unusual ecosystem can give a glimpse into the world as it might have been before Noah's Flood and can help explain a peculiar feature of the plant fossil record. You can read the rest of "Louisiana's Floating Marshes Echo Pre-Flood Ecosystem", here .

morgueFile (very modified)  This is the continuation of an article discussing coal measures in the Carboniferous system ( Part 1 is here ). Here, we examine the root structures of plants found in the coal measures, comparing them to other roots. Do you like math? New fossil and field evidence relating to the structure of the root system of lycopods, the dominant vegetation of Upper Carboniferous strata, are presented and critically examined. Neither the elastic and partially hollow nature of the lycopod root structure, their inferred geometry throughout early ontological development, nor other evidence support the prevailing paradigm that the coal measures formed in a terrestrial swamp environment. Rather, they favour the floating forest or silvomarine hypothesis of Kuntze regarding the formation of Paleozoic coal layers. You can read the rest of "The origin of the Carboniferous coal measures—part 2: The logic of lycopod root structure", here . (Part 3 is not availabl

morgueFile/raheel The story told about the origin of coal is that it was formed by plants over eons of time. Scientific evidence refutes that story. One problem for this view is that there is a great number of fossils in the Carboniferous coal measures. Another problem is that marine fossils are found in what are supposed to be land deposits. Once again, the best explanation is the global Flood at the time of Noah. Early geological researchers into the coal measures of the Carboniferous System sought to explain its origin in terms of geological processes operating over eons of time. Yet the evidence that they were continually uncovering presented more and more difficulties within that framework of thinking. Particularly troublesome were the difficulties relating to the roots of the fern trees, the dominant Carboniferous vegetation. The confusion even extended across national borders with the ideas of the geologists on the Continent conflicting with those in England and Amer