Piltdown Superman

One of the problems with the adoration of science and scientists is that people often take their speculations as something to write home about, even when they don't bother to do serious research. There's a story in China about an earthquake, a river drying up, a dam bursting, and Yu Xia helping the people to recover. He was called Emperor Yu the Great (or variations on the title), but since the events were to have take place quite a spell back, the flood story and even Yu himself were subjects of debate. Emperor Yu the Great by Ma Lin It appears that the flood (that the Chinese referred to as the "Great Flood") itself has been verified. Geologist David Montgomery made an off-the-cuff speculation that legends surrounding this may have been the source of the Genesis Flood. [ EDIT: I misread, he said that about the alleged Black Sea flood . My apologies. ] There are serious differences between large, local floods such as the ones at Lake Missoula , the Black Se

The hands down at the Darwin Ranch are making a pretty good living by promoting particles-to-painter evolution as a series of purposeless, random events over a heap of time, so there's no need for the Creator. Oh, and they also believe in luck. Darwin didn't pay attention to Gregor Mendel's work, which became incorporated into evolution. But are mutations random, and if so, how much? Image credit: Pixabay / blickpixel Upon further study, Darwinists are learning that mutations may be programmed  to happen. Well, that fits, since speciation and adaptation fit biblical creation models quite well. Evolutionists don't cotton to anything resembling design,  because they're trying to distance themselves from the Creator. Ironically, they attribute characteristics of an entity to evolution, making it into an idol they can worship. In the nineteenth century, biologists recognized that animals and plants possess traits that can be beneficial (e.g., increase strength

Although I'm not too fond of repeating this, it's appropriate. There was a bumper sticker here in the US, "If it ain't country, it ain't music!" When it comes to secularists, "If it ain't naturalism, it ain't science!" Not only does such a worldview limit scientific investigation, scientists are unaware that they are hindering their own work. Plus, these owlhoots refute their own selves. Graphic assembled from images at Clker clipart We can see the trickle-down effect inherent in the naturalistic system with blatant anti-creationist bigotry, such as expressed when some learned about a  creation science conference coming to Leicester, England . And horror of horrors, one of the subjects scheduled is "Creationism in the Classroom". Circle the wagons and load up the ridicule rifles since we can't defeat them with logic and science! People like this assume the worst about us: creationists share their worldview, and either

Creationists keep pointing out flaws in evolution and and old Earth, and advocates of particles-to-paleontologist evolution keep getting mighty riled. (Darwin needs a long time to work his magic, so they fight to keep the time frame.) While secularists like to use their contrived and cumbersome "proofs" of deep time that collapse under their own weight, they don't cotton to the numerous evidences that, even according to their methodology, indicate that the world is much younger than they want to believe. One of these young Earth indicators is fulgurites. Fulgurites image public domain, enhanced, original by Stickpen Sounds like an insult, doesn't it? "Get out of the road, fulgurite!" Or maybe an engine part. The newest evil monster on Dr. Who. In reality, it's a fossilized lightning strike. Scientists calculated the rate of lightning strikes and determined that instead of being quite rare, if Earth were billions of Darwin years old, they'd b

Research scientist Jacob Haqq-Misra wrote an article that appeared in the Boston Globe  on September 11, 2016 about the origin of life called " A better theory of intelligent design ". (I wonder why something of this nature was in a newspaper like that instead of in a more specialized publication.) Makes it sound like something new and impressive, what with being written by a scientist and appearing in a prestigious newspaper and all. Not hardly. Turns out that it was actually a rehash of old news while slapping leather with biblical creationists and Intelligent Design proponents. The ideas of panspermia (simple life that came from outer space) has been around for a long time. Since goo-to-guru evolutionists cannot account for the origin of life (abiogenesis)  here, it must have begun out yonder.  Somehow, existing life in space hitched a ride on a meteorite or something and survived the flaming crash to Earth. Such an idea just won't work . That doesn't solve th

Advocates of atoms-to- Australopithecus  evolution are great at telling tall tales and asserting opinions as facts, followed by the sensation-seeking press giving their stories credibility. Go to a museum to see Lucy, and you won't get the whole story. However, you'll see displays with the ape having very human-looking eyes, standing upright, and more. The rest of the story about how the bones were found scattered over a wide area (which should make anyone mighty suspicious), how not all the bones are found, disputes in the scientific community — you don't hear that so much. But if you deny that this was our ancestor, some atheists get mighty riled. Australopithecus afarensis  ("Lucy") public domain image I suspicion that one of the hands at the Darwin Ranch has been into the peyote buttons or something. He had a vision of Lucy falling out of a tree, poor dear, and that might explain some of the fracture marks in the bones. Uh huh. Other evolutionists aren

When our eyes are accustomed to darkness, we are able to see a very small amount of light from quite a long way off. (Smart cowboys on sentry duty didn't smoke because the flame and the coal could easily be spotted. This is a "no brainer" for modern military personnel.) When in a dark room, people tend to look for the small bit of light that is coming in under the door or whatever. Image credit: Pixabay / Hans It has been theorized for decades that the human eye can see a single photon— "That's terrific news! Uh, what's a photon?" Without getting too physics-al with you, light has puzzled scientists since way back when. Some theorized that light has a wave nature, others said it is comprised of particles. Seems to be both. A photon is the smallest possible unit, and they suspicion that it has no mass. For those who want more details, click here . So anyway, a test has been done to show that we are able to see the tiniest known unit of ligh