Piltdown Superman

There have been some science news reports with sensationalistic titles about "oceans" of water under the surface of the earth. Those may prompt readers to think that if you dug a hole deep enough, you could have a nice swimming hole. Not hardly. As we read at Creation-Evolution Headlines, "A claim of vast reservoirs of water deep in the earth is based on indirect evidence, and likely has little or nothing to do with surface water or floods" (see " Beware of Misinterpreting Water Claims "). "Earth Poster" / Wikimedia Commons / Kelvinsong Christians can be just as gullible as their secular counterparts, saying, "Aha! Mockers wonder where the water went after the Flood, and there it is!"  Rein in that filly, Freddie. Mockers who have a bent to disbelieve will still not be impressed, especially since the Flood water is still here; if the earth was smooth, it would be covered by water for a depth of over 1-1/2 miles (over 2.41 km).

The universe is not supporting deep-time cosmology and the Big Bang, among other established "facts". Once again, what has been believed by secularists is being challenged. W e find out that the more we learn, and the more that scientific equipment develops, there is still a great deal to learn. It seems that the most consistent fact about science is that many "facts" are uncertain and keep changing . Yet, many secularists keep citing things that are outdated and incomplete, dogmatically asserting that the earth and the universe are very old, and that there is a consensus about various forms of evolution. Messier 54, PD / NASA / ESA / Wikimedia Commons In cosmology, cosmogony, and astronomy, many speculations have been asserted as facts, and people spread them around. However, many of these (even long-established), have been overturned or are in serious doubt. The Big Bang itself has always had flaws, and more are found. Are black holes a certainty? Well..

Science is a useful tool. It is approached philosophically, and people interpret data based on their presuppositions and worldviews. It is interesting that some people will insist that the Big Bang, evolution, age of the earth , and other things are "facts" — until those "facts" change . The most effective approach to science is to organize data, make theories and be willing to discard theories when they do not hold up, or when evidence shows them to be wrong. (Amazingly, microbes-to-man evolution is held with religious fervor despite  contrary evidence.) Using a materialistic bias limits scientific investigation. “Science Is Not About Certainty” a noted theoretical physicist writes. For many people that might be a startling claim. Dr. Carlo Rovelli—one of the originators of “loop quantum gravity theory”—recently published an article discussing the nature of science. The piece, called “Science Is Not About Certainty,” makes some points that biblical creati

Should we feel sorry for evolutionists? Things that they put their faith in as "evidence", things that have been considered "facts", get dropped on the dusty trail of learning. But then, they accept many things presented without question. "The oyster's twist shows evolution", but this is done with assertion and conjecture, not with plausible models. One thing I keep trying to tell Christians and creationists is that our faith is not based on the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies (it's like trying to patch the sinking ship of evolutionary dogmas with more unfounded assertions). Science and evidence support our faith, but they do not make it. Oysters have the unfortunate distinction that they were one of the first examples of an alleged proof of evolutionary lineage in the fossil record (mooted by paleontologist A.E. Trueman in 1922).1 The ‘flat’ oyster, Ostrea sp., was said to have evolved into the coiled shell Gryphaea sp.

Some people are herded into the corral of "radiometric dating proves an ancient world". A herd mentality may not be such a bad thing if people were believing something that was the result of solid reasoning and good evidence, but the fact is, secular methods of radiometric dating are fundamentally flawed. Not only are there assumptions, but circular reasoning. And the circular reasoning is "validated" by additional circular reasoning. I reckon that the whole process is a wreck. Unfortunately, many Christians have bought into the atheistic conclusions and bad logic. Conditions during the Great Flood of Genesis play a significant factor in fouling up uniformitarian dating methods. Radioactive dating is a key concept in determining the age of the earth. Many secular scientists use it to dismantle the faith of Christians and cause them to accept uniformitarian assumptions that, in addition to being scientifically erroneous, demand a figurative and distorted interp

Darwinists try to distance themselves (or even deny) the racism in evolution, although that is well established . So what do evolutionary anthropologists do? Use more racism in their "research". The basic presuppositions are that evolution itself is a fact, and certain ethnic groups are less evolved than white people. In this case, the logic goes further downhill. A case of scientific racism? An anthropologist studied living Kalahari Bushmen for clues to the evolution of cognition. Human beings are long, long past any evolutionary stage anthropologists could claim they were going through 400,000 years ago when our ancestors allegedly learned to control fire. (Michael Balter in Nature asserts that date, even though evidence of cooking goes back millions of years in the evolutionary timeline; 6/17/09.) So what are anthropologists doing listening to the campfire stories of living tribesmen to draw inferences about our evolutionary past? To read the rest of this art

The misnamed "language gene", FOXP2 (forkhead box protein P2), is essential to language development and is a factor in learning. (Since it is found in many creatures, I wonder why Basement Cat doesn't learn not  to get under my wife's feet so she won't get stepped on.) Experiments with "humanized" FOXP2 in mice showed some improvement in some tests but not in others. The research helped advance scientific knowledge about how this protein (encoded by the FOXP2  gene) operates. At this point, we move from observational science into evolutionary presuppositions. The main assumption is that evolution happened, then the assumption that humans and apes diverged from a common ancestor. The difference between humans and chips with this gene is two amino acids. (Interestingly, evolutionists only care about chimpanzees, and ignore the fact that gorillas have the same gene, but gorillas are not "closely related" to humans.) This gene is only three