Piltdown Superman

Believers in old earth geology believe in uniformitarianism, where gradual processes in the present are the key to the past. As we have seen here numerous times, this belief system is far from being rock solid. Secularists can no longer use mudstones and mudrocks as evidence against creation science Flood models. Mudstone boulder image credit: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) It has been known for several years now that the prevailing mudstone formation idea that they can only form in still waters. Instead, mudstones can form in rapidly moving water, and do it quickly. This fact supports Genesis Flood models. New research shows that these star rocks can form even more quickly than secular scientists had reckoned. One of the most common sedimentary rocks can form a hundred times faster than previously thought. In 2007, geologists learned that their theory for mudstones was incorrect. Mudstones—the most common

While you do not have to be an atheist to believe in fish-to-fool evolutionism, it helps. Some owlhoots think they can merge the Bible and evolution (giving evolution precedence), but this is folly. The religion of atheism  requires biological, chemical, cosmic, and other evolution concepts for its mythology of origins. These, in turn, require deep time, which necessitates the defenestration of logic and science. In reality, evolutionism is intended to be a replacement  for God. Original image: Pixabay/ Peter Fischer Back in 2005 at the "Dover Trial", a judge ruled that evolution is "good science" and does not conflict with religion. This remark got evolutionists on the prod. It is interesting that atheopaths believe this ruling in a backwater borough by an incompetent, coached, biased judge somehow proves that the Intelligent Design movement is creation science in disguise. The ruling has no effect on anyone else. Meanwhile, when we point out that the US Sup

This post contains some direct material, but it is biological, not salacious. We have seen how Darwinists make claims that something is "poorly designed", therefore, evolution. (This is self-defeating, because chance cannot produce something better that the subjects they question.) Their claims are refuted upon examination. We can add the male reproductive system to the list. Credit: Freeimages/ Erik Araujo I could say that I have no complaints, and have children to prove that it works. People who know about logical fallacies should be able to see how that one is wrong, and the same bad reasoning has been used to support evolution. One secularist complaint is that since testicles are outside the body and not on the inside (such as with reptiles), this is bad design. That is a very superficial "argument" based on opinion, not scientific facts. Naturalists have made bland assertions about things like "junk" DNA, vestigial organs/structures, and more

Years ago, I was involved in online groups that supposedly promoted manliness. Questions arose as to what made a man a man, and was based on our activities. Some men wanted to go back to the old days of shaving with the blades and styles that granddad happily rejected in favor of more modern razors. Others talks about sports, automobile engines, books and movies men should experience, and so on. By their criteria, I am not much of a man. Add to the confusion is that women joined the groups and enjoyed many of the things that men like. Credit: RGBStock/ Scott Snyder Supposedly, science is about the search for knowledge. It is a tool for determining how our Creator designed things, how they work, to make predictions, and so forth. Unfortunately, the secular science industry is riding for the politically correct brand, which is clearly seen when used regarding  gender confusion . These same people also demonstrate what we already know: there are  differences between men and women .

If someone keeps records, then those records should be orderly and reliable for reference. Believers in universal common ancestor evolution rely on the fossil record because they believe it shows an orderly progression from simple to complex life forms. This is not the case , and red algae is yet another frustration. Limespot butterflyfish, with  soft coral and coralline red algae image credit: Derek Keats  ( CC by 2.0 ) This stuff is important for coral reefs, and was given an age by evolutionists. Coralline red algae fossils were alleged to be over 400 million Darwin years old — much older than previously thought. Also, the fossils are just like the algae that live today. When something disappears, then reappears, they hijack a biblical reference and call it the Lazarus Effect.  (This may be another name for ghost lineages . ) Evolutionists have no explanation, but the Genesis Flood is the real explanation for (out-of-place)  and living fossils . Red algae form one of the m

The simplest form of the first law of thermodynamics is that matter can be neither created nor destroyed. The second law is that everything goes from order to disorder and energy becomes less useful (also called entropy). Materialistic speculations of the origin of the universe and cosmic evolution fly in the face of these established laws. Flame Nebula image credit:  NASA /DSS (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Secular owlhoots invariably tell biblical creationists that we do not understand those laws and try to evosplain why we are wrong with atheistic talking points. However, village secularists end up demonstrating that they are the ones who do not understand these laws. I'll allow that some well-meaning creationists have misused the laws of thermodynamics, so caution is advised. Fortunately, the article linked below was written by someone who knows his way around physics and astronomy. The Big Bang has been Frankensteined repeatedly over the de

Secular geologists riding for the old earth brand are puzzled by landforms that do not respect uniformitarian dogma. They have trouble with features such as planation surfaces (where the tops of mountains are a bit on the flat side) and others. Some continue to publish speculations even though they have nothing new to offer. Planation at Bayanul, Kazakhstan credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ekamaloff Using uniformitarian assumptions (present processes are essentially the same over millions of years), some landforms should be worn down far more than they are now; erosion rates today are too high. Part of the insistence on calling them old is because minerals-to-minerologist evolution requires them, and because of their reliance on fundamentally flawed radiometric dating. Also, the truth is too difficult for secular owlhoots to tolerate: creation science models of the Genesis Flood are the best explanations for what is observed. According to the uniformitarian principle, present day