Piltdown Superman

When reading creation science publications, you are likely to see the expression "Flood model" in geology. (Regular readers have seen it here.) The way I figure it, this is a sort of general expression because there are actually several models of the Genesis Flood processes, but most are in agreement over the main points. Credit: RGBstock / Aureliy Movila Geologists of the biblical creation persuasion agree that the Genesis Flood actually happened, and it happened a few thousand years ago. Their models are far more effective at describing what is observed in geomorphology and other areas than secular uniformitarian dogma. Flood geologists have their hypotheses and models. However, when scientists do science stuff, they disagree on details. Was there a post-Flood boundary? If so, where? How does it compare to other boundaries? Why do secular scientists shy away from the unique continental shelf and slope? Models are run up the flag pole to see if anyone salutes them.

Big Bang cosmology has an expected sequence of events, but the cosmos is not cooperating with the stories. We have already seen that lithium, the lightest metal, is only expected to appear in certain stars . Instead, it gets secular cosmologists on the prod because it keeps showing up where it is not supposed to be. Credit: NASA /JPL-Caltech/STScI (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The existence of lithium is detected through spectroscopic analysis . (Kids, if you're looking for a career in science, consider spectroscopy, since it is used in many areas.) More stars have been detected to be rich in lithium, and as usual, the cosmic evolution excuse mill has been working overtime. via GIPHY Unfortunately for secularists, the speculations used to possibly solve the problem raise more questions. The biggest problem is their insistence on cosmic evolution instead of admitting that the universe was created recently. Then they wouldn't have these conundr

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Secular psychologist David P. Barash decided that it is time to make human-chimpanzee hybrids, which would cross a significant number of ethical and moral guidelines . Psychology is not exactly a biological science, but the secular science industry as a whole, including psychology, is firmly entrenched in materialistic worldviews with evolution as the cornerstone. To push the boundaries and tamper with embryos and genetics is consistent with their fundamentally flawed paradigms. Not too long ago, scientists were lamenting that they were constrained against extending the lives of human embryos in a dish (evolutionary thinking supports abortion), wanting to keep them alive a bit longer. The chimera experimentation through CRISPR is increasing (see " Ethics, Scientism, and an Evolutionary Worldview " for more about this). Believing the false science that the chimpanzee genome is 98 percent similar to that of humans , that molecules-to-monkey evolut

The ability to think logically is indispensable in daily life. People can do it without even being aware that it is happening, often with extreme rapidity. Although logical thinking is often synonymous with critical thinking, to think critically requires the ability or discipline to examine all aspects of a situation or conundrum to reach a conclusion. This often necessitates putting aside emotional involvement, personal preferences, biases, and so on. Unfortunately, scientists are surprisingly unskilled in critical thinking. Credit: Pixabay /  Noupload I have encountered people online who are scientists, but display lamentable logic. One owlhoot in particular claimed to be a scientist, but I lacked belief that this was true because of the biases displayed and terrible reasoning skills. It seems that universities these days are more interested in getting payment and awarding certificates because someone passed the tests instead of actually learning how to reason. As we have se

We know that for Darwin's speculations to have anything resembling plausibility, they require Mucho Grande  amounts of time. Like evolutionists will finagle ways to convince people that they are right, often dealing from the bottom of the deck and finding other ways to cheat (or at least obfuscate), their pals in geology will also find ways to make Earth appear older than it was from the time of creation. One way to do this is to deny the Genesis Flood, which is a far better explanation of landforms and such than uniformitarianism (present processes are the key to the past). Views of origins and geology are forensic, attempting to reconstruct what happened way back when. Tall petrified tree trunks,  US National Park Service / William W Dunmire , 1966  (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) A story told to discredit the Genesis Flood is about how petrified trees, including the petrified forests at Yellowstone National Park, formed over long periods of time. (They

Like their secular counterparts, creation scientists have hypotheses, theories, models, and so on. We have seen several times that everyone has an ultimate starting point. Materialists reject the Creator and rely on naturalistic presuppositions, while those who believe in biblical creation science start with the truth of the Bible and build from there. Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Suriya Kankliang Contrary to common claims of anti-creationist tinhorns, biblical creationists do not cease investigation by declaring, "GodDidIt". While we do believe that God did things, we want to know how he made things, the structures he engineered, the refutation of evolution and affirmation of special creation, and more. Creation scientists are fully credentialed; they did not get their degrees from Billy Joe's Bible Church Academy and Bait Shop. Scientists who believe in the Genesis Flood have many questions to address. In this example, what happened before and after the Floo

On the plus side, Darwin bots can get away with bad science, dishonesty, and outright fraud for decades. However, the down side is that the embarrassing truth is often discovered. Those of us who appreciate truth in science (and science reporting) do not cotton to being deceived for the sake of getting us to believe in evolution. Light and dark varieties of peppered moths Credit: both from Wikimedia Commons / Olaf Leillinger ( link to top is here , link to bottom is here ) One of the oldest "proofs" of evolution is the peppered moth. Essentially, the dark version supposedly alighted on soot-covered trees in England and were left alone while the light version was victuals for birds. The population of the lighter critters decreased. "Aha! Evolution! Hail Darwin, blessed be!" No. Most of the story was fake news. Actually, it may have been an example of natural selection (a concept that creationists also accept), but they were still moths. Nothing changed