Piltdown Superman

Watch a video or glance through a picture book of the solar system, and you will see that many of the planets and moons show an abundance of impact craters. Secular cosmogonists have various hypotheses that fail to explain what is observed today, and creation scientists have their own hypotheses. Remember, scientists are not "neutral", they have their worldviews and presuppositions by which they operate. Impact craters on surface of Saturn's moon Rhea, NASA / JPL The article linked below has a creation scientist's perspective. He examined scientific papers regarding when the impacts occurred, probably during the fourth day of creation week. Creation scientists hold to their foundation in the Bible, but it is not just "GodDidIt" as many anti-creationists gleefully accuse. Rather, they want to know how God did it, and sometimes divine intervention is the best logical conclusion of the evidence ("We should hold to what Scripture reveals without c

Creationists are in the wrong business. We want to promote critical thinking, show the folly of evolution, and promote the truth overall. Although the rewards are out of this world (literally), the big money is in evolution. Insist on your materialistic evolutionary prsuppositions, do some experiments, ignore obvious questions, feed the material to the gullible press, and you're doing well. Experiments in how flight evolved, how patterns on creatures came to be, the symmetry of physical forms, figure out where butterflies belong on the evolutionary tree — great stuff, and you don't even need to give a plausible model or explanation for how the alleged evolution happened, let alone why. Take a look at " Darwinism is a Constant; Just-So Stories Are Variables ".

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen There is quite a bit happening in the realm of creation science (I have posts scheduled for over a week ahead right now!), but once in a while, people like some personal glimpses and behind the scenes information, so here you go. The other day, the pastor and I were discussing my online creation science ministry. He asked, "Who is your audience?", and, "Who are you trying to reach?" The easy answer would be, "Anyone who wants to read it", but that is rather simplistic. I pondered these questions and realized that there are several answers. Some people use the Web as an occasional information and communications tool. They send out e-mail, newsletters, Weblogs, and they look up information when they need it . Then there are those of us who spend a great deal of time online, trying to make information available in our areas of specialty to the first group, and to people who "live" online. (There are also blogs where peo

Remember when the Brontosaurus  was considered an actual dinosaur and not an amazingly bad mistake by paleontologists? Too bad it never existed, the name meant "thunder lizard". Imagine, he would not be sneaking up on anybody. "Oh, here comes Bronto, pretend to be startled when he says, 'Boo'!" The more digging they do, the more they dig up larger dinosaurs. Excavation took four field seasons from 2004-2009 , and is the latest contender for the world's largest dinosaur — and may be a juvenile. Surprisingly complete for something that size, but it also gives some testimony to rapid burial (such as in the Great Biblical Flood). It also has no signs of being a transitional form, where it is evolving into something else. But that is not a surprise for creationists.  Scientists described a new and remarkable fossil skeleton of a giant titanosaur, a group that includes the largest creatures ever to have lived on land. Dinosaur enthusiasts of all backgr

Origins science is essentially a forensics science. Scientists use evidence that is available in the present, apply scientific methods, use modern equipment and so on in order to reconstruct what happened in the past. Indeed, advances in these areas, especially DNA, have helped police solve cold cases (or "historical cases") that had been mostly forgotten for many years. Operational science deals with things that are repeatable, testable and observable. (Anti-creationists will often blur the distinction and equivocate "evolution" with "science", but that is misleading and dishonest.) Proponents of both evolutionism and creationism will use forensic methods in their attempts to explain what went on in the past. There are some key differences between the origins sciences of creationists and evolutionists. Scientists have their presuppositions based on their worldviews, but evolutionists have many unfounded (and even discredited) assumptions t

Paleontologists have been baffled for many years by a fossil. It looks like something that someone may imagine in a drug-induced state, but it is real. How to classify it has been a problem, but a new fossil discovery that is more complete gave evolutionists hope that they know where to put it in the "Tree of Life". But are they doing anything more than guessing and putting it where they want it to be? Linking it to modern creatures because of similar features is not a guarantee of an evolutionary relationship. Hallucigenia sparsa  may look like a sci-fi alien but it is very much a resident of earth—the earth of the past, that is. This tiny fossil has been a real paleontology puzzle. While the best-preserved fossils now show this little animal had seven or eight pairs of claw-tipped legs matching two rows of conical spikes on its back, the original fossils only showed one row of legs, and confusion has long clouded attempts to reconstruct, much less classify, this a

Secular astronomers, cosmologists and cosmologists have a fondness for collisions, explosions and so forth. The Big Bang, the alleged ultimate explosion , supposedly gave rise to the incredible complexity in the solar system all the way down to the tiniest parts of cells.   Has anyone ever seen order come from an explosion? These scientists are speculating that impacts on primordial Earth and things that go bump in space made other things happen. (Since they like things that go boom so much, perhaps they would be useful in designing video games.) Creationists do not need to resort to such flights of fancy. For a glimpse of some of their guesswork passing as "science", click on " Impacts: Creators or Destroyers? "   Edit 9-18-2014: Some people are complaining that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion, it was a very rapid expansion of space-time, which continues today — but not all science departments are in agreement on that faith-based assertion. Okay, let

Evolutionary science (whether cosmic, biological or something else) has its share of attention seekers. But then, that's where the grant money lies — if you come up with the Next Big Thing and help convince people that evolution is true. So often, some sensational announcement is made in scientific fields (frequently distorted and exaggerated by the science press, of course) and people get all excited. Some Christians who base their faith on "science" and evidence are shaking in their boots as if some announcement will prove evolution, disprove the Bible or negate God's existence. When they send me inquiries, I remind them that our faith is based on the written Word of God, not the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies, and to just wait a while. As expected, the excitement fades and embarrassment for science sets in after further investigation. There is nothing in true science that is a threat to creation science or anything Christian. PD, modifie

Although the Bible has a proven track record of historical accuracy, there is a growing effort by anti-theist revisionists to make it appear wrong. Much of this is based on the argument from silence fallacy, such as, "There is no historical evidence of the ancient Hittites, so the Bible authors made them up!", but the biblical record has been vindicated time and again. Their presuppositions against the Bible are showing. Pixabay / Paukner Egyptian history is treated in much the same way. Despite the accuracy of the Bible as history, some presume that it is incorrect regarding ancient Egypt. One claim is that Egyptian history goes back further than the biblical timeline of Creation, therefore, the Egyptian records are correct and the Bible is wrong. This myopic view has many serious problems, including ignorance of Egyptian culture, religion, record-keeping methods and more. Another assumption is based on evolutionary thinking, that ancient humans were stupid, evolvin

Scientists generally want accurate results. Unfortunately, secular scientists are using fundamentally flawed presuppositions as their starting points. These include an ancient earth, evolution, uniformitarianism and so on.  Ice cores  and sediments in deep seafloors are touted as excellent examples for an old earth, but these calibrations are loaded with assumptions, and cross-referenced with other assumption-laden methods. One of the most amazing examples of bad reasoning is the use of "orbital tuning" to support the other methods. Creation science Noachian Flood models explain observed data far better than relying on secularist fudge factors. An apparently strong argument for an old earth is the seeming agreement between multiple (and supposedly independent) dating methods which yield “millions of years.” Uniformitarian scientists claim that chemical clues within the seafloor sediments tell a “story” of climate change over millions of years and that this “story” agrees