Piltdown Superman

It may come as a shock to some people, but there are certain things that biblical creationists and atheists agree on. One of those is the rejection of knowledge, but we come at this concept from different directions. Atheists have materialistic presuppositions, and biblical creationists have (or should have) Bible-based presuppositions. It's interesting that Clinton Richard Dawkins would say that those of us who reject evolution fall into four categories: ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked. Seriously? Many brilliant and sane people reject evolution, so that leaves the possibility of wicked to consider. He's assuming that his naturalistic worldview regarding science somehow gives him insight into morality. There are atheist tinhorns who call biblical creationists "evil", but cannot justify their accusations. That's some mighty convoluted logic, old son. In fact, for an atheist to say something is wicked or wrong, he is tacitly appealing to the God that he k

It's not uncommon for an to come along and attack the Bible with prejudicial conjecture such as, "We can't believe the Bible, it was written by a bunch of illiterate Bronze Age goat herders!" If these owlhoots bothered to do their homework, they'd know that the Bible was written by people from a variety of occupations, including kings and highly-educated men as well as peasants. Maybe two or three were sheep and goat herders, but not "a bunch". Also, it's easy to laugh at these proponents of "reason" who add the "illiterate" part. Uh, if they were illiterate, they didn't exactly write anything, did they, pilgrim? Throwing in the words "fairy tales" in their attack probably gets them bonus points with their friends. More important than the ignorance of arrogant atheopaths is the fact that they are arguing from materialistic and naturalistic presuppositions. Terms like "Bronze Age" and so on are made up to

It should be safe to say that good music is not boring, and has elements to keep the listener's attention. Typically, songs have a beat, melody, harmony, and other elements. (Except the stuff that the strange woman in the upstairs apartment plays.) Jazz offers improvisation , composing and innovating on the spot. Real music is quite intricate. Image credit: Pixabay / sandid , modified with Clker clipart on Paint.Net Music and creativity are baffling enough for Darwinists , but it gets worse for them because our alleged cousins lack such skills. You cannot say to an ape, "Hey, Kala! Give us a song. How about one of the lullabies you sang to Tarzan?" Can't happen, old son. To make matters worse for evolutionists, birds (which are not closely related to us in Evo-Speak) have intricate and innovative musical abilities. This further shows that our Creator gave special abilities that show no signs of evolution. A recent paper by an international team of researcher

According to my clock on the mantlepiece, the universe is somewhere around 14 billion years old, give or take a few million years. Our solar system (and therefore, Earth itself) is around 4.5 billion years old. But my clock is set to secular timekeeping and not observed data. Image credits: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Space Science Institute That planet next out yonder after Jupiter, whaddya call it — "That's Saturn". I like the name, has a nice ring to it. Saturn has several rings, and they are showing signs that, according to secular deep-time reckoning, are quite a bit younger than the planet itself. Computer models are giving some wild notions, but the results are based on bad assumptions in the first place. For that matter, an exoplanet orbiting J1407 has a ring system that are going the "wrong" way. Big deal. It happens. But scientists have come up with some ad hoc "maybe an ancient catastrophe" made things go opposite what is expected. Wha

It's fascinating and even fun to see the intricacy of God's handiwork and beauty he's provided. But he also made some things that are dreadfully ugly — and least by human standards . At least they find each other attractive. One of these is called the hagfish, and it's blind. The hagfish doesn't seem to mind lack of vision, it can get along right well. It's cousin the lamprey can see. And no, neither one of them are eels, they just look like them. Two similar fish, one is blind, one has sight. Proponents of minerals-to-moray evolution claim that the hagfish's blindness is an intermediate state of eye evolution, but fossils filleted that idea: hagfish fossils show eyes just as developed as lamprey eyes. This wrecks one aspect of evolutionary storytelling, but they have can say the magic words , (in this case, "Convergent evolution") and bada bing, they have their rescuing device. Sorta. No evidence for what happened (or didn't happen) in

Those of us involved in biblical creation science apologetics ministries are subject to distractions, as are other Christian ministries. We need to do a sort of balancing act between possibly neglecting some things that are important to our readers (or viewers, or listeners), and indulging in our personal preferences. Another area we need to keep in balance is to avoid "tunnel vision", where we spend so much time on our area of specialty that we neglect good biblical teaching in other areas. Let me give you an example. There's a Page on Fazebook that purports to be a presuppositional apologetics ministry, but is bringing every topic horse out of the coral and riding it for a while. Some of the subjects are important, but making dozens of posts each day on a variety of topics (including pet doctrines like annihilationism, quantities of political posts) — people can feel hammered on. I've seen Pages that claim to be biblical creation science ministries do much the sam

While the word landslide is popular in elections, let's get more down to Earth (heh!) with the original meaning. Charles Lyell was a lawyer by trade and went into geology. His most famous book was Principles of Geology, which was published in three volumes in the early 1800s. It expanded on James Hutton's uniformitarianism (simplified as "the present is the key to the past"). Lyell, who lied about the recession rate of Niagara Falls , was a strong influence on Charles Darwin (whose only formal degree was in theology, not science), and Darwin read the first volume of Lyell's Principles on the voyage of the Beagle. Lyell's uniformitarianism was gleefully accepted by secular scientists as a means to deny the Genesis Flood, catastrophism, and the Creator God of the Bible. The fact that compromising Christians ceded science to secularists didn't help matters any. 2013 landslide in Colorado, image credit: US Geological Survey / Rex Baum , no endorsement

Proponents of minerals-to-man evolution tend to take a reductionist approach and reduce all life to chemistry. This comes from their materialistic presuppositions including no God and that evolution is a given. This dehumanizing worldview affects both scientists and us regular folk, since evolution is viewed as a science and, therefore, truth, so it spills over into economics, religion, politics, abortion, "scientific" racism, and more. Image credit: jk1991 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Materialism rules the scientific community, and data are interpreted through this view. Just follow the money, and you'll see that funding goes toward evolutionary goals. Scientists with a creationary worldview are not getting the grant money, no matter how good their credentials are. In fact, creationists are mostly blackballed. Evolutionary owlhoots are intolerant of their own their own kind who don't absolutely toe the line. An author said that an old carving looked like a dino

First, a story. Way back when I was much younger and James Madison was President, we were visiting my grandmother in the northern part of Michigan, in the lower peninsula. It was a small town (still is), and there was a parcel of land behind the house, just a field. This bored child went a-wandering. There was some activity from a killdeer, making all sorts of racket and playing at having a broken wing. I'd heard of such shenanigans to protect the young'uns, so I went in the opposite direction. I could imagine the call of the killdeer as saying, "Fleeee, baby!", and I found the little ones in the tall grass. Had sense enough to leave them alone. Ruffed Grouse , John James Audubon Other birds that lay eggs on the ground do this broken wing business as well, including the star of today's show, the ruffed grouse. They're not very big, and both man and beast consider them good eatin '. How can they keep from going extinct in a hurry? The Creator gave t

Video action is commonplace today, and we can pull out a camera, phone, or other device and record something that we can view instantly. (I marvel at how people can have a live video broadcast that is also being uploaded to places like YouTube, free, and I've never bothered to use the tools at my disposal to do it.) Technology can be fun! Step back a ways, and many of us remember watching movies that were on film, whether in the cinema or in school. Those kinds of movies were actually optical illusions, relying on the brain, film speed, and persistence of vision so we would not see the individual frames, but perceive actual motion. Movies on film that lasted a long time. What happened before? One gadget was Thomas Edison's kinetoscope, using film and that optical illusion thing. (A short video about the kinetoscope is here , and a kind of tour of the machine is here .) The earliest Western films were on the kinetoscope as well. Before that, there was a toy called the thaum

If you study on it for a spell, you'll notice that secularists have double standards, especially related to anything Christian or creationist: When we teach our children about biblical creation, we're "indoctrinating" them. When government-run secularist education centers give them materialistic and evolutionary material for several hours a day over a period of years, they're "educating" them. When evolutionists disagree about hypotheses and models, it's good for science. When creationary scientists disagree with each other or offer other possible interpretations of evidence, well, creationists cannot get along with each other. When atheists and evolutionists attack Christians and creationists, they're being "rational". When creationists present evidence and refute the attacks, we're "right wing extremist s" and " science deniers". When using quotes of evolutionists admitting they have problems, it's &q

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The soul has been a source of controversy for a mighty long time. What is it? Where does it reside? Is there a difference between soul and spirit? Some Christians believe that humans are sort of triune, saying something to the effect of, "You are a soul, you have a spirit, and you live in a body". This may reflect the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Others believe in only two aspects, with soul and spirit being interchangeable. Image credit: dan at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Secular scientists with their materialistic (often reductionist) worldviews contradict themselves. They use the laws of logic, but those are not material things . For that matter, some consider mathematics to be something pure, but numbers are also immaterial . The secular worldview precludes the existence of God and spirits, and yet, scientists search for the location of free will , which indicates that they believe there is a soul (or consciousness, if you will)

For me, stargazing is a wondrous thing, but I'm not good with constellations. F'rinstance, I don't get seeing Cassiopeia on her throne, just a kind of W shape. That one over there, a scorpion, you say? Not happening for this child, sorry. Odd that I can see figures in clouds but not in constellations. Especially on a clear night, there's all kinds of other stars making it hard to pick out the ones in the constellation. Big dipper (or "plough")? Yes, I can see that. And the little one, too. No, I don't see the Great Bear in it. Oh look, a shooting star! Starry Night over the Rhone , Vincent van Gogh, 1888 Those constellations have some mighty fanciful tales associated with them, don't they? What people may not know is that the same basic story is found in diverse areas of the globe, in different cultures. How is that? Getting into the history of constellations, star maps, and the biblical timeline, looks like this may help support the Genesis disp

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Today is Thanksgiving Day in the United States (Canada has one the second Monday in October), and many people are happy for the day off from work, feasting, slumbering, and watching our version of football. Some actually pause and consider the things they're thankful for, such as the food, family, friends, salvation in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:9-9, Acts 4:12, John 14:6), having a job, and other big things. I want to talk about something small that I'm thankful for: spices. Image credit: Freeimages / Kyle Edwards "Spices are the variety of life, Cowboy Bob!" Uh... something like that. Don't tell anyone, but cinnamon is my second greatest weakness. That stuff is versatile, you can add some to coffee, donuts, pies, make it into candy, and so on. Nutmeg is a frequent companion of cinnamon. Bay leaf adds flavor to legume soups. The misnamed allspice  is certainly not a combination of spices, but comes from the pimenta tree , and is said

When presented with evidence that does not conform to long-age and evolutionary expectations, secularists employ rescuing devices. Sure, we all have rescuing devices, but to for scientists to reject investigation and simply make excuses is, well, inexcusable. After all, scientists who are supposed to be interested in evidence. Instead, many will make up stories, ignore the evidence, call biblical creationists "liars", and other silliness. Image credit: US National Park Service Marine fossils are found in areas that are (or were) considered fresh water places. Instead of saying that something started out as a fresh water creature and then somehow evolved to salt water doesn't cut it, old son. These owlhoots make up stories without anything resembling evidence, and Evolution's True Believers™ accept guesswork as fact. Since there's such a mixture of fossils, the best explanation for what is found is the Genesis Flood. On a recent visit to the Royal Tyrell

Predictions and expectations of secular models of the age and formation of the solar system are not happening.  "Don't biological, chemical, and cosmic evolution give opportunities for predictions, Cowboy Bob? " They would if they were true, and if scientists actually understood what they were talking about before pontificating. But they're not true, and secular scientists have a habit of being un-humble. Maat Mons volcano on Venus image credit: NASA/JPL , who would not endorse this site Some newer problems for secularists are occurring out yonder. Mars has carbon dioxide eruptions that are eroding the surface that look to be about 2,500 years old. Rescuing devices are being utilized. Meanwhile, Venus is showing signs of very recent volcanic activity. Then there's that Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko mission by Rosetta, which I suspicion that scientists may be regretting because they're none to happy with the results about comet dust, the formation

With apologies to writers Don Barnes, Jeff Carlisi, and Jim Peterik of the band Thirty-Eight Special, "You see it all around you, good science gone bad..." Yes, once again, we have an instance of unwarranted conjecture be proclaimed as science. In other news, evolutionists Make Stuff Up™. Generated at ImageChef Bearded dragons are popular pets ("bearded" because of the frill that happens under the neck ). Someone got a notion to do some actual science and find out why the " naked bearded dragon " has no scales. They had some good science happening at first, but then sought evolutionary clues. First clue: it's a mutation. Second clue: disingenuously using the discredited myth of embryonic recapitulation. Third clue: comparing a mutation in birds, mammals, and reptiles. The Darwinoids saw some similarities and claimed to "conclusively" show that everything evolved from a common ancestor. Naturally, the press stampeded with this bad scien

Here we are with our digital technology, space rockets, increases in medical care, and more. God some mighty fine plans for the future, too, if we don't blast ourselves back a thousand years. We think we're lords of all we survey, don't we? Reckon so. Except that the idea that we're more intelligent than our ancestors is based on evolutionary presuppositions and arrogance. The storyline goes that stupid brutes evolved, then gradually evolved intelligence, and on from there. Not hardly! Image credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann We're not really the sharpest knives in the drawer, we've just accumulated more knowledge and learned a lot. When you study on ancient people (including the surprising, fully-human Neanderthals ), you'll see that there are many examples in ancient history of human ingenuity. People with an evolutionary paradigm get all worked up over this and sometimes even say that our ancestors had help from aliens because they "could not"

Heading up Deception Pass way, you might catch the hands at the Darwin Ranch feeling a mite glum over the outcome of the latest facts. Another of their latest efforts to support common-ancestor evolution has been thrown onto the compost pile out back. Again, it involves DNA, which has never been a friend to their paradigm. Image credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures Evolutionary scientists show a heap of hubris by asserting that something is due to evolution because they don't understand it. For example, the "junk" DNA fiasco, where sections of DNA were declared leftover junk from our alleged evolutionary past, then discovered to be very important indeed . Three bases in RNA work on coding for a protein. The third base was considered redundant (no reflection on Kris Bryant ), therefore, evolution could maybe perhaps occur. Evolutionists tried this trick before to no avail, and it's not working now. (They can cry, protest, and riot if they want to, but that won