Piltdown Superman

Everyone has a starting point by which they interpret what they observe. Proponents of molecules-to-man evolution interpret their observations in one framework, and biblical creationists have a far different approach. Unfortunately for evolutionists, their paradigm continually disappoints and puzzles them. Pixabay / James_Valma (modified) Everything supposedly can be explained through evolution, but speech itself has been problematic. Observers were excited when an orangutan made purposeful sounds to communicate, so this supposedly points to the evolution of speech. Except that this one is an exception, and that it was raised in captivity. I reckon they won't learn that evolution fails to explain anything because evolution isn't true. We were created with the ability to speak, and that's the gospel truth. Only human beings speak. The syllables and words, phrases and sentences people use to speak their minds all over the world consist of rhythmic sequences of co

The previous installments in this series are " Radiometric Dating and Reason ", " Radiometric Dating and Reason — Part 2 ", and " Radiometric Dating and Reason — Part 3 ". Old-Earth advocates insist that radiometric dating methods are accurate and reliable, but they've put the shoes on the wrong horse. Not only do radiometric dating methods require three basic assumptions that are improbable at best, some of those assumptions mask important secondary assumptions. In addition to unscientific assuming, they get wildly varying results (such as rocks known to be 60 years old testing to be 133 million years old, and ranges of a hundred million years or more). More than that, the age of the world has been calculated by using meteorites, not Earth rocks — which has several major assumptions as well. The Rubidium-Strontium method has all of the aforementioned assumptions and problems, plus a few more. For one thing, adequate quantities of rubidium-conta

In the Doctor Who mythos, Davros wanted to destroy the universe with the Reality Bomb , a device that makes all matter go to pieces. Even if someone was that stupid and insane, Christians know that such a thing is impossible (Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). But let's borrow from the Reality Bomb concept, shall we? Darwinistas ( thanks to Chris Rosebrough for that word ) cling to their faith in evolutionism despite the evidence, not because of it. If they were to seriously examine goo-to-you evolution, they would see that nothing is holding it together; Question Evolution Day could be the Reality Bomb for evolution! Question Evolution Day works in layers: Standing together to affirm intellectual, religious, speech, academic and other basic human rights, that those of us who reject evolution should be able to state our views without censorship and reprisals Sharing links, graphics and so forth showing that the evidence supports creation and not goo-to-you evolution

The third of three audio interviews I did is the first to be released. I was excited to be on Chris Rosebrough's Fighting for the Faith , a production of Pirate Christian Radio. He's excited about Question Evolution Day . Modified and used with permission. I reckon it's not exactly right to call this an interview since it was more like a discussion and interview combination. Maybe it's because he's an experienced interviewer that made it seem more like a talk. Anyway, Chris is a very intelligent Christian apologist, and sees the importance of Genesis to Christians; this was the emphasis of our talk. He had some excellent comments. Maybe that was the pastor in him coming out. And we had a few laughs as well. But my stuff isn't the whole show, the rest of the podcast is definitely worth your attention. Phil Johnson, executive director of " Grace to You ", has a strong sermon called "Why I Don't Believe in Atheists", that fits in w

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen   This may come as a shock to anti-creationists, but Bill Nye is not a threat to the Bible or biblical creation science. He thinks he's on a crusade for "science", and so do many of his fans. If those things he opposed were actually wrong, and if Nye was capable of understanding science and logic in the first place, then he might make some valid points. His cheering section frequently shows disunderstanding of science, logic, philosophy, and more, so they are enablers that encourage his bad behavior. I'm on record for saying that in the big debate with Ken Ham that he used terrible logic . But that's okay for people who want to defend "science" (that is, equivocating "evolution" with "science") from the big, bad creationists who want people to use critical thinking and actually examine the evidence. (Rabid evolutionists tell you what to think, many creationists like me want to tell you how to think.)

Most of us know the basics of the Darwinian evolution tall tale. Simple critters became more advanced, became apes and things, supposedly humans and apes branched off from the failed evolutionary tree, "primitive" humans hadn't been evolving very long, so they were stupid brutes. Not hardly. Paleontologists and anthropologists keep finding things out of place in their timelines, and they have to keep rewriting the stories because traits and skills evolved "too soon". In reality, God man man fully functional and very intelligent, as people should realize as they keep finding post-Flood human artifacts. I n the evolutionary scheme, man evolved from an ape-like ancestor and slowly increased in intelligence and technical ability from the ‘Paleolithic’, through the ‘Mesolithic’, and into the ‘Neolithic’ over a few million years. However, further discoveries in archeology are showing that ancient man of the Pleistocene and Holocene (the past 10,000 years), assum

Many people dismiss the idea that dinosaurs and people could have lived at the same time. Most are conditioned to think that way because they're constantly told dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years. Microbes-to-man evolutionists need millions of years because their paradigm is threatened, else evolution can't happen on a young earth. But they have to come up with creative excuses when confronted with evidence from history and possible recent sightings of dinosaur-like creatures. When all else fails, some anti-theists resort to calling someone who presents evidence they don't want to face "liars" and "anti science". The biblical creationist perspective is that dinosaurs were created on Day Six along with man, they went onto the Ark with Noah and the other seven, and eventually died out from various causes. Are dinosaurs extinct, then? Probably. Mostly. When reading prophetic and apocalyptic material in the Bible, it is easy to read thro

A small lizard that is sometimes called the American chameleon can be purchased through mail order, at least in the continental United States. Misleading, because it's not a real chameleon, but a relative that has some similar characteristics. They are more properly called anoles. Pixabay / JamesDeMers An experiment over several years was conducted in Florida with green and brown anoles. After all the crawling, jumping, eating of young, change of dwelling preferences and more were done, researchers claimed victory in evolutionary research: some had bigger toes. You'd think those owlhoots would learn to stop being so desperate as to call every variation "evolution", as if it was proof of slime-to-slacker evolution. The Creator designed organisms with the capacity to adapt, after all. An island competition between two species of anole lizards—in just 20 generations and a mere 15 years—has, evolutionary scientists report, provoked one of them to evolve wider st

My wife and I are amused how brassy the blue jays get when the bird feeder is empty. They'll come up to the big sliding glass door on the patio, look right in, ignore Basement Cat, and yell for more food. They also showed other signs of how smart they can be. When I looked them up, I found that blue jays are related to some other birds that are very smart, such as crows and ravens. Pixabay / raggio5 Darwinists are troubled by discovering that crows and their relatives are actually more intelligent than expected. It's troubling because they're not simians, and we supposedly evolved from apelike creatures. Birds evolved separately, they say. But to show certain kinds of intelligence is somehow wrong in their paradigm. No matter, they'll just invoke the nonsense term of "convergent evolution", and dismiss the best explanation: God equipped his creation with what was necessary for their survival. No need for nonsense passed off as "science" to ge

Wild Bill missed Question Evolution Day last year (it is every year on February 12, Darwin's birthday) and posted an excellent video on March 24, 2013 (which is when I am writing this up). He made some great points in this three-minute video; atheists hate Question Evolution Day because it prompts people to think for themselves. Then there's a bonus music video after his.