Piltdown Superman

There have been numerous ways that evolutionary thinking has harmed medical science, but disciples of the Bearded Buddha claim that it is essential. Not hardly! Such thinking gave us harmful thinking about vestigial organs such as the appendix and thymus , and "junk" DNA hindered needed research. If you study on it a spell, the idea of actively integrating a historical belief system that is based on presumptions rather than evidence is risible (see " The Farce of Evolutionary Medicine "). Also, secularists refuse to learn from their colossal errors. Modified from a medical science photograph on Pixnio The materialistic mindset has affected modern medicine. Like in the secular science industry, there are individuals who want to do a good job but are caught up on the money-making machinations of organizations. Talk in company break rooms often turns to lousy treatment by doctors, staff, and especially agencies. When I had my heart surgery, I felt like a piece of mea

Stevia Dolce, the lead baker at the Darwin Ranch up yonder near Deception Pass, surprised me with a visit. She brought Dekker Halls, who was visiting for the Christmas season. They heard talk about pseudogenes that did not sit right with them and wanted to ask me. After digging into the fabulous croissants that Stevia brought, we commenced to discussing the problem. Evolutionary thinking is bad for medical science, and even science itself. Scientists studied DNA, but expected everything to code for proteins. Big mistake. Directional street sign generator at RedKid Like when someone receives a delivery that isn't interesting, "Just set it over there" and it gets forgotten. These things called pseudogenes  look like genes, but did not work the way Darwinists expected. "Why do you say Darwinists , Cowboy Bob?" Dekker asked. "Nobody really believes classical Darwinism anymore." I replied, "True, but it has a couple of uses. The first one is for simpli

Darwinists dutifully repeat the title of an essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," then smile smugly as if they cited a creation-destroying maxim. Actually, evolution is scarce in college textbooks in life sciences . It is useless when it is not harmful in medicine. As I mentioned elsewhere, nobody consulted or referenced the Darwin oracle during my extended stay in the hospital. At least, not in my presence or to discuss my treatment plan.  Darwin spirit and medical science modified from a photograph at Pixnio It's a good thing evolution is scarce in textbooks considering all the harm that evolutionary thinking has produced in medical science. For example, the  vestigial organs concept has been refuted . Using faulty presuppositions, evolutionists stifled research because they declared  large portions of DNA to be "junk ." Don't forget the risible thinking that  heart problems exist  because of

There are a few things that I keep repeating because they are so important, the primary of which is that scientists (and everyone else) operate from their worldviews. These are comprised of presuppositions (things believed without experimental support). Most evolutionists presuppose materialism, creationists presuppose the truth of the Bible. Believers in descent with modifications look at information through their Darwin spectacles, usually rejecting contrary evidence and predictions. Some researchers had numerous assumptions about humans having lost tails through evolution, so they studied the tails of mice. Darwin Spectacles and mouse tail, spectacles image by kkiser at Freeimages A prairie schooner-load of assumptions is involved in the study. First, evolution is not questioned, so that is assumed. Add to that the dogma of humans and apes diverged from a common ancestor millions of years ago. Somewhere in the mix, apes lost their tails. That is historical science — or would be if

Last night I was talking with the skeletons in my huge walk-in closet, asking what would happen if someone discovered them. They just looked at me without answering. I gave up and closed the door. As I walked away, I heard them laughing. Okay, we all know that skeletons in the closet are not real except for use as props or classroom instruction. Actual skeletons do not talk. Interestingly, trees talk in their own way , and our bones have vitally important discussions inside us — through cellular communication. Skeleton at the disco, Pixabay, background by Geralt , skeleton by Rachaelmarie , I also used cleanup.pictures A researcher with an appropriate name, Lynda F. Bonewald, was told not to waste her time studying one of the three main bone cell types, osteocytes, even though they are about ninety percent of bone tissue. Apparently osteocytes didn't have a known function, so ignore them. Good thing she ignored her advisors. Lynda showed scientific inquiry, and found that osteocyte

It is bad enough that believers in molecules-to-Mario evolution present incomplete and often erroneous science, but they also encourage long-refuted evolutionary dogma. On several occasions we have encountered blatant falsehoods used to prop up this atheistic myth of origins. Everyone makes mistakes (including faulty reasoning), but to repeatedly use false information is downright deceptive. Seven years ago, a disingenuous video titled "Proof of evolution that you can find on your body" was posted, and at this writing has over 37 million views and 407 thousand "likes." Hammond C3 organ, WikiComm / Emilio Muñoz (Public Domain), modified The video focuses on so-called vestigial organs (or structures) that have supposedly lost their functions during the process of evolution. Claims of vestigial things have been debunked, as we have seen regarding "junk" DNA , the  Palmar Grasp Reflex in infants, how the famous appendix is actually important , and more. One

There is a personal and coincidental reason for my interest in the article featured below. Today is 8 March, and I am recovering from knee surgery. The article came out on the first, and my surgical testing was on the second. When someone has a reputation for repeatedly fouling things up, do you want to entrust that person with something extremely important? Of course not. The same can be said for an ideology. It has been shown repeatedly that evolutionary thinking has been harmful to medical science, yet Darwin's acolytes want it entrenched. Original operating room photo at Pexels / Anna Shvets , then modified* Apparently, secularists are repeatedly given a pass: Racism in medical research Vestigial organs/structures such as the appendix are not vestigial Declaring not-understood DNA to be "junk,"  which has been refuted The false claim that antibiotic resistance proves evolution Fake science to support evolution in COVID-19 research We have also seen that secularists o

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen From the standpoint of producing evidence for what they teach, biblical creationists can be baffled by the resistance displayed by anti-creationists. Some tinhorns claim that we never produce evidence — making such insipid claims on posts such as " Overview of Geologic Evidence of the Flood !" Material exposing evolutionary fraud and bad science is ignored or waved away. In literally thousands of books, articles, videos and such, Creationists and Intelligent design proponents have discussed how evidence for design is abundant. Instead of intelligently discussing interpretations of evidence, atheists and evolutionists go beyond insults and attempt to dehumanize us . Red-bellied woodpecker, Unsplash / Joshua J. Cotten When misotheists attempt to dehumanize us, it shuts down rational discourse. It also indicates fear on their part. Can't be letting evidence for design get wide circulation, nosiree! That's bad medicine for atheism. Further, what doe

It has been said that the works of Charles Darwin on evolution through natural selection managed to kill God. That is the opposite of the truth. There is an abundance of evidence linked here and other places refuting evolution and deep time, but also affirming recent creation and the young earth. People believe because they want to, not because they are compelled by the evidence . In fact, some Darwin doubters are becoming more vocal , and there would probably be more speaking out if they were not in fear of losing prestige or even their jobs. Meanwhile, fundamentalist evolutionists insist that genetics supports evolution. Not hardly! DNA, RNA, Amino acids codon table , public domain, mostly modified at LunaPic Because evolutionists interpret data with presuppositions rooted in atheistic naturalism, they have their biases confirmed — even when the evidence shows otherwise. These are the folks that gave us so-called vestigial structures, "junk" DNA, and other hindrances to med

It has been shown many times here and in other places that evolutionary thinking hinders science, and has actually been harmful to medical science. A large part of the problem is how they presuppose atoms-to-atheist evolution and build on that, and most cling to their faith when evidence is contrary to evolution. This mindset gave us "junk" DNA, vestigial organs, incomplete research, bad logic, unethical behavior in the secular science industry, and other problems. To be blunt, slapping evolutionary terminology in something is a science stopper. Even worse, this can easily make researchers lazy and careless. Darwin caricature from one of the  Vanity Fair  publications, 1871, modified at  Pixlr Indeed, it is rare to find a science article, whether for general readers or more academic, that does not throw in praise to evolution. Most of the time those are both unnecessary and detract from an otherwise good story. Many times, Evolution has been made into a decision-making deity!

Something that gets the hands at the Darwin Ranch on the prod is when creationists bring up past  embarrassments of evolutionists. In addition to their failed attempts to provide plausible human ancestors , there are numerous logical flaws in their research. One frequent error is arguing from ignorance. Many creationists, and even some evolutionists, complain about secularists acting like the mantle of scientist  allows them to speak ex cathedra . Speaking from evolutionary presuppositions and incomplete information, aspects of DNA were wrongly declared to be "junk" , and bodily organs were said to be "vestigial", which has been thoroughly refuted. Diagram with Thymus Gland, Wikimedia Commons / Cancer Research UK ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) The thymus glad was said to be vestigial (a useless organ or structure that lost its purpose in the deep, dark past of evolutionary history). If those tinhorns had been less anti-creation and realized that the Master Engineer put things in

Charles Robert Darwin took the ancient pagan concept of evolution that had been kicked around for hundreds of years, gussied it up, and speculated about universal common ancestry through natural selection. Traditional Darwinism began to fade, but the modern synthesis  saved it from the scrap heap of history. Incorporating the science of genetics initiated by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him), mutations  became vitally important. Time, mutations, and natural selection are a trifecta. While Darwin's cheerleaders claim that genetics and mutations support evolution, that is the opposite of the truth. DNA and Mutations, modified from Pixabay / Arek Socha DNA is a complex language or code that is comprised of four letters . A mutation is a transcription error, such as typing an account number of  12 02 1809 as 12 20 1809. Most mutations are harmful. Many have been considered neutral. However, they still add to the genetic load. Consider when running a registry cleaner on a Windows comput

Joe Nexnelsrent dropped by the Darwin Ranch (out Folly Road near Deception Pass) for a symposium on "junk" DNA. It did not go well. Some of these owlhoots still cling to the notion that the human genome has vestiges from our evolutionary past, even though that nonsense has been debunked. Parasites (the Greek root word essentially means "eating at the table of another") are a poor comparison. Non-coding DNA can resemble parasitic behavior in the way it spreads, but it does not drain a host. The science and logic involved should bemarrass serious scientists. DNA background image: RGBStock /  Tomislav Alajbeg People in the secular science industry need  to find ways to protect their evolution narrative, so they make proclamations when they really don't understand enough about the subjects under consideration. This is based on a naturalistic mindset, viewing things through Darwin spectacles, then confirming their biases. Arguing from insufficient evidence occurs fr

First post of the year, and my unregistered assault keyboard is locked, loaded, and upgraded. When doing science, it is important to make sure that one is operating within the framework. This includes presuppositions. As stated before, everyone has a worldview , and that includes things we presuppose to be true without empirical verification. Secular scientists presuppose universal common descent with modifications evolution, biblical creation scientists presuppose that the Bible is true. There are times when those assumptions need to be checked. Galaxy UGC 2885 credits: NASA / ESA / B. Holwerda (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) We have seen numerous times that a naturalistic worldview doesn't marry up with observed evidence, so timelines are modified, data is tweaked, and a prairie schooner-full of problems beset secularists. Instead of playing around protecting the naturalism narrative, secular scientists with integrity should be questioning their presupposition

Regular readers have seen numerous instances where Darwinian views have not only hindered science, but been harmful as well. For example, alleged vestigial organs were surgically removed but later found to have tremendous benefits, and so-called "junk" DNA is useful after all . Darwin's disciples try to downplay  soi-disant  scientific racism and social Darwinism that ran rampant from Victorian times and well into the 20th century. Although some of those things have faded, Americans participated in a disgraceful Naziesque medical study on black men that ended in 1972. Tuskegee syphilis study / CDC (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The United States Public Health Service (PHS) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) promised a six-month study of syphilis on black men, but those men were not informed they had the disease. Nor were they given readily-available treatments. Syphilis is a nasty, sneaky disease that is preventable and can prove fatal. Like N

Naturalistic presuppositions and scientific laziness — we must call them what they are — have been major factors in ugsome research. These contributed to cheating, such as the Miller-Urey experiment  and the fake human-chimpanzee similarities . Such practices and dubious ethics have hindered medical science for decades . A good deal of the problem is arrogance on the part of scientists who let their assumptions hinder medical science. This happened with "vestigial" organs , and is part of the reason for the harmful assumption of "junk" DNA. Mostly made at Yukki tombstone maker Like with "vestigial" organs/structures, large sections of DNA were considered useless leftovers of our evolutionary. These presumptions were past based on ignorance  as well as hubris. Scientists didn't understand them, so they made pronouncements about DNA: It wasn't worth investigating. Fortunately, some scientists still believe in doing science despite the narrative of th

A few years ago, there was a great deal of excitement over the promise of stem cell research. It was touted as a way to treat and cure numerous ailments, and has even been promised by leftist political candidates as promoting science. Of course, "science" cannot advance without murdering babies, according to those sidewinders. Adult stem cells gave hope that research could be conducted morally because it would not involve child sacrifice. Now we hear far less about stem cells nowadays. Stem Cells image credit: USFDA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) People were ready to slap leather over the promise of stem cell therapies, and Christians are enemies of science that interfered (also see " UK Prime Minister addresses Climate Change, but undermines Christian doctrines "). Their information came from what "scientists say" through the secular science industry (especially the press), but they were just talking through their hats . After all t

Up yonder at Deception Pass, the hands at the Darwin Ranch have been caught several times doing sloppy science and lying for the Bearded Buddha about DNA. Their viperine tactics fooled many, especially those who are willingly deceived. Remember the now-debunked claim that the chimpanzee genome is 98 percent similar to humans ? It which was stitched together and contaminated. This refuted statement is still being proclaimed. Our main topic today is the duncical declaration that humans are saturated with "junk" DNA. Illustration by Sidney Paget , 1904, modified (find the DNA) Using science and reasoning that thinking scientists should find opprobrious, researchers decided that parts of the human genome did not code for proteins and such. Therefore, DNA parts were useless leftovers from our alleged evolutionary past. This was based on their preconceptions, not exhaustive research. Like vestigial organs, "junk" DNA concepts have been quirted into submission for the mo

Time and time again, we see how scientists elevate the naturalism narrative over actual science. When they do not have something that works, they use the best-in-field fallacy  instead of abandoning it. Similarly, secularists try to find ways of clinging to refuted "junk" DNA myth . Now they are doing the same thing with Neanderthals. Even though believers in universal common descent evolution get burrs under their saddles when people say that humans evolved from apes (or monkeys), those critters they present sure do look like apes. Also, evolution popularizers also use the same kind of terminology. Cut people some slack, willya? Neanderthals were portrayed as a link between humans and apes, but it has been definitively shown that they were indeed fully human . Researchers tried to bring Neanderthal down a few notches from humanity with a DNA study. It did not go well. Using poor sampling and incomplete research, scientists made assertions that are the opposite of what is rev

Operating from materialistic presuppositions, believers in descent-with-modifications evolution have attempted to create life in various ways. Although the obedient media of the secular science industry trumpets how they proved that life can happen by chance, such claims are false. In a similar way, people are all atwitter about alleged synthetic life.  Since their worldview requires life to begin as simple cells, scientists tried to make their own cells. They pattern their work from cells that already exist. It did not go well. Modified from a photograph from  PIXNIO The goal was to make the cells as minimal as possible, so they assumed that certain genes were not essential. Then they found out that those were essential after all (reminiscent of the dreadful assumptions made in the "junk" DNA fiasco ). Their final product could not exist in the wild, so to speak. Also, the synthetic cells would have to rely on existing cells for their own survivial. God is still the Creator