Piltdown Superman

Just for fun, this was scheduled to post on the thirteenth of December, 2014 at 10:11 AM Eastern Time. So, for Americans, we can say 10:11, 12-13-14. Little things like that amuse me. One creature that creationists and Intelligent Design proponents have long liked to discuss is the archer fish's hunting abilities . It was already impressive, knowing that it could lurk below the surface of the water and squirt out a jet of water, knocking an insect off a branch into the water below as a guest for lunch. Wikimedia Commons / Pearsman Scott Foresman The argument for design becomes even more impressive with the fact that further research shows that a fair amount of physics is involved with the archer's arching. Too many details are present that can be accounted for by evolutionary means. The secret of the archer fish’s powerful spits has been discovered, and it isn't powerful muscles. The fish that shoots bugs out of the air uses physics, a paper in PLoS ONE decla

How do biblical creationists explain some of the things we see in nature? After all, the Bible clearly teaches that everything was created vegetarian in the beginning, and God said his creation was "very good". I suspicion that "very good" supports the contention that living creatures, נפש חיה, did not experience death for a short time because death was not a part of God's creation. freeimages.com / mexikids Indeed, death entered through sin (Romans 8.19-23a), and death is an enemy (1 Cor. 15.26) — do you reckon that death will be a part of the new creation at the end of it all? Not hardly! So, back to the big questions: From a biblical creationist perspective, where did death, pointy teeth, venom, poison and all that stuff enter into the picture, and can this be addressed without compromising on scriptural truth? There are answers that are theologically sound, and also have scientific support. One of the most common questions asked of Christians is so

Stonehenge has been the subject of study, tourism, speculation, occult lore, the A303 , and so on for a very long time. The consensus is that it was built thousands of years before the time of Christ. But this dating is based on the common practice of evolutionary thinking, which is to reject records and other indications of age that don't square with evolutionary preconceptions. Then they get surprised that "ancient primitives" (not fully evolved yet) had the notions to do some intricate design work and amazing labor. From a biblical creationist perspective, it was built after the Genesis Flood by intelligent people. Stonehenge, circa 1890 / PD Using historical documents (and working around some of the less-than-historical material), plus some other conjectures, we get a much more recent date for the construction of Stonehenge; I wonder if this will affect the dating of the Rollright Stones ? (Evolutionary thinking also influence people to reject the Bible as a his

In the early days of space exploration, belts of radiation were detected around Earth. They were named the Van Allen belts. Their structure has been studied for a long time, but scientists were a mite surprised to learn that there is a shield in there that protects Earth from dangerous radiation. It's been likened to stuff from "Star Trek". More and more, we keep seeing that there's just something special about our own planet (such as how Saturn's tilt and orbit affect life here , and that gamma-ray bursts should have already exterminated life on our world according to evolutionary reckoning .) The unique properties of Earth, our solar system and more seem to make the search for life in the great unknown even less likely. Secularists are baffled by this, can't figure out how it evolved, which is a common happening in space studies these days. It is another case of seeing the design of the Creator but refusing to admit it. He has safety measures in place

Some ancient Earth advocates believe that zircons are proof that our planet is old. This is based on uniformitarian ("the present is the key to the past") assumptions and circular reasoning. You can't use zircons to decorate your horse's bridle, though, they're tiny. But tough, since they withstand a lot of abuse from geologic action. Vocano / PD / US National Park Service The idea is that zircons were formed in the Hadean time when Earth was very young and a hot place, and getting bombarded with rocks from space. Based on that story, zircons were compared with other zircons from Iceland, which has volcanic activity. Those zircons were formed under "lower" temperatures, relatively speaking (not that much lower, really). Of course, the press went wild and gave some stories that were probably embarrassing to the geologists. Do zircons reveal anything about early Earth? Not hardly. There is a story, but no plausible model or evidence. Biblical cre

The article by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (linked below) has caused me to rethink my views a mite. Yes, natural selection is something that most creationists agree on. In fact, we agree with evolutionists that it exists. What we do not  agree with is the idea that it is a creative force. Natural selection does nothing of the kind. I've been known to use some of the arguments that natural selection implies a kind of entity or active force to do the selecting. In my experience, some of Darwin's Disciples treat it just that way, personifying both natural selection and evolution. Problem is, there are uninformed evolutionists who still believe that natural selection adds genetic information ; they are out of touch with current trends in evolutionary hypotheses, and act like there is something to do the selecting. Evolution and natural selection are not the same thing, and Darwin's ideas on that have been left behind for the most part. So I'm kind of in the middle here, k

This is the promised conclusion of the last article ( I recommend that you read Part 1 ). To recap, I was included in some spamming, and received permission to show replies to the anti-creation spammer. Last time, I made some introductory comments and presented the first part of his responses. I have edited both of them a little, but the substance is intact. Note that the spammer is dodging the important matters and attacking the person. — Cowboy Bob Sorensen Your response affirms my statements, including the fact that no one can "observe" the unobserved past events. Thus, this is not "meaningless mantras" but a repeated statement of scientific "fact".  I further note that you have addressed none of issues I raised, and provided NO "testable" and verifiable "experimental" science to substantiate any of the necessary stages of the "hypothetical" evolutionary continuum. Nor have you provided any "directly obse