Piltdown Superman

Lithium is the lightest metal. Big Bang proponents make predictions on what they expect to find that bring to mind the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent . "If the Big Bang happened, then is seems mighty likely that we'll find certain elements in certain quantities. We find them, so it must have happened." Sorry, Hoss. There are other possibilities for your observations — if they're correct. The amount of lithium doesn't fit the theories.   Not all scientists, secular or creationist, accept the Big Bang. Lawrence "Theoretical" Krauss insists that the Big Bang is true, and gives "evidence". Some of the elements match predictions of Big Bang proponents, but his material on lithium is false. (I could be like some anti-creationists and say that he's lying, but I don't know that he's intending to deceive. It's possible, sure, atheists do that, but I won't casually make that possibly libelous affirmation — unlike som

A mystery for Darwinists is that even though they claim that animals and humans all evolved from a common ancestor, there are many things that set humans apart. One of those is music. Oh, sure, there are "songs" of whales, birds "sing", parrots can mimic other people singing — but that's not really music. It's pretty much imitation or functional, not for joy. Humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). It's interesting to note that God sings (Zeph. 3:17), and that there are many verses in the Bible that refer to singing and making music (Isaiah 51:11, Psalm 149:3-5, for example). Darwin's Cheerleaders can only guess as to why we're tuned to tunes. There are three interesting studies about music. One had two diverse groups of people who had no knowledge of the other's music, and the results were rather interesting. The second study is about perfect pitch, and how the brain processes it. Third, something that has been looked at b

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen For many years, I have long contended that people are bombarded with goo-to-you evolution as if it was a fact. Darwinian evolution is not confined to college textbooks and academia, it also permeates our literature, entertainment, animated cartoons, everyday speech, politics, sports, and more. In addition, Darwin's Cheerleaders are so intent on protecting their fundamentally flawed worldview from scrutiny, they resort to sneaky word games such as equivocating "evolution" into "science", so that when we say that we oppose evolution and affirm creation, we're "science" deniers.  Anti-creationists are also very evangelistic, although many of those owlhoots don't even know what they believe and why, they just "know" that evolution is true and we're wrong. Somehow. Two of their favorite tools are badgering and ridicule, and those are often intertwined. A politician says that he rejects evolution, and left

Just imagine...a couple of cowboys one night on the lone prairie, brewing up coffee at the campfire. There's a sound in the distance. "Didja hear that?" "Yup." "Sounds like an iguanodon. He sounds mighty cranky." "Nope. Just a hadrosaur. We're okay." "You sure?" "Yup. Boom boom acka lacka lacka boom ." But seriously, folks, do we have any ideas what dinosaurs may have sounded like? Yup. Were dinosaurs noisy? Did dinosaurs honk nasally like Chewbacca in Star Wars? Did dinosaurs make moaning noises like mourning doves and owls, or did they wail like bagpipes? Are there any clues about dinosaur sounds in Scripture or science? In both, actually. If this answer seems surprising it shouldn’t be, because both Scripture and science provide trustworthy evidence that dinosaurs were anything but silent. You can find out what the racket is about by reading the rest of " Sound Science About Dinosaurs &q

Some feller was investigating shrimp — oh, wait. Kathryn Feller (I got it right, now) was investigating the larvae of mantis shrimp. They are mostly transparent, except for their eyes, which reflect colors. The amazing thing is that they can become almost entirely invisible, as if they had a cloaking device. As expected, the researchers ruined good observational science by invoking evolution to explain their findings. Actually, they conflated natural selection with evolution. They should know better, since natural selection is not evolution. And no, there's no way they'd saddle up on design as an explanation, even though that's a reasonable conclusion. To figure out how the shrimp larvae hide their eyes, Kathryn Feller collected mantis shrimp larvae from Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. In her lab, exposed to ordinary white light, the shrimp glowed blue-green. “The whole sphere of the retina at the centre of the eye reflects this sparkly blue-green light,” she says. “It’s

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