Piltdown Superman

One of the staples of presenting molecules-to-man evolution is flawed logic. For example, how do they know the age of a fossil? Because of the layer it was found in. How do they know the age of the rock layers? Because of the fossils they contain. The viciously circular reasoning is a dizzying as just-paid cowboys dancing at a hootenanny. Image credit: US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Based on their presuppositions that Darwin was right and that the fossils in the geologic column are both ancient and in an orderly progression, a study of marine organisms presumes to portray evolution. In this case, evolution caused creatures to grow larger, therefore, evolution is true. However, the study was heavily biased and used selective citing, and there were no signs of change of something evolving into something else. Worse for them, the biblical creationist model of the Genesis Flood explains the fossils and the geologic column far better than uniformitarianism.

Something I have said many times (I think it's my variation on material by Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Jason Lisle) is that for every offered evidence, there is an equal and opposite rescuing device (excuse). Biblical creationists offer evidence for creation, refuting evolution, supporting the Genesis Flood, and more, and goo-to-you evolutionists dance the Darwin Disco around it all. Some of their excuses are both incredible and amusing Image credit: US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Creationists present evidence that certain dinosaur tracks are the result of dinosaurs trying to escape the rising waters of the Genesis Flood. Evolutionary paleontologists keep their paradigm in the corral by ignoring scientific evidence for the Flood and making excuses. (Gotta avoid the young earth evidence that kills evolution, you know.) It appears that some even believe in some kind of magic. Oh, boy. Secular geologists claim that unique conditions prevailed when trac

Unlike operational science that we use every day, spores-to-special-agents evolution is forensic (historical) science . Crime scene investigation attempts to reconstruct the past by finding evidence, interviewing witnesses, and so on so they can have present it in court. Evolution speculates about the distant past with no witnesses and very little evidence. For that matter, creation science is also forensic in nature, but has the foundation in the Bible, not in naturalism like most evolutionists use. Image Credit: Bureau of Labor Statistics Peer review is a process where papers are submitted and, like the name says, reviewed by peers. Creationists have peer review along with their secular counterparts. However, secular peer review is loaded problems , including recalled papers, bias, bad science, and even fraud . The biggest problem seems to be that secular peer review is driven by agendas. An ostensibly good process can put a burr under everyone's saddle when human avaric

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