Piltdown Superman

Aren't science and technology wonderful? They are useful applications of observational science (where your view of origins is, or should be, irrelevant to doing the science). The remains of two formerly unknown ancient civilizations have been discovered through satellite imaging and the use of drones equipped with radar and infrared. Naturally, archaeologists are quite excited. An excavation of a Roman / Phonecian site in Malta. Image credit: freeimages.com / bearcatroc Darwin's disciples preach that early humans were stupid brutes, what with being freshly evolved out of the jungle and all that. However, there are frequent discoveries that give lie to that idea, and show how early people were actually quite intelligent. The true history about early humanity is not found in evolution books, but in the Bible. You can read about the two amazing discoveries by clicking on " Lost Civilizations: Human History Hidden in Plain Sight ".

Much of what we think we know about the geologic column is based on layers of data. However, data are interpreted according to the worldview and consensus of the scientists. A date is established, and other information is added, building up on the original foundation. Unfortunately, much of it is based on circular reasoning and reinforcement. Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures In addition to the circular reasoning and reinforcement, "evidence" to support the geologic column and "deep time" is flexible. That helps, since the ruling belief system of the day, evolutionism, relies on long ages. You'd think that if something is found to be in error at or near the base, the whole thing would collapse like a house of cards built by a bored saloon patron. But no, it still stands with "facts" getting reclassified and plugged into different areas. "See? We still got us an ancient world!" Not hardly. The facts fit Genesis Flood models from biblica

The Big Bang has little resemblance to the original concept of yesteryear. It would be adjusted when scientists discovered problems with it and to hopefully fit in new supporting data. Although there are people who insist that it's a fact (and some think it negates the Creator), the Big Bang is full of speculations, conjectures, suggestions of things that should exist but cannot be found, and more. Actual science took yesterday's noon stagecoach out of this fantasy land. Many people reject it on scientific as well as theological reasons. Modified from an image by NASA / JPL (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) A new theory is puzzling. It draws from relativity and quantum mechanics, postulating that there was no singularity, no Big Bang. That would rule out the Big Bang's predecessor, the Oscillating Universe, since bang-expand-contract-crunch-repeat would not be possible. Imagine the gravity of the situation. Will this new theory become the new sher

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen On the surface, this is a strange article. Keep going and you'll see that the three items in the title actually have a common link — and the link is not missing. It's about "settled science". Modified from morgueFile / lemai13 No, I haven't had peyote buttons. A Yaqui sorcerer tried to give me some once, but never mind about that now. This article has an odd origin. I was listening to my favorite weekday Conservative show by Chris Plante  while working overtime, and I got some information as well as an inspiration. The big news is that you don't need to worry about high-cholesterol foods after all — most of our fat blood comes from genes, not victuals. (Strange, I heard that years ago. Now  it's accepted?) Even though there were some nay-sayers including Ancel Keys back in the 1955 , most people acted like it was "settled science", so we have to just shut up and accept it. Now the "truth" discarded, y

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Have you noticed that molecules-to-man implies improvement? I've never read or heard something like, "Wow, that critter had some bad evolving along the way!" Everything seems to be "good". Darwinistas have their starting point that evolution is true in all things. I keep posting research where good science is ruined by attempts to find how something evolved, or the presuppositions that evolution is the cause of everything, not just biological evolution. One of the many things these people insist on is that morality itself has evolved. But there is no improvement in morality. Things are going from bad to worse, and what was considered bad before is now applauded as good. But anti-creationist and anti-Christian bigotry are on the increase. Christian values are not tolerated by people who claim to be tolerant, and hypocrites who say they oppose bullying will engage the in cyber-bullying and stalking of creationists. Subjective mo

Paleontologists were riding the Evolution Trail when suddenly, they were spooked by snake fossils. That's not usually a big deal, but these fossils were in the wrong place. Once again, an evolutionary timeline needs to be moved back to an earlier date. Of course, biblical creationists don't need to keep making adjustments when discoveries don't fit the big picture. "Quatre études de serpents" by Gustave Moreau The evolution of snakes has already been a debated topic, especially since there are no decent transitional forms in the fossil record. Now snake fossils are found, and they still do not help Darwinists because they are pretty much the same as modern living serpents. It's an old story. An animal or plant is discovered in sedimentary rocks by paleontologists and it pushes the organism's origin further back by many millions of years—but it's always a plant or animal already known to science. Granted, some of these fossilized creatures are

People get excited or confused when they encounter reports about geological sites with claims of great antiquity. Sometimes, Christians feel threatened by these assertions. Proponents of an ancient earth and universe have their starting point that the earth and universe are ancient. Circular reasoning ensues. Barringer (or "Meteor") Crater in Arizona, USA / USGS.gov Secular geologists use popular opinion, faulty dating methods and erroneous logic when giving vast ages. When someone learns to read (or listen to documentaries and such) closely, they can determine that there is a great deal of speculation, assumptions, and the aforementioned circular reasoning involved. Creation scientists have very different views, and present models from their starting point (some models include the Genesis Flood) that fit observed data far better. Things are not as old as they're said to be. When looking at secular declarations, healthy skepticism is in order. Learning how to ex