Piltdown Superman

It's ironic that people who don't believe the Bible want to know about how things seem "old" in the Genesis account of creation, and then refuse to accept explanations that are offered. Fortunately, there are people who honestly want to know about that as well. Even though some well-meaning creationists have offered their ideas, they should've left their six-guns in their holsters instead of misfiring and making things worse. "Creation of the Animals" / Raphael / 1519 When reading Genesis, we can tell that Adam and Eve were walking and talking from the beginning, they were to tend to the garden, trees bore fruit, animals were brought to Adam, stars were shining — those mean that there was an appearance of age, right? Not hardly. "Appearance of age" is an incorrect and misleading term, and entirely subjective. But there's a better way to look at things, especially if I stop muddying the waters with this introduction. Extracted and

A rodent fossil that kinda-sorta resembles a groundhog has been causing some difficulties in some Gondwana and evolutionary circles. A skull was discovered (except for the lower jaw) that was rather well preserved, causing some classification difficulties. One problem for paleontologists is that, according to their worldview, it was found in dinosaur strata, and shouldn't be there. Because of the discernible features, this critter does not fit into the three major mammal classifications, and is a candidate for its own classification. It has also been called "primitive". The fossil has a resemblance to a groundhog. This groundhog clip art has a resemblance to a groundhog as well. Scientists are using their worldviews to "explain" its transition, the hows and whys of its evolution, and its relationship to other mammals — using circular reasoning and selective data citing. Indeed, they may need to rewrite evolutionary history. Again. Biblical creation sci

Even before the Rosetta spacecraft and the Philae probe met up with their targeted comet, some Darwinoids were cheering in anticipation that the results of the mission would disprove the Genesis account of creation. According to their evolutionary worldview, the Bible is wrong and the universe was formed from the Big Bang, and the earth was a hot, molten blob with no water. So what stagecoach brought the water here, then? "Why, comets, of course, don'tcha unnerstan' science, ya idjit?" No, we don't understand speculations that have no logical or evidential support. 4-image mosaic of images taken from centre of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko on 14 December 2014 ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM – CC BY-SA IGO 3.0 But hope for reasons to reject the Creator spring eternal, old son. From one fact-free wish to another, since the comet-water idea was debunked , they jumped to the idea that asteroids brought water to Earth, not comets (ya idjit). Still, they throw abou

Sometimes, simpler is better. Extremely complicated machines that perform multiple functions can be susceptible to breakdowns, and simply wearing out. For example, the "all-in-one" machine that does copies, faxes, document scanning, printing and so on can have one problem that makes the whole thing stop, and you're without all of those functions while it's getting repaired or replaced. Likewise, having several simpler machines working in concert can have the same problem. Another example, your car has many things depending on each other, but a critical component can make it so you're not going anywhere (such as when my starter broke down last year). You can get by with a faulty car part, but not always. Inside each of us, there are astonishingly complex machines. Lots of them. Different kinds. Some are at work inside the cells, performing maintenance and copying of DNA and other things. They keep themselves going, and have many backup systems in place, an

More studies of Earth's moon are getting evolutionary space scientists all frazzled. They require "deep time", and evolution requires huge amounts of time or else the story won't work. But the more they cognate on space stuff, the more they find out that their discoveries don't reconcile with their tale-spinning. Today, we see that the man in the moon is trolling secularists. Full Moon with Earth's Horizon and Airglow Visible at Left Image credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Despite the desires of participants in the Deep Time Rodeo, the moon once had a strong magnetic field. In addition, there are other features of the moon that say, "I'm young!" Naturally, secular scientists dance around the evidence and make up excuses to avoid the logical conclusions of a young Earth, moon and solar system itself. Ponder this under tonight’s full moon. Scientists now say the moon once had a magnetic field stronger than

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Everyone has a worldview. It is comprised of axioms and presuppositions. They can be cultural, experiential, based on opinions, education, and so on. Some people deny having a worldview, but we cannot function without it. Scientists use their worldviews as their starting point, and are not the epitome of sterile objectivity that many people believe them to be. Worldviews and Presuppositions I believe that the main reasons atheists and anti-creationists detest presuppositional apologetics are: We do not elevate any philosophies (including science philosophies) above the Bible, which is our foundation, and freely admit that we have our own presuppositions Presuppositional apologists analyze worldviews and their underlying presuppositions, and cognitive dissonance results when an atheist or evolutionist is shown that his worldview is irrational We do not take much stock in the "wisdom" of unbelievers because that violates what Scripture tel

Almost from the beginning, there have been people who wanted to find ways to deny God. With increasing ferocity over time, such denials have reached the irrational level of attempting to deny that God exists in the first place. One of the cornerstones of the religion of atheism is evolution, which is itself an ancient pagan religion that has been given a veneer of "science". You can have all the axioms you want, old son, but when they build on arbitrary assumptions, you have not really built anything scientific. (For that matter, there are owlhoots that try to confuse you by conflating "evolution" and "science", then they can mislead you by saying that creationists are "anti-science", which is a flat-out lie.) Atheism has its own origins mythologies that are just as incoherent, unscientific and irrational as atheism itself. But people foolishly rebel against the Creator, putting their faith in false reason and conjectures about origins. Onl