Piltdown Superman

NASA Mars has many similarities with Earth. It also has significant differences. "Differences? Well, duh! " Anyway. There are also some very puzzling aspects. For example, Mars shows signs that it once had liquid water, but its atmosphere would not allow water to exist for very long. (Ironically, some evolutionary scientists consider the possibility of a global flood there , but fight the fact that there was one here, where we have seventy percent water!) Was the atmosphere different in the past? Did it change? Most of Mars is flat, but there are hills and mountains more massive than those on Earth. Those two moons are puzzling, also. Evolutionary conjectures fail to explain what we know so far. Let's take a look at the red planet. Although Venus has been called Earth’s sister due to the similar size of these two worlds, the planet that appears most earthlike at its surface is undoubtedly Mars. A solid, rocky world, Mars is just over half the size of Ear

And now for something completely different. Sort of. Dr. James White gave me a birthday present. Sort of. On a broadcast of " The Dividing Line " starting at about the 34 minute point, he mentioned a video that describes how the Toy Story  movies and the TV series The Walking Dead appear to be the same story. I am uncertain of the exact video he talked about, but this one looks like a good possibility: Dr. White pointed out that things can indeed seem similar, you can find parallels if you want to find them. Of course, you need to ignore the dissimilarities for your "theory" to hold together. His application was different, but his "gift" to me was the inspiration for this article. Edit: I forgot to add that I mentioned this selective data and that people see what they want to see to a physical therapist. She said it happens in the medical field as well, that only some things are presented, but other factors are ignored. I have been a

The concept of primitive people being stupid brutes communicating with grunts and monosyllables is actually based on evolutionary biases. After all, they had recently evolved from apelike creatures and could not be all that clever in the first place. (Why do you think the "ancient astronauts" stories became so popular? The ancient people needed help building those amazing structures way back when.) Cavemen and evolving humanoids look good in museums of evolutionary propaganda, though. A different story emerges when the Bible is taken seriously as history. (Remember, the Hittites were unknown outside the Bible until about 1906. Mockers had to eat their words.) Here, we learn that man is made in God's image, and people were intelligent from the start. Archaeology supports the fact that ancient people were not nearly as dense as evolutionary conjectures make them seem. According to the popular viewpoint, the primitives in Britain were subjugated by the Roman

"Go to a museum", they said. "You'll learn a lot about evolution", they said. Yes, creationists have to deal with statements from the evolutionary faithful such as this. They place their faith in natural history museums to present a fair, unbiased picture of evolutionary history. Even though much of what is seen is conjecture, with exhibits that are artists' conceptions based on little actual fossil or bone evidence. Makes for interesting stories, though. Credit: Freeimages / Melissa Squires For example, how often do you see modern birds displayed with dinosaurs? Seldom, if ever. You see, that would ruin evolutionary dogma. Even though there is disagreement among scientists that dinosaurs evolved into birds, the predominant view is that dinosaurs evolved into birds; you can't be the same age as your ancestor. Many evolutionists are ignorant of the fact that dinosaurs ate birds . Evolutionary subterfuge and propaganda continues in museums. Ev

It is understandable, even expected, that people will interpret evidence according to their worldviews . Unfortunately, Darwin's Cheerleaders will promote evolutionism even when it is absurd to do so. The "Just So Stories" read like parody, but are actually meant to be taken seriously. Worse than that, some research is dreadfully bad, with spurious results proclaimed as if they were triumphs of scientific discovery. Irresponsible reporting and bad research are enthusiastically swallowed by the evolutionary faithful. Anti-creationists, ever vigilant to find something to throw at creationists and Intelligent Design proponents, cite these "results" as evidence for evolution. Using wording that means "EvolutionDidIt" becomes both laughable and tiresome. The greatest irony is that if they stepped back from their biases for a while, they might realize just how humorous much of their material actually sounds to thinking people. Biblical creationists

I just want to talk to you about how my creationist attitudes evolved (heh!). Before, I was pretty much an evidentialist. Then I learned about worldviews and presuppositions. Love them, hate them, we all have them. People view the evidence based on them. The MP3 version of the podcast can be downloaded here . For more about presuppositional apologetics: The Ultimate Proof of Creation by Dr. Jason Lisle (I recommend the book, too) Dr. Greg Bahnsen videos "Proof That God Exists" multimedia by Sye Ten Bruggencate

Back in elementary school, dear Watson, I learned the nine planets. Then Pluto was found to have a moon, Charon, which is over half the size of Pluto. More moons were discovered. Pluto is no longer classified as a planet. I'm disappointed. To add to the confusion, there are planets outside our solar system. Will this madness never cease? Probably not. Have you ever noticed that whenever a new  exoplanet  is discovered or inferred, the press goes into overdrive? They seem to want to find planets (and extraterrestrial life) even more than evolutionary cosmologists. At least, that's the impression I get. They will go on about how "Earth-like" these things are, but the press is stranger than fact. Especially when the planet baffles evolutionists. It might be an interesting place to visit on Star Trek, but you wouldn’t want to live there.   Theoretically, it shouldn’t even exist.  An exoplanet closest to our Earth in size has been discovered.  Trouble is, it’

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Like many people even today, you may have been shown the 1960 movie Inherit the Wind, based on the 1955 play by the same name. Although it claims to be fiction, historical facts from the 1925 Scopes "Monkey" Trial are mixed in, making it appear to be historically reliable . In fact, Inherit the Wind is highly misleading, but used in education. Kirk Hastings gave some interesting comments and comparisons between fact and fantasy in Part XIII of his book What is Truth? For those of you who do not have that book handy, I have some links available for you. How much do you actually know about the events of the Scopes trial? Take the quiz . People "know" about the trial from Inherit the Wind, but the facts are radically different from the "docudrama". It has even deceived Christians who draw upon it as source material for a Bible study ! People should check out the facts before letting movies influence their beliefs. Cl

Research at Stamford University on molten iron and the Earth's core led to some interesting results. However, there are still some unanswered questions, such as the slow rate of travel of seismic waves. NASA/Dixon Rohr Indirect methods of assessment give some results, but extrapolating these into explanations of the formation of the Earth (such as accretion, or the nebular hypotheses ) do not work. In addition, discarded "percolation" theories are being resuscitated, since evolutionary conjectures do not supply the answers. Journey to the center of the earth said to show how our core came to be . Without our magnetic field, earth would be a very different place. Earth’s magnetic field protects us from cosmic radiation. The magnetic field is a shield, deflecting harmful charged particles and thereby guarding our upper atmosphere, including the ozone layer, from the solar radiation that would destroy it and, with it, the conditions that support life. Our

Although it happens rather frequently, I am still occasionally amazed when anti-creationists and atheopaths make accusations of "liar" to Christians and especially to biblical creationists. In articles that I posted elsewhere , I have pointed out several problems with such an accusation: They cannot demonstrate an intent to deceive on the part of the Christian A disagreement on the interpretation of scientific evidence is not "lying" In most cases, the accusation is simply an emotional reaction to facts that threaten their paradigm They do not seem to know the true definition of lying The accusation is often accompanied by other logical fallacies, showing the inability for critical thinking on the part of the accuser But there is something else these libelers and slanders miss, and that is the ludicrous nature of their claim. Just think it through: Biblical creationists believe in what the Scriptures teach about God, who is holy and hates lying. We'r