Getting Behind in a Facial Recognition Study

By -
Looks like the hands at the Darwin Ranch have been overworked, moonlighting at the new propaganda mill over near Fort Defiance. I say that because they seem to have been gnawing on a mess of peyote buttons again. And I say that because of the outlandish "research" being conducted using the ever-present circular reasoning: to prove evolution, you assume it's true. Then they mix in some more strange assumptions and bad logic. Ain't working, Pilgrim.
Chimps recognize rear ends, nutty evolutionists think this means human facial recognition evolved
Credit: Pixabay / 1447441
Just a moment for a side note. Proponents of molecules-to-monkey evolution get on the prod when someone says that they believe we evolved from apes. To get into semantics, they believe we evolved from a common ancestor, the lineages for apes and humans having diverged way back when. Then they prop up the idol of failed transitional form Lucy, an Australopithecus afarensis (Latin for "Southern ape from Afar", because scientists like dead languages out of tradition). Proposed missing links look mighty apelike, and chimpanzees are presumed to be our close evolutionary cousins, so Darwin's disciples can pull in their claws a mite when dealing with inexact phrasing, okey dokey?

 Assuming vertical (universal common ancestor) evolution to be true, and chimps are our cousins, they commenced to doing a facial recognition study. In involves studying the way chimpanzees recognize each others' sit bones.

 "Sit bones, Cowboy Bob?"

 You know. Keister. Fanny. Hindquarters. Tokus. Backside. So, a study of chimp buttock recognition was used to try and explain how humans evolved the ability to recognize faces. Make silly claims, claim evolution, and get paid grant money. Doesn't need to be demonstrable science, either, and the nonsense even gets reported in news media. That's how it works. The truth is really what makes sense: we were created fully operational and mature from the beginning.
Human brains come specially wired to recognize faces. Where did that innate wiring come from? Two psychologists finagled a fantasy answer that shows how crazy evolution-based reasoning can get. Their conclusion, oddly enough, involves chimpanzee rear ends.
We perceive faces quite differently from how we see other objects. We process the individual features of most items to recognize what they are and what they mean, but we recognize a face all at once. That way we can quickly gather subtle communication clues from facial expressions during conversations and other interactions.
Don't fall behind. To read the rest, click on "Facial Recognition Study Misses the Bottom Line".

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1 , and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2 ,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science. This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God e
Read more

Discerning Fake Science

By -
Image
Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas. Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem  is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous. As mentioned several times before,
Read more

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious.  C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits: Flickr / David Shankbone ( public domain ), modified with FotoSketcher So why attack individuals instead of ideas ? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion . A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement. Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with
Read more