Long-lost Apollo data on lunar dust accumulation has been found, showing a tenfold increase over previous estimates. What does that imply about the age of the moon?
Good scientific approaches should converge on the truth. In secular origin-of-life studies, theories run off in all directions, often crashing into one another.
The history of the world and its life could hardly be more different between the Bible's account and that of modern evolutionary naturalism. Some recent scientific reports fit with a designed, recent creation, and do not fit with evolution.
The "habitable zone" of a planet usually concerns its distance from the star such that it can support liquid water. But what if the star fries the surface with intense stellar winds?
The headlines for some scientific news stories might leave philosophers of science wagging their heads. Few, though, are the reporters willing to call something really dumb, or at least questionable—especially if it appears to support evolution.
The press and TV treat presumed scenarios like a "snowball Earth" as historic facts. A look at how the sausage is made, however, shows little empirical meat and mostly filler in a process characterized by tweaking, picking, and constant debate.
Like Enceladus, Saturn's moon Titan shows multiple signs of being far less than 4.5 billion years old – yet the press releases are strangely silent about the implications.