Piltdown Superman

Secular geologists will tell you that diamonds are several hundred millions years old, or more. However, there are certain facets of science that are conveniently ignored., showing that diamonds are nowhere near as old as believed. One of the main reasons for this is an a priori commitment to "deep time", since Darwinian evolution beliefs require huge amounts of time. Pixabay / studiopratisaad0 Diamonds form under intense heat and pressure under the earth's surface, and are one of the hardest materials (the Mohs scale of hardness gives it a 10). However, like opals , they can also be made by man. "Synthetic" diamonds have that qualifier because, although they're made of carbon like natural ones, the process itself is not from nature. (Also, don't confuse synthetic diamonds with cubic zirconia , that critter is chemically different but looks like a diamond.) The fact that they can be home grown shows that it's conditions, not time, that are t

In a previous post, we examined how chameleons are extremely efficient at hunting and hiding. But what about that ability to change color? There is a great deal of mythology about how they can change color to match their surroundings (some of them do not change color at all), but the reality of the situation is far more interesting. Chameleon on branch, Pixabay / Shilona This reptile is designed with layers of skin, and the cells reflect light in different ways. When its emotions change, the cells move closer together or further apart, "changing" their color. The technology is so advanced, scientists are examining it for our own applications (biomimicry), including more efficient solar cells and even house paint! Chameleons are clearly the product of the design of the Creator, not evolution. It was a sweltering day in the Madagascan forest when a creature cautiously approached into view. Mitten-like feet daintily grasped and propelled it along a branch and his body w

People expect secular science researchers to act in an ethical manner. But what is their standard for ethics? Darwin? Survival of the fittest? After all, according to their worldview, we're all just bundles of chemicals following our impulses. When there are instances of fraud, plagiarism, false research, cover ups, disingenuous peer review — so what? They're acting in accordance with their materialistic worldviews. When someone says, "That's wrong! You're lying!", or something, they're appealing to a higher authority. The ultimate authority is God, and he told us what we need to know in the Bible. That is the final standard for ethics. Scientists cannot claim the final authority on moral high ground. Some people are saying that there should be standards, reviews, and so on in the scientific community, and the alarm is being sounded with a resurgence of eugenics — and this is being researched for genome tampering. To read about this, click on &quo

We've reached the conclusion of this series on radiometric dating, which are methods used to determine the age of the earth and rock samples; clocks in the rocks. The linked articles have had information for lay people as well as those more technologically inclined, showing how methods of radiometric dating are based on several assumptions, circular reasoning, wildly varying results, and more. Here are links to the previous installments in the series: Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 , Part 5 , Part 6 , Part 7 .  This article discusses some heavy metal stuff. That is, isotopes of lead. It is supposed to be reliable if scientists include some interesting data juggling. But like the other methods, this one also goes over like a lead balloon. If uniformitarian geologists would play the cards they're dealt, they'd see that the earth was created, and it was created much more recently than they want to believe. Sorry, Papa Darwin, no time for evolution to h

Some people don't seem overmuch concerned with their worldview, and some even deny having one. But if you cognate on it a mite, you'll see that everyone has a worldview. Maybe they haven't organized and written down their philosophy of life, but we all have a system of beliefs (presuppositions) by which we live our daily lives; everyone is a philosopher to some extent. Do you want to get all you can in life because you can't take it with you? That's close to hedonism. Do you want to glorify Jesus and proclaim the truth? That's Christian, and you've probably thought that one out. Even on a more mundane scale, when you get out of bed, you expect gravity to work the same today as it did before. You get the picture. For a scientist to do science stuff, they have to believe in God's created order. Logic works without exception, such as the law of non-contradiction: something can't be both true and false at the same time in the same way. You can'

Secular astronomers and cosmologists tell us the universe is 13,820,000,000 years old or thereabouts. Are they right? Why should we believe them? Although they use calculations based on data, they also use several assumptions (including that the universe is ancient) in the first place. However, there are other possibilities to consider, especially since astronomers keep finding evidence of a young  universe, including up yonder in our own solar system . Globular cluster NGC 6365 Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA, Acknowledgement: Gilles Chapdelaine Creation scientists have theories and models. One is the age in a time dilated universe. The following article by Dr. Ronald G. Samec  discusses this, how globular clusters do not show their alleged old age, and how secular explanations fall short. In creation time dilation cosmologies (e.g. Humphreys and Hartnett), while the earth experiences less than 10,000 years of recorded history (God’s time clock), millions, and possibly billions,

It seems that proponents of goo-to-you evolution want things flexible. Evolution is presented as an irresistible force, and things will  evolve; after all, R. Clinton Dawkins said that evolution has been observed, but not when it's happening. But if the fossil record show something allegedly millions of years old and its living descendants are unchanged, they call it "stasis" because they didn't have to evolve. I reckon it makes perfect sense to someone, somewhere. Blind fish and certain crustaceans are supposed to be evidence of evolution. They lose  abilities (including a bit of brain), and that is presented as evolution, which supposedly gains  abilities and information. Glad I'm just a regular guy who doesn't have to pretend he understands such highfalutin "reasoning". Three blind crustaceans, confined to cavernous darkness, have brains that are several nerve clusters short of an optic lobe. When it comes to a brain center for processi