Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Here is something ironic. Astrology has the trappings of science, and astrologers contend that it is  science, but  it is rejected by scientists . On the other hand, psychology does not have much that is consistent to really define it as science (repeatable, testable, observable, predictability, specificity and so on), yet it is considered a science. Darwinism lacks many of the same elements that define a science. If rejection of accountability to God was in the direct criteria to define science, astrology would probably be accepted as a science as well. Like astrology, psychology has a great deal of uncertain predictions that can be plugged into a wide range of possibilities to claim successful results. Modern psychology is generally considered to have had its genesis with Sigmund Freud (a.k.a. Frood-dude ). Freud, Jung and others were influenced by Darwinian ideas , and most psychologies are humanistic in their procedures. For the most part, there are se

Evolutionary timelines are constantly being disrupted by new discoveries. "Paleolithic" cave paintings in Chauvet, France, were troublesome enough by stirring up controversy . Now cave paintings in Spain have made matters worse, throwing a spanner into the works for the ages and skills of ancient humans. Replica painting from the Chauvet cave / PD Cave paintings from Chauvet, France, were thought to be the oldest according to radiocarbon dating. The ones in Spain are dated as "older". But that does not fit, because evolutionists insist that humans (Neanderthal or not) were not that advanced yet, but the opposite is true . Once again, evolutionary presuppositions are threatened by evidence — and the evidence comes from their own methodologies. It is far better to accept that humans were created, and created recently. Reality does not threaten biblical creation. The radiocarbon ‘dating’ of charcoal remains from ancient fires inside Spain’s famous Nerja cav

You may recall that evolutionary scientists studied selected parts of the genome, and the areas they did not understand were termed "junk" DNA that were useless leftovers from our evolutionary past. Those assumptions are being proved wrong . By not studying things that they ignored because they did not understand them (how scientific is that?), several branches of science were hindered. Three images compiled and modified were originally from openclipart . In this case, medical science related to heart health has been irregular. Portions of that stuff they wrote off are actually vital. Long non-coding RNAs are finally receiving studies, and some of them play a part in heart health. If scientists had a worldview that included the idea that God designed things for a purpose, this negligence may not have happened. A new research study has shown that large regions of the human genome, once thought to be useless junk, work to keep your heart functioning properly. When the

One of the most common problems that creationists have to deal with is how fundamentalist evolutionists rabidly defend their faith, but do not know the science that allegedly supports it. Some will resort to arguments from ignorance ("I've never heard of that, so it must not be correct"), others simply deny what has been said, and often call you a liar. Creationists do not need to apologize that many of us have a better handle on science trends (and the fallacious assertions with them) than the people who think we are uninformed. It would be helpful if evolutionists admitted that they lived by faith, not by sight. On this episode of " Real Science Radio ", Bob Enyart and Fred Williams discuss one of the most hated facts these days, that soft tissues have been found in dinosaur fossils ( "fossil" used to describe full-on fossils as well as their remains; Ian Juby explains here, beginning at the 20 minute 13 seconds mark ). Evolutionists have

Review of Refuting Compromise written by Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The title of this article was inspired by a someone's post. It said to take the title of a book you had read and add, "...with a chainsaw". I was just finishing up Refuting Compromise and realized that this addition fit quite well. Perhaps Dr. Sarfati will forgive me for adding to his words and not rebuke me, making me a liar ( Proverbs 30.6 ). But enough of my strange sense of humor. Refuting Compromise was written to deal with the bad apologetics of Dr. Hugh Ross, a "progressive creationist" (who also calls himself by the odd title of "day-age creationist"), and unfortunately, many people look up to Ross and his "Reasons to Believe" organization. When I purchased this book, it was because I felt that I needed it for reference, even though I had not dealt all that much with Rossites or spent time with Ross' teachings. It turns out that

Excitement has been raised with the discovery of Kepler-186f, an exoplanet that may be in the "habitable zone". This zone is an area that is the right distance from its star so that it will be neither too hot nor too cold for liquid water to exist. NASA's Kepler space telescope monitors many stars and check them for variations in brightness which may be caused by planetary activity. Artist's conception of Kepler-186f. Image credit: NASA Ames/SETI Institute/JPL-Caltech Naturally, evolutionists want to speculate that life may be evolving on other worlds. However, the train has to be on the right track before it can even leave the station. That is, before speculating that life may have evolved there, other questions need to be addressed as to a planet's suitability — being in the habitable zone is only the beginning. Kepler-186f, the fifth planet orbiting an M1-spectral type red dwarf star in the constellation Cygnus, will go down in history as the fir

Proponents of evolution have a great deal of cognitive dissonance and inconsistencies with which to contend. The primary cause is presuppositions based on belief in the "truth" of evolution and billions of years. Not only does actual observed evidence support creation instead of evolution, but they cannot decide what to do about chemical evolution (abiogenesis, the origin of life). Some falsely assert that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, others try to push the problem out into space, and still others will try to bring back the zombie of the discredited Miller-Urey experiment as well as presenting products of their fantasies as actual science. Some people go to great lengths to avoid admitting the truth of the Creator. They should really let the abiogenesis foolishness rest in peace. The featured article today is from Creation-Evolution Headlines, and begins, "There is no coherent origin of life scenario among evolutionists, just a collection