Piltdown Superman

Earth's magnetic field cannot last for billions of years. Biblical creationists frequently point out this fact, and secular scientists also admit this fact. The evidence shows a young Earth, but that does not fit into the paradigm necessary for evolution to occur, so rescuing devices have been put forward. None have been plausible. Image credit: NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image Lab Scientific explanations seem plausible on the surface, but deeper examinations show that they are philosophically-based, and the science falls apart. The simple story for the public: a dynamo creates the Earth’s magnetic field. The real story: complex scenario needed to start it and keep it running. Science is often like the two-headed Roman god Janus: one face for the insiders, a different face for the outsiders. Geophysicists have locked themselves into an explanation for the Earth’s magnetic field—the only one, in fact, that offers any hope for keeping it going for billi

As regular readers have probably noticed, I have previously mentioned Michael Boehm and his "Youth Apologetics Training" podcast . However, I had not heard of him until he contacted me through The Question Evolution Project on July 11 of this year.  My immediate response was suspicion. In the past, I've had atheopaths try to set me up for humiliation  on the Web and on Facebook, and I don't reckon arguing with people who hate God, the Bible, Christians, biblical creationists, and me, are a good expenditure of time and intellectual energy. So, I checked. Yes, Mr. Boehm has an extensive catalog of podcasts on many subjects (the older ones were about 15 minutes, often serialized). I gave a tentative "yes", and began listening to his podcasts on evolution. Seems legit, no heresies found here. Do I disagree with him on some things? You betcha! Thinking people do that, you know. But they were not matters of any great importance. As I listened to his podca

Evolution is given credit for all sorts of changes, big and small, even when it's nowhere near reasonable. It is a puny god of the gaps , hailed with EvolutionDidIt® when there is no reasonable scientific explanation. Its equally inane cousin is what they call "convergent evolution". That is, different critters, plants, whatever, have similar characteristics, even though they are not related to each other. Nice policeman's exit (cop out).  I can just imagine how they came up with the concept. Hint: not through logic and science. The logical  answer is that things were created with similar design features. Unfortunately, Darwinistas are "seeing" evolution where it isn't all too frequently. To read some of their proclamations, click on " More Examples of 'Convergent Evolution' Claimed ". In a way, they're kind of funny.

G'day, Pilgrim. Beginning in the Northern Territory is one of Australia's largest and oldest rivers, the Finke River. But that's a mite misleading, because most of the time, it's not much of a river — except during a flood, then it's impressive. But uniformitarian geologists insist that it carved its way through mountain ranges, and that doesn't make much sense, what with the area being very dry and all. Finke River / Menphrad / Wikimedia Commons If you plug in the Genesis Flood model, then you'll have a workable (sensible) explanation for the landform without having to explain how the Finke River had enough water to do the job, and with less than "millions of years". The most remarkable feature here is that the river flows directly through the mountain range, rather than around it as would be expected. This phenomenon provides graphic evidence for the reality of Noah’s Flood, which elegantly explains how it happened. Mainstream geologist

The primary purpose of sexual activity is reproduction. Unlike humans, very few animals seem to actually seek it out as a form of recreation. S exual reproduction is one of the most baffling problems for evolutionists to comprehend; t hey try  to explain its origins, but fail . In some ways, it's inefficient, and asexual reproduction may be better.  There was a study where evolutionary scientists claimed to have an explanation as to why sex persists, but to keep evolutionary mythology going, these owlhoots conveniently left out a key observation. The fact remains that this method of procreation was designed by the Creator, and did not evolve. I reckon that since materialists do not believe in the afterlife, sexual reproduction is their attempt at having immortality by having young 'uns and passing along their genes. Biologists from the U.K. conducted a 10-year-long experiment on common flour beetles to help understand why insects keep on using sexual reproduction despi

Every once in a while, Darwin's Drones will make simplistic remarks like, "Evolution is true. DNA proves it!" They are probably fans of Clinton Richard Dawkins, who made similar disingenuous remarks himself. Problem is, that tinhorn knows better. PublicDomainPictures / Pixabay.com DNA is amazingly complex, its code is very sophisticated. It has several important functions to not only keep living things alive, but to help us reproduce after our kind. No, DNA could not possibly be made by evolution. Instead, the Creator designed it for very intricate purposes. According to leading atheist Professor Richard Dawkins, the most compelling evidence for evolution is found in DNA. In his book, The Greatest Show on Earth , he states that the DNA code (that is, the DNA language) is the same in all life forms—a fact, he claims, that “shows more clearly than anything else that all living creatures are descended from a single ancestor.” This statement, however, is very mislead

Another fossil of snakes with legs has been found. At first, the response might be, "Big deal", until people realize that the critter had four legs. This has received attention in both creationist and secular circles, especially since it's causing slime-to-snake evolutionists some consternation and dispute. The "image Generator" picture does not do justice to French newscaster Melissa Theuriau. This one is more flattering. The dispute is whether or not the fossil is that of a snake. It has many snake features, but also not  snake features. Although it had legs, don't get it fitted for cowboy boots because those legs weren't walking legs, but appear to be used for grasping. It is considered a terrestrial snake, not a marine one, which adds to difficulties for evolutionists to place it in the proper alleged transitional sequence. But they can't find an evolutionary order for it because snakes were created, they didn't evolve. The four s