Piltdown Superman

Many creationists go against evolutionary and uniformitarian dogmas by believing that not only did man and dinosaurs coexist, but they are described in the Bible. Anti-creationists ridicule this concept because their presuppositions depend on "deep time" (billions of years) and evolution (which requires long ages). If they'd cognate on it for a spell, they'd realize that they're ignoring and suppressing evidence such as soft tissues found in dinosaur remains (not supposed to happen), carbon-14 results (shouldn't be any carbon-14 in them at all), and discard historical ( and not so historical ) accounts of dinosaurs with people. Remember, the word "dinosaur" didn't exist until Richard Owen came up with it in the 1840s. Before that, critters that were called "dragons" looked and acted quite a bit like we'd expect from dinosaurs (until fanciful tales made dragons into magical things). Here are two candidates for dinosaurs in the B

When you have a series of conjectures touted as a major scientific theory, and the scientists cling to their paradigm instead of realistically evaluating the evidence, you have corral full of irritated evolutionists. Once again, we hear about how a new discovery will cause them to substantially rewrite their timelines because one of the crossbeams has gone out of skew on an evolutionary treadle. This time, a fish fossil is hard to classify because it has a mix of features, and the evolution of the fish jaw needs re-cognating. To make matters worse for Darwinists, evidence for an intricate network of sensors and brain responders existed early on. Kinda like they were designed that way. A so-called “primitive” bony fish with traits of sharks confuses the usual story of fish ancestry. They’re calling it Janusiscus, part two-faced Janus and part piscus (fish). This fragmentary two-faced fossil from Siberia, claimed to be 415 million years old, has lots of bone but also some traits

Uniformitarian geologists, using their standard "the present is the key to the past" presuppositions, have used a dynamo theory to explain the earth's magnetic field. They also need to explain the magnetic field reversals. Although they don't really understand it and have a plausible model for it, they have the magnetic field reversing itself over huge amounts of time. Dr. Gary A. Glatzmaier / Los Alamos National Laboratory / U.S. Department of Energy / PD Evidence has been found for rapid field reversals that jump the uniformitarian fence; lots of theories and speculations are in jeopardy. This bothers the secularists, because it fits predictions made by biblical creationists like Dr. D. Russell Humphreys . Creationist models of the Genesis Flood involve many catastrophes, including catastrophic plate tectonics, changes in radioactive decay rates — and those pesky very rapid magnetic field reversals. At first, the evidence was being faced. Then they chose to

Those pesky microbes making people sick. But we were created with an immune system. Some people think this indicates there was disease before the Fall, and put forth some ideas that they hope will reconcile God's perfect creation with our disease-fighting capabilities. Some fall flat and are pretty much like faith assertions that are unsupportable from science and Scripture. However, we're full of the tiny critters, and our immune system does more than fight disease; not all viruses and microbes are harmful. If God originally created the world without death and disease, where did our bodies get their disease-fighting capabilities? Christians generally explain the origin of immune systems in three ways. These explanations, though, have theological and scientific snags. ...   Creationists need biblical explanations that are scientifically sound and not simply lighter versions of evolutionary lines of thinking. So, one way to begin is by asking: Does our immune system ser

There have been scoffers for many years who simply dismissed the Genesis Flood as a fanciful tale or a complete fabrication. (Worse, there have been liberal Christians who have agreed with atheistic interpretations of geology and said that the Flood never happened, that it was local, "tranquil", or some other nonsense.) Many flood legends exist around the world, and quite a few are only fit for jawing with folks to fill time while riding the lonely trail — nowhere near believable. Yet, many of the flood tales from around the world have elements in common with the Genesis account. The Great Flood / Artist unknown / PD Some scoffing scholars insist that since the "Epic of Gilgamesh" is the oldest legend of a global flood that we have on record, it must be the original, and Genesis is a copy of it. Even a superficial reading of the Gilgamesh story (written as a fantastical poem) shows that it's another story that has some of the same elements of the Genes

This post is a follow-up to " Charles Darwin, Creationist at Heart? " It won't be easy, because the content sometimes is deeper than the Colorado River at the 135 Mile marker. But the content is important. Evolution is a cornerstone of the fundamentally flawed atheist worldview, and both are irrational. They do not comport with reality, and do not have the necessary preconditions of human experience. Science, logic, morality and more are impossible if atheism and evolutionism are true. Professed atheists hate God , but claim that they do not. Their conduct betrays them with their emotional, illogical attacks on God and Christians. This post from Atheism on the Slide helps illustrate my point. Only the biblical Christian worldview (beginning at creation) is consistent and makes sense of those conditions for human experience. Yes, atheists and evolutionists can do science, act logically and be relatively moral because they are made in the image of God who upholds a

It will come as a shock to many people, but Charles Darwin was actually a biblical creationist. No, he didn't want to be, and he never knew it himself. The problem is that science, logic, morality, laws of nature, and more are not possible in an worldview based on materialism, atheism and evolutionism. Those are irrational paradigms. We expect laws of nature to be the same every day (or every minute). When I put my foot into the stirrup to saddle up, I expect to swing up and then sit in the saddle, not launch off into space because gravity suddenly changed. How can you perform science when things are changing? Yet, an evolutionary view is that life, the universe and everything are the products of time, chance, random processes, mutations and all that. Laws of logic are not material; you can't trip over the Law of Identity, for example. It can be described and used, but not seen or held. In a random universe, laws of logic will pretty much be nonexistent and make it impos