Piltdown Superman

Edited 6-16-2022  Some people tell us that Darwinism is just a biological theory, and try to give the impression that it is something that just scientists and academicians examine. Not hardly! Evolutionary thinking has many facets, affecting society at many levels, many of which people may not realize have a Darwinian basis. Margaret Sanger, 1922, credit: Wikimedia Commons / Library of Congress Many know that she was the founder of the for-profit abortion mill called Planned Parenthood (not much of a surprise, since she was a lousy mother to her own children), but there is more to her than is known to the general public. To use the medical term, she was really messed up. Sanger was into "free love" (there's a word for women like that, but I shouldn't use it here), racial purity, elimination of the unfit, and more. The sanitized image of Maggie is presented, and she's a hero to many — unfortunately, even to some professing Christians . Note that Sanger d

Meteorologists can be wrong frequently, but they still have their jobs. Looks like the same kind of thing happens in evolutionary sciences. We hear conjectures about how the cosmos evolved, "junk" DNA, the ridiculous walking fish concept — they keep turning out to be very, very, wrong. Usually, the weather forecasters are shown to be wrong in short order (except the global climate change apocalypse prophets, whose errors are shown later). Bad science sometimes takes a mighty long time to be discovered, and the public doesn't hear about those things so much. Not a lot of money in refuting evolution and affirming creation, you know. Paleoanthropology is one of the worst sciences for accuracy. Like the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals , their "rulings" are frequently overturned. Look at the timeline in our alleged evolutionary history. Them critters get themselves thrown out of the family tree, reclassified as fully human, fully ape, blatant fraud, outrageous st

Proponents of "deep time" primarily rely on radiometric dating as their primary evidence for an old earth, conveniently neglecting fundamental assumptions that must be made in those processes. In addition, the fact that different radiometric dating methods give wildly varying results, and the result that is the best fit for the prevailing view is selected . Darwin needs long periods of time, so they give them to him. (If you torture the evidence long enough, it'll confess to anything.) Since it's easier for evolutionists to deal from the bottom of the deck using radiometric dating, they conveniently ignore the many physical evidences for a young earth — here are just a few . Salt farm image credit: tuelekza / FreeDigitalPhotos.net Ever notice that oceans have salt, so it needs to be purified before you can happily drink it? Of course you have! (Careful with the word, though. Salt to you and me, the stuff that preserves our jerky snacks when riding the trail

There are two primary views in evolutionary thinking: internal , where internal properties of organisms allow them to adapt to their environments, and external , the prevailing view where the environmental environment is the agency of change. Darwin was postulating the latter. This externalism fits with the trend of pagan anthropomorphizing of nature and evolution as intelligent agencies , capable of making decisions to guide evolution. Credit: Pixabay / mafnoor Externalism has stifled science, and even evolutionary ideas, by ignoring how organisms are designed by their Creator to adapt. Even when presented with obvious evidence, such as epigenetic switches, externalists refuse to consider the evidence, and give praise to evolution and nature. Engineered adaptability shows that organisms are designed to self-adapt to many changing conditions. Does Darwin deserve all the homage he gets? After all, the idea of evolution didn’t originate with him. Others before him recognized t

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen If you ever find yourself riding near Deception Pass, try to visit the Darwin Ranch for the worship service. Not much of a spectacle, but it's an educational experience. They bring out their idol of Dagon, have devotional readings from Clinton Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Charles Darwin, and others. They don't do hymns, though [ 1 ]. Bas relief of Dagon as a half-man, half-fish god Satire aside, we have seen that Darwin did not create evolution all by his lonesome [ 2 ] and evolution is, in reality, an ancient pagan religion [ 3 ]. I agree with the remark that essentially says Darwin took an old belief system and gussied it up in a lab coat. Indeed, evolutionism is pantheistic, and even includes elements of animism [ 4 ]. When Paul was debating the Greek philosophers in Acts 17:16-32, they were pagan evolutionists. Pagan evolutionism did not originate with the Greeks, however. Their worldview can be seen in ancient Hindu beliefs [ 3 ]. Hang on,

Advocates of microbes-to-microscopist evolution have a great deal to say about the hows and whys of the appearances of things living today, and of those that went before. However, it is difficult to examine their evidence, because it's mighty scarce. Sure, we get a passel of authoritative assertions of "it evolved that way", but assertions and tall tales are not scientific evidence. What follows are several links illustrating false claims of evolution happening. This will be good for students to examine and see how science and evolution can often be mutually exclusive. Original image credit: US Dept of Transportation / aschweigert (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Non-Evolving Dinosaurs Assertions of "being covered with feathers" without any sign of the things; why some dinosaurs moved fast, but details are expected in the future; a crocodile fossil that dates 170 million Darwin Years old is essentially identical to modern crocodiles

One of the stories that Darwin's Flying Monkeys© like to spread is that the human eye is wired incorrectly, or "backward". Their explanations can be summed up with, "Because evolution". Or mayhaps, "Because Clinton Richard Dawkins said so, and doggone it, Dawkins is an evolutionary scientist and misotheist, so he must be right!" However, claims by uninformed people about the backward wiring of the eye must send ophthalmologists into cachinnation. Credit: Freeimages /  melissa ricquier It has been explained that the human eye was designed by our Creator, and the layout is optimal for embryonic development and beyond. For more about this, see " Eye Design and Evolution " and " Like We Said, Human Eye Design Is Optimal ". Now we can add new research that the retina has the optimal design for sharpness of images, and for determining colors. Evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins have long claimed that our eyes are wired ‘backwar