Piltdown Superman

Here we go again. The strange auto-censors at Facebook claimed that an intended post violates their so-called community standards, and they blocked it from the URL. We post on The Question Evolution Project links to Answers in Genesis many times, but occasionally a link is instantly blocked whether from them or someone else. Click for larger Used under Fair Use law for educational purposes In fact, I will also include the introductory paragraphs, but merged with the usual link format. Opponents of biblical creation are known to spread the lie that we claim that one must believe in the young earth teachings to be saved. Obviously not, but the issue is important, including a proper understanding of Scripture and of hermeneutics. Scripture plainly teaches that salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ, with no requirement for what one believes about the age of the earth or universe. Now when I say this, people sometimes assume then that it does not matter what a Christian believes

Darwin's acolytes have been conjuring up more pseudoscience based on guesswork, and these tinhorns suggest it can be helpful for medical science. Drawing on thermodynamics, they decided that DNA has an energy code because, so they commenced to working with their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings®. Background image furnished by  Why?Outreach The human genome is very complex , but materialists are unwilling to give credit to the Creator. Instead, they want to take ideas from Papa Darwin and apply it to the problem of how DNA became the shuttle train for genetic information. With fundamentally flawed presuppositions and bad reasoning, it is not going well. In an attempt to bring DNA under Darwin’s mechanism and thermodynamics, this theory ignores the elephant in the room. Genetic Code Evolution and Darwin’s Evolution Theory Should Consider DNA an ‘Energy Code’ (Rutgers University). They call it “molecular Darwinism.” Evolutionists at Rutgers University tackle the steep hurdle a

No, the title is not an attempt to put forward some Gnostic idea that the Mary we know about in the Bible is not actually the mother of Jesus. Unfortunately, many traditions and false teachings have been presented for a couple of millennia. We should examine who she is according to the source documents. Credit: Free Christian Illustrations Mary seemed to be just another Hebrew girl. The Bible shows us that she was obedient to God, knowledgeable of the Scriptures, had faith, willing to face the hardships of being unmarried and pregnant in that culture — and she was not perfect. She said herself that she needed a Savior. It must have been almost overwhelming to give birth to God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity that became flesh and is the Creator of the universe! Let's find out more. We can see in church history that unbiblical traditions started to accrue about Mary, the mother of Jesus, as early as the second century. This means that some of our thoughts about her

In the comedy Short Circuit, robot Number Five was struck by lightning and became alive. He had a personality and was able to think. When he accidentally killed a bug, he had trouble understanding that the bug could not be made alive again. The Nativity by Jacques Stella, 1639 If you study on it, life is actually difficult to define. Naturalists define it in a chemical manner with cells processing, physiological activity happening, and all those rather mechanical procedures. All the ingredients of Number Five's dead bug were still there, but life had ceased. For that matter, Number Five was not alive (despite his protestations) according to naturalistic definitions. Materialists cannot explain the origin of consciousness , but they still search for the physical location of the soul and free will . When misotheists complain that something is evil or wrong (such as claiming that by refuting Darwinism, creationists are "lying" about evolution), they are inconsistent. Ath

Atheists and evolutionists hate creationists, and especially those of us who use presuppositional apologetics . We get that. After all, creation scientists point out the flaws in secular science assumptions, and apologists show that their worldviews are incoherent; only biblical Christianity makes sense. We expect such reactions and misrepresentation from sidewinders with Atheism Spectrum Disorder and fundamentalist evolutionists, but not so much in the hallowed walls of secularism. The whole lot of them become incensed when their faith is shaken, and this child fully believes some want revenge. After all, scientific integrity and the pursuit of knowledge are not nearly as important as maintaining the naturalism narrative. The Cambrian explosion has been a serious problem for Darwin's disciples for many years. Evolutionists have tried to find ways around it , but it is still strong evidence for recent creation and the Genesis Flood. Now some sidewinders are twisting the facts and

Rewriting this post*. My wife will not read this because she doesn’t like spiders , and they give a lot of people the heebie jeebies. Time to put feelings on the shelf so we can examine some important facts about spider fossils and the Flood. Credit: Flickr / Chandan Singh ( CC BY 2.0 ) I prolly gave some of y'all the heebie jeebies all over again. Ignore it. Besides, I don't get to use that expression very often. "When spiderish eyes are shining, sure, 'tis like the morning spring —" Do you take requests? How about if you sing "Down by the River" and "Fall In"? While soft tissues and fossils have been known for a long time, the situation was amplified by famous work by Mary Schweitzer in 2005, as well as by Kevin Anderson and Mark Armitage . (One furious atheopath recently claimed that young-age creationists “hijacked” her work, affirmed the dubious iron preservation rescuing device, then ignored all the rest of the soft tissue news.) In fact,

It is easy to assume that the stereotypical Scandinavian today indicates how the Vikings of centuries past appeared. While it is known that the Vikings were explorers and reached North America long ago, there is other evidence of how much they got around. Credit: Flickr / Katherine (take a look at the caption for background) ( CC BY-ND 2.0 ) It seems to be human nature to move around, as we have seen with the Neanderthals, Denisovans, Celts, and other ancient people groups. Modern researchers raided Viking burial grounds and conductive intensive research, and saw that like other folks, they managed to spread their DNA around. However, they also discovered that DNA was shared into  Scandinavia. Trace genetics, culture, history, and so on back far enough and you'll find support for the biblical narrative of the dispersal at Babel. The activities of the Viking Age (793–1066 AD) radically shaped the demographic landscape of Europe—along with its politics, culture, and demographics—in