Piltdown Superman

Edited 2-28-2016, removed non-functioning audio link and references to it. When the interview on "Bob Enyart Live" was being set up, I wrote in my notes that I am a nobody. If he had wanted to pursue this, I would have liked to tell him: I'm just a regular guy, not an organization (but we do have several Admins on the Facebook Page), and do not make money on any of this, so I have a full-time job Nobody is paying for things for me to use Videos are made with Windows Video Maker, I don't own high-end software or have a studio of any kind Audio is recorded and mixed on Audacity Open Source software Graphics are done through Paint.Net free software The microphone/headset was purchased at the Big Huge Corporate Retail Store down the road It's the same place I bought my eMachine computer a few years ago (which has been a reliable workhorse) All I am, and all I have, are gifts of God This whole "Question Evolution Day" is a grassroots movement

We have reached the conclusion of ten layman's-level articles on scientific evidences for a young Earth. Number ten is annoying to evolutionary biologists. Using their tendentious dating methods, bacteria has been found in salt that is allegedly 250 million years old, and the DNA is intact. And unevolved.  Image credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures But that should not happen in their paradigm. Scientists offer explanations that are absurd. Worse for them, the data fit the creationist model of the biblical flood at the time of Noah! In 2000, scientists claimed to have “resurrected” bacteria, named Lazarus bacteria, discovered in a salt crystal conventionally dated at 250 million years old. They were shocked that the bacteria’s DNA was very similar to modern bacterial DNA. If the modern bacteria were the result of 250 million years of evolution, its DNA should be very different from the Lazarus bacteria (based on known mutation rates). In addition, the scientist

morgueFile/Alvimann One of the oldest and most mocked evidences for a young Earth is lack of sea salt. ("Mocked" because actual scientific refutation has not been done, and only mockery is left.) Yet again, using their own uniformitarian assumptions against old Earth proponents, ther e simply is not enough salt in the sea. Excuses that evolutionary scientists present are painfully weak. If the world’s oceans have been around for three billion years as evolutionists believe, they should be filled with vastly more salt than the oceans contain today. Every year rivers, glaciers, underground seepage, and atmospheric and volcanic dust dump large amounts of salts into the oceans (Figure 1). Consider the influx of the predominant salt, sodium chloride (common table salt). Some 458 million tons of sodium mixes into ocean water each year, but only 122 million tons (27%) is removed by other natural processes. You can read the rest of this layman's-level article a

We've been looking downward at evidence for a young Earth, now we can lift our eyes to the heavens. morgueFile/seriousfun Specifically, short-term comets. Most of us learned long ago that comets are wanderers in space that are rock and ice ("dirty snowballs"). When they get close enough to the sun, they begin to burn off some of their material and produce those dramatic tails. After enough loops through the solar system, they eventually burn away. Or crash into planets. Or get tossed out of the solar system entirely. Using evolutionary cosmologists' uniformitarian assumptions against them, we find that all of the comets should have been used up a long time ago. They have some interesting rescuing devices that do not hold together. A comet spends most of its time far from the sun in the deep freeze of space. But once each orbit a comet comes very close to the sun, allowing the sun’s heat to evaporate much of the comet’s ice and dislodge dust to form a bea

morgueFile/imelenchon (modified) Another evidence for a young Earth that uses uniformitarian assumptions against evolutionists is the existence of Carbon-14 in the wrong places. According to presuppositions about an ancient Earth and the fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods , Carbon-14 should not be found in things that are allegedly millions of years old, like diamonds. This is similar to the problem of the amount of helium in rocks , discussed previously. Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils. But it decays so quickly—with a half-life of only 5,730 years—that none is expected to remain in fossils after only a few hundred thousand years. Yet carbon-14 has been detected in “ancient” fossils—supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old—ever since the earliest days of radiocarbon dating. If radiocarbon lasts only a few hundred thousand years, why is it found in all the earth’s diamonds dated at bill

Continuing in our series of evidence for a young Earth is a discussion of helium found in the rocks. When certain elements in the rocks break down from radioactive decay, helium is produced. If the Earth was billions of years old, the helium would have dissipated from the rocks. Instead, helium is found. Abundantly. Evolutionary geologists have to come up with rescuing devices to explain why the observed evidence does not fit into their presuppositions. Creationists have no problem with the evidence. In fact, Noachian Flood hypotheses make better sense of the data. During the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium contained in rocks, lots of helium is produced. Because helium is the second lightest element and a noble gas—meaning it does not combine with other atoms—it readily diffuses (leaks) out and eventually escapes into the atmosphere. Helium diffuses so rapidly that all the helium should have leaked out in less than 100,000 years. So why are these rocks still full of

February 12 is "Question Evolution Day". Join us in taking a stand for intellectual and academic freedom! Posters can post, bloggers can blog, writers can write, singers can sing, page owners can post. Sure, there's money in evolutionism, and the majority of scientists accept it. But that does not mean it's true. This site links to scientific explanations that refute the evolutionary worldview and show that biblical creation has the correct interpretations of the facts. There are some videos about "Question Evolution Day" and other things on this page , and graphics for your Web site, blog, profile or whatever are available here . Spread the word!