Piltdown Superman

And now for something completely different: a slice of pie. No, wait. I meant the value of pi, the 16th letter of the Greek alphabet that is so essential in geometry, and to critics of the Bible. Looking at the common target, 1 Kings 7:23-26 KJV, some people claim that God's written Word has a serious mathematical error. One explanation is that the writer was rounding off the number, which was a common practice. In fact, it still is today, since the actual decimal value of pi never ends. People who want precision without obsession may use 3.14159265359, which is rounded off. The best I could do for this post was 9:27 AM, so it appears in the USA on 3-14-15, 9:17 Eastern Time. In math class, we used the most common short form for pi, 3.14 . We'd plug it in to get the area of a circle when the radius was known, π * r 2 . Pi r squared. Cornbread are round. However, there is a better explanation about the seeming error in 1 Kings than saying the author was rounding it off.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The creation-evolution controversy has been kicking up dust like a cavalry charge out on the plains. There's a great deal of noise, and all the dust makes it hard to see what's really going on. Atheists and anti-creationists use the confusion to try to sway people to their way of thinking. Much of this involves manipulation of emotions with name calling (labeling), blatant misrepresentation and outright falsehoods about what creationists actually believe and teach, and presenting bad evolutionary "science" as facts. The whole thing has been intensifying , which can be seen after the Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate on February 4, 2014, where Nye used bad science, dreadful logic, and sneaky debate tactics — much to the delight of his adoring fans. The orig ins controversy is not restricted to academic interests. There are people who will insist that their leftist, materialist worldview is the only one that is rational, and if someone is running

As we saw earlier, the human heart is a marvel of design — after we're born. But what happens back yonder, before birth? The unborn child is in a womb water world, and not breathing, but still receiving oxygen. The heart and lungs are developing in a fascinating and optimal manner. When the child is actually born, there are some reversals, and systems are in place for breathing air and doing blood circulation in the manner we're accustomed to. To believe that all this is the product of Darwinism takes a huge amount of faith. In 1967 Dr. Christiaan Barnard performed the first heart transplant. Until that time, if someone’s heart was taken out, they died. People were astounded to learn that not only was a man’s heart removed, but a non-beating donor heart put in, restarted, and he lived. Years of design efforts and testing resulted in a sophisticated invention that circulated blood and functioned as patients’ lungs to bring them oxygen—the all-important “heart-lung” machin

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