Piltdown Superman

No, it's not a snake. No, it's not a worm, even though it burrows. It's called a worm lizard, or an amphisbaenian. It has the equipment of a lizard (teeth, eyes, certain scales, backbones and so on), so that's how it's classified. Even so, the specific order is being reconsidered, since they used to be setting up camp with Squamata (scaled lizards), but they may belong in a different classification. Not that they care, they'll go on about their business no matter what humans call them. Two Iberian worm lizards / Image resized from original / Wikimedia Commons / Richard Avery Aside from being a passel of classification hassle, these critters baffle evolutionists because of their wide dispersal (biogeography). Evolutionists thought that they were spread apart when the ancient supercontinent Pangaea broke up, but that idea has changed because observed evidence contradicts it. Although their circular reasoning and old earth dating assumptions are errant, th

We have seen that the heart is amazingly well designed , and the circulatory system has intricate, amazing development before and after a child's birth . But what about that stuff that the heart is pumping through us? You know, blood. It provides nutrition for our cells, gives oxygen to the brain and other organs, removes waste products. The Bible tells us that "the life of a creature is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11), and it took the blood of Jesus Christ to be a sufficient sacrifice for our sins (Rev. 1:5), so our Creator put special meaning in blood, and he designed it to keep us going through life. To believe all of these intricate processes working together is the product of evolution stretches credulity to the utmost. After 100 years of development, automobiles still need engine oil, transmission fluid, brake fluid, antifreeze, and so on. Wouldn’t it be great if just a single multipurpose fluid could be circulated from a central reservoir? Each car part would use

One of the more common critters of the sea is the urchin (or sea hedgehog, you can see a bit of a resemblance). Not only are they all over the place, but exist in a variety of sizes and colors. Their spines are partly for defense, but several predators consider them good eatin'. For that matter, some people like to chow down on them as well  (but you won't find them stashed in my saddle bags for a snack on the trail, nosiree). The urchins prefer algae and kelp for their own nutrition. Credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration / Department of Commerce Lots of people get injured on the sharp, pointy spines. Some of the spines even inject poison , so watch out. And I ain't kiddin', neither. While we're on the subject, sea urchin spines have been examined quite closely, and are found to be amazingly well designed by the Creator. No, the scientists give credit to evolution, even though they have no evidence of any kind of evolving going on. Ironic, t

Uniformitarian geology avoids evidence of catastrophic events in the earth's past, especially the Genesis Flood. Even so, they are forced to face some evidence for catastrophe. Backslidden theology student Charles Darwin was heavily influenced by lawyer Charles Lyell's uniformitarian geology principles (i.e., the present is the key to the past). Since secularists and liberal Christians believe atheistic interpretations of evidence in favor of evolution, they do the same for "deep time" speculations, since Darwinism requires long ages. When evidence refuting uniformitarianism and supporting catastrophism crops up, they commence to playing "I got an excuse to keep on believing evolutionary dogma". Jamestown, CO, Sep. 15, 2013 / Steve Zumwalt / FEMA They hugely underestimate the power of catastrophes, especially from water. A lot of water in a little bit of time can have a tremendous impact, and can affect "millions of years" of change. Of co

Some people put their faith in science as the ultimate source of truth (Scientism). Worse, some Christians rely on science to prove their faith in God. Both groups are in a heap of trouble when the scientific claims have to be revised, and the Christian who does this is hurting himself because his faith is to be in the only real truth, the Word of God. I disremember how many times I've heard something like, "The Big Bang shows that there is an origin of the universe, so there's a God. Checkmate, atheists!" Checkmate? Nah. I wouldn't pay it no nevermind. Original unedited image credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team The Big Bang hypothesis has changed many times over the years, and is quite a bit different from the original. Some things look good on paper until you realize that they are based on assertions and presuppositions, which make for a flawed foundation. The current trend is to proclaim the "multiverse" based on "inflation". Why are they

We've seen that scientific "facts", speculations, claims, and things get reversed . Evolutionists are contending with the embarrassment that "Lucy", one of our putative ancestors, has been on display for decades with a baboon bone in the skeleton (which was a deplorably bad example of a "missing link" from the start). Then there's the bad science that led to the humiliation of "junk" DNA . The list goes on. Just because "scientists say" or "scientists think that maybe perhaps it could be", doesn't guarantee truth. An item for special consideration is the claim that dinosaur tracks in Lake Quarry were of smaller dinosaurs fleeing a carnivore. But those were guesses by uninformed uniformitarian scientists. The tracks were not only misclassified, but the entire scenario is best explained by a creation science hypothesis called Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments. Darwinists are a mite flustered about all this.

The beat goes on in this series on radiometric dating clocks, and I reckon that fans of uniformitarianism are getting ticked. (Ticked...clock...I made a funny!) I thought the series was put into the corral last month, but ICR surprised me. Links to the previous articles in the series are here . This time, the subject is the heavy metal clocks, such as Uranium-Lead and Thorium-Lead. There are other methods that are not so popular today (the Uranium-Helium method gave ages that were "too young"), but they all have several things in common that make for circular reasoning. These dating methods are well-established, and have a somewhat different approach from the others. Proponents of rocks-to-radiologist evolution frequently indulge in faulty logic, and uniformitarian geologists have the same problems. Why don't they "follow where the evidence leads" and see the passel o' problems that their worldview has? That would mean that the evidence refutes their p