Piltdown Superman

Although not graphic, the following post and the link featured contain mature content.  When discussing Darwinian evolution and its variations, the topics often include the end result of evolutionary thinking. Some people try to avoid these subjects, and disingenuously say that evolution is just biology, nothing more. We have seen how Darwin has permeated society, including "scientific" racism, abortion, euthanasia, laissez-faire capitalism, evolutionary psychology, and more. Image credit: Freeimages / deafstar Evolution has been used to justify male promiscuity, since a man can produce a large quantity of sperm cells and fertilize many women, and that is supposed to give him an advantage. Women are supposedly careful, shy, alluring, and very selective so they can mate with the best possible man she can obtain. Interesting that our Bible-based morality involves commitment, and the emotional reactions to unfaithfulness support biblical morality and not evolution — ex

A recent study of the Great Chinese Famine resulted in faulty conclusions and incomplete research on famine effects passed on to offspring, especially because the paper did not identify a causal mechanism. Researchers claimed that metabolism causes altered metabolism, but it only discussed a relationship between famine and metabolism. Image credit: Pixabay / TusitaStudio Before we continue with the research, a bit of history. The Great Chinese Famine of about 1958-1961 had several causes. Most egregious was Chairman Mousie Dung's incompetence. He was told that sparrows eat grain seeds, so he ordered sparrows killed — by the millions. Without the chirpie birdies around, locusts and other insects they ate went on a crop-eating rampage. People were starving, and Mao didn't release food in warehouses. The drought of 1960 made things even worse. Now, back to our research paper. Like the famine was not the result of a single cause, neither is the result presented. In additio

Although cesarean sections (c-sections) for difficult childbirth was well-established in the 20th century, the practice of cutting open the womb to save a child has been around quite a spell . Difference is, it used to be done when the mother was dead or dying, whereas nowadays, all participants are likely to stay alive. Borrowed from The Princess Bride , 1987 In their persistent quest to give Darwin credit for perceived changes, some scientists were presenting the idea that the so-called obstetrical dilemma. This is supposedly where a woman's pelvis needed to evolve to give birth to larger-brained babies, but also the apelike ancestor needed to evolve bipedalism. So, c-sections may be influencing natural selection. But this idea has serious difficulties, and ignores how our Creator brilliantly designed the human female pelvis for childbirth. Also, once again the Darwinoids are playing bait 'n' switch games, equivocating with the word evolution when none is in evi

It seems that dinosaurs have always had had some popularity over the years, especially for children, but I reckon that their popularity has escalated in recent years. And why not? There's an element of mystery to them, and they've been the subject of many stories in movies, print, and so forth. Dinosaurs have also been used as a tool for evolutionary propaganda to reach the young (to see how evolutionists are attempting to offset children's inborn belief in God, see " Accelerated Evolutionary Indoctrination of Children "). When handled properly, the subject can work in the favor of biblical creationists, a fact that sometimes causes rage among secularists . One thing I learned early on in my creation science studies is that too many parents do not know that answers for questions about Earth's age, evolution, creation, and dinosaurs can indeed be found if people will bother to look. Parents cannot bluff their children. If you don't know, then admit it

Secular scientists have several theories about the formation of the solar system. That's because none of them explain all the data, so they settle on selling us a bill of goods with the " accretion theory ". Everything's slow and gradual, and eventually, Earth formed. Then came the oceans. Sunset at Sea , Ivan Aivazovsky, 1899 The assumption was that Earth was a hot blob of stuff that cooled. How did the oceans get here? After all, this planet is seventy percent water, after all. Meteorites brought the water from outer space. Had to be a whole heap of them, too. This is another assumption based on deep time, slow cosmic evolution, and that meteorites have the most pure forms of the original contents of the solar system. Earth is somewhat contaminated by — something else that is assumed. Lots of circular reasoning here, folks. However, secularists are tearing down the old concept because of meteorite analysis. More assumptions, but the established belief on th

While there are honest evolutionary scientists who seek to find and promote evidence of all live evolving from a common ancestor, their militant comrades use skulduggery to promote their worldview. In this instance, the Neanderthal was fully human (as affirmed by archaeology, DNA, anthropology, and more, presented on this site several times), but some insist on portraying Neanderthals as less-than-human brutes. Things get worse, as we shall see. Credit: Unknown, Public Domain, even used at NASA Why do some folks continue to believe that Neanderthals were not quite human and a link to our evolutionary ancestry despite the evidence? They want to. It fits their paradigm, and they are adverse to admitting that the evidence refutes evolution and supports special creation, and that is anathema to them. Portrayals of Neanderthals have been based on presumptions of evolution and on chimerical visions, but not on evidence. Science isn't supposed to work that way, old son. Even in r

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Today is both  Question Evolution Day  and Creation Sunday , a convergence that will not happen again until 2023. This causes excitement for some people, while others are annoyed. Interestingly, the postmodernism that permeates Western society is self-contradictory: people who hate such events need them. I'll 'splain later. There was a time when movies and television had, for the most part, distinct good and evil characters. (In old Western movies, the stereotype portrayed good guys in white hats, bad guys in black hats.) Later, characters were introduced that were more believable because they were flawed — the anti-hero. One Western character was played by Clint Eastwood, referred to as The Man With No Name. He was not "good" by any stretch of the imagination, but he was our focus as someone to favor. Lines between good and evil were blurred, and audiences were occasionally bemused when the bad guy had more relative goodness than the good