Piltdown Superman

A while back, I posted material on geocentrism (the Ptolemaic "fixed earth" concept). There are people who still believe this, and reject that the earth goes around the sun. Some insist that the Bible teaches a fixed, immovable planet, but that is based on incorrect readings and bad hermeneutics. ( A Sacred Name cult on Facebook that pretends to be Christian and creationist still insists on their odd view of it despite logic and evidence. Atheists sometimes misrepresent what the Bible teaches, and owlhoot cults like this add fuel to their fire.) What is called he geokinetic or heliocentric view that we know today is well established by science, and has been known for quite some time. The Bible does not call on us to deny practical, observable science! Image credit: International Astronomical Union The following article is more exhaustive than the one previously posted, and is very interesting. It discusses the history of the geokinetic view, gives evidence why mos

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Too bad I can't tell you that my heart issue was from injuries sustained by stopping a stagecoach holdup, but it was much more mundane. In October, 2001, I began having chest pains and thought I was doing too much manual labor. But they got worse, so I went to the doctor. Even though I was in my early forties, they gave me nitro pills and did some checking, but couldn't find the problem. I was sent to a cardiologist, who figured the only way to be really certain was to get me on the operating table and take a look. The surgeon put me under anesthetic (but not completely under) and put a tube in a major artery in my leg. This was a camera thingie, and it was pushed up all the way to my heart for a look-see. The surgeon brought me out of it and said, "One of your three major arteries is mostly blocked". (I think he said it was 97 percent blocked.) "Do you want me to open it?" Yup, do that. You know he had to ask, protocol or someth

A weak argument that anti-creationists have is to claim that the human eye was obviously not designed by God because it's poorly done. Therefore, evolution's what done it. Such a statement is unscientific and theological in nature. Creationary scientists (including ophthalmologists) who understand the concepts far better than people who duckspeak this objection have taken the spokes out of that wagon wheel years ago; the human eye is indeed designed efficiently . However, since the science was presented by creationists, critics invoked the genetic fallacy and rejected it because of its source. Recent secular research is supporting what creationists have said all along. In addition, they discovered that the eye is more intricate than was previously though. But since they work from their assumptions, all praise, honor, and glory are given to evolution and not to the Creator who gave them their sight. You can’t get any better performance out of an eyeball than the way it

This is the fifth in a series of articles on radiometric dating. You can find links to previous articles in the series here . Really, radiometric dating has some things in common with rolling the dice, as readers of this series have seen. Evolution requires an ancient earth, so quite a bit of finagling and selective citing is involved in order to keep the belief in "deep time" alive. Previous articles gave a general explanation of radiometric dating, then went into more detail on various methods. Those included the isochron method, noble elements, and alkali metal dating. This latest installment on rare earth elements could be considered Part 5A, since the article said that it's continued next month. Like the previous articles, there is material that should appeal to people who want to consider the mathematics involved. Past articles in this series have attempted to establish a foundation for understanding the radioisotope dating models or hypotheses, their assump

Although many of us like to believe that we're riding along on the Freedom of Thought Trail, believing they're "freethinkers" (really, don't most of us?), objectively making our decisions based on the evidence we see. Unfortunately, there are people who think they can reason without God. Sorry, old son, things aren't always what they seem. People will often think they know things, but are given a series of falsehoods . They may look rational and even scientific, but where do they come from? There are some things that have crept in to society and the church, and we're expected to accept them (peer and cultural pressures can be very strong). There are several things that are accepted as valid points to reason from, but are actually untrue propaganda; one propaganda technique is concentration and repetition, and the misotheists use that quite a bit. Many of us feel we are clear about what we believe and why. Perhaps you think you have a cohesive, logi

It seems for the most part, when someone says, "I have a virus", they are talking about a bad invader. Fact is, not all viruses are wicked things, since some are actually beneficial. You could even say, "I have a virus" without meaning something that made you sick, because we have virus variations inside us already. Influenza virus illustration from CDC.gov Imagine taking the train out of Galveston. Some of the passengers seem to have always been there, and even have their own duties. Then some bandits come along and not only rob the passengers of their money and jewelry (and my best pocket watch!), but they start changing things for their own destructive purposes. The passengers who look like they've always been there can be likened to endogenous retroviruses that have functions, and the bandits are like exogenous retroviruses that come along and wreak havoc. Endogenous retroviruses are essential for the development of the human placenta. Working f

Once again, the irrevocable force of evolution produces no change. Remember the coelacanth story ? Considered extinct by evolutionists and paleontologists for millions of years, it turned up alive and well — and pretty much unchanged, much to the dismay of Darwinistas. The lack of change was not much of a surprise to biblical creationists, however. The fossil record does not support evolution at all, so excuses are made. When different critters have similar features (such as sonar in bats and dolphins), they call it "convergent evolution", although there is no plausible record or model for such things happening. Also, when something disappears from the fossil record, it is assumed to be extinct. But worse, when something disappears for alleged millions of years, then fossils in more recent strata are found, they resort to weird science explanations like " ghost lineages ". From video footage of a frilled shark / NOAA.gov A living frilled shark was found l

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