Posts

Showing posts from February, 2021

Shlooping — a New Word for Evolutionary Storytelling

Image
Scientists are expected to conduct research and present evidence to support their findings. Darwin's handmaidens are often exempt from this, instead presenting conjectures as science and telling tales that elicit adoration from the secular science industry. One way of evosplaining is essentially, "Stuff happens". A Winter's Tale by John Everett Millais This is often wrapped in a sciencey club sandwich that includes millions of years, time, chance, luck, random processes, bad logic, natural selection, weasel words , " it evolved ", and even the Stuff Happens Law . Sometimes it's served with a dill pickle. I like that part. No ethics though. David Coppedge suggests a new word for evolutionary storytellers: Shlooping. There's a great deal of "oops-ing" in their efforts to deny the Creator his due. Add the abbreviation for the Stuff Happens Law. You get schlooping.  Sounds kind of Yiddish, doesn't it? There are some similar words about une

Pseudoscience — Back at You!

Image
I disremember what movie it was, but one scene had an inept deputy sheriff pointing a pistol at the main character. He was annoyed and said, "Give me that!", taking away the gun. The deputy immediately put his hands up and said, "Don't shoot!" Original image:  The Angry One  by Ferdinand Hodler There are some religious owlhoots who ride for the Darwin brand that say that biblical creation science is really just pseudoscience. Ironically, evolution has many qualifications of being a pseudoscience itself. With logic and scrutiny, it can be turned around on them. Watch for the double standards of criticizing biblical creationists of believing in the Creator, yet they presuppose naturalism, then present speculations and unfounded opinions as science. Someone hold up a mirror for these jaspers. The organization BioLogos, which advocates that Christians accept secular evolutionary claims, recently published an online essay entitled “How to Spot Fake Science.”1 The not

The Work Ethic Begins in Genesis

Image
Many of us reluctantly get up and go to the workplace, then take satisfaction in a job well done. These days, some people have an entitlement mentality where they expect money for doing little or nothing at all. We were designed to do work. Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Fran Hogan  ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) The work ethic is important in Western civilization. It was emphasized by the Protestant Reformers who noticed that it is a strong aspect of Christianity. Indeed, the value of work is all through the Bible and goes back to Genesis. Someone can be a construction worker, CEO, musician, ranch hand, stay-at-home mom, working with the developmentally disabled, author, or any of a myriad of professions. There's honor in that, especially when the worker seeks to glorify God. Paul urges Christians, “to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you” (1 Thessalonians 4:11). But the biblical mandate for work goes far deeper and further back than these i

Evolutionists Celebrating Darwinian Racism

Image
It is bad enough that Darwin's votaries pretend that they are driven by science and not by faith in naturalism, but they celebrate the Bearded Buddha with religious fervor. It happened on the 150th anniversary of the Marxist-adored Origin of Species , and now this. Some professing atheists think evolution makes them " intellectually fulfilled " Celebrations are planned for the 150th anniversary of The Descent of Man , and by the time this is published, there will undoubtedly be more. (This may include dancing around the maypole.) Interestingly, there are no significant calls by the cancel culture gang to deplatform Darwin . Falsehoods abound about this owlhoot's "wonderful discovery" and how he was a "great scientist", but he only hijacked natural selection and retooled existing evolutionary views for his own purposes. Also, Darwin had no formal scientific training. It is about worldviews. Evolutionism is naturalism and is opposed to special creat

Human Reproduction is Still a Mystery to Evolutionists

Image
Since social(ist) media have their on bots search and destroy missions for things that are against their so-called community standards , I was a bit vague on the title. This is about sex, the matrimonial mattress mambo. More importantly, it is about design and wonder. Credit: Pixabay / Karin Henseler As we have seen previously, the human reproductive system is an enigma to Darwin's disciples . In their paradigm of time, chance, mutations, natural selection, random processes, and so on, they cannot explain it — especially the specified complexity of the male reproductive system . Their lack of understanding doesn't stop them from making ludicrous assumptions and using evolution to excuse promiscuity in humans , though. It is interesting that sex is our means of reproduction and also a source of pleasure. Indeed, it is a gift of God within the confines of true marriage. Although the porn industry is making huge amounts of money and Mohammedan countries are increasing their popula

Solving the Dinosaur Demise Mystery

Image
The most common narrative is that dinosaurs lived somewhere around 250 to 65 million Darwin years ago, then they became extinct. Whyzat? Supposedly they were doing fine until something fell from the sky and killed them off. Actually, secularists argue about their extinction. Credit: Pexels /  Engin Akyurt Your typical village atheist or other evolutionist seems to think that evolution is a "fact". To have a fact, there needs to be incontrovertible evidence. Not only is there considerable evidence refuting dust-to-dinosaur evolution, secular scientists are not in agreement about it. Nor do they agree about the extinction of dinosaurs (the fact that there is no evidence for their supposed evolution might have something to do with that). Some scientists think they gradually faded away, others think it was sudden. New research shots that it was sudden — and fits right nicely with creation science Genesis Flood models. Instead of excluding biblical creationists, the scientific co

Lying for Darwin about "Junk" DNA

Image
A few days ago, Jacqueline Hyde, the lady friend of Rusty Swingset from the Darwin Ranch, wanted to meet up with me over at Gravel Gulch. Although an evolutionist, she has some doubts. She also was not happy about recent dishonesty regarding so-called junk DNA. If interested, you can find the original 1895 photo at  Wikimedia Commons , Papa Darwin's image is found all over the web, and the source of the DNA image is at openclipart Evolution is essential for making an evolutionary worldview appear rational. Its adherents despise anything that even hints at design, since they are committed to time, luck, time, chance, time, mutations, and especially time. They make up ridiculous dysteleology arguments that our Creator is a bad designer, therefore he must not exist. However, their specious arguments have been clearly refuted in creation science, the Intelligent Design organizations, and the secular science industry. Pre-refuted for your convenience. Who do they think they are, Bill Ny

Creation Science and Studies of Baraminology

Image
Believers in universal common ancestry get a mite riled when biblical creationists discuss the created kinds (e.g., Gen. 1:25). Ironically, Carl Linnaeus, who got the taxonomy ball rolling, was a creationist who believed in the created kinds . Creation scientists are working out the details of baraminology .  Credit: RGBStock / Graeme Rainsbury Don't be disunderstanding me now, creationists do believe in speciation and variations . There are some creation scientists who are exploring the created kinds , which would be a larger category than species . As with any scientific model, there are differing views that need to be worked out. Remember that creation science models come and go, but creationists who propose them agree on the truth of God's written Word. Two distinct views used in the pursuit of this science are discussed. New genomics-based statistical approaches have helped us in baraminology research. There is currently much genomic data available in the public databases

Dr. Duane Gish and Debating Evolutionists

Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Dr. Duane T. Gish was born one hundred years ago today, and was referred to as "creation's bulldog". Thomas Henry Huxley was "Darwin's bulldog [ 1 ]", and C. Richard Dawkins was nicknamed "Darwin's Rottweiler [ 2 ]". The bulldog monikers refer to tenaciously advocating viewpoints. Original image furnished by Why?Outreach Today is the 100th anniversary of Dr. Gish's birth. He was involved in the foundation of the Creation Research Society and the development of the Institute for Creation Research [ 3 ]. He was 92 when he passed away in 2013. Here are some tributes and biographical sketches [ 4 ], [ 5 ], [ 6 ] ). Duane gave many lectures, as well as writing numerous books and articles. Many fish-to-Gish evolutionists and atheists with knowledge and life experience know of him from his 300 or so debates where evolutionists chose to slap leather with him. The Infamous "Gish Gallop" Trope Unfortunately, a pejora

Evolutionists Telling a DAM Lie

Image
Believers in minerals-to-misotheist need to be asked some direct questions, such as if evolution is a proven fact, why do they expect evidence to be found later? That is faith, old son, not science. Also, why do they need to use falsehoods and chicanery? Darwin's Abominable Mystery troubled him for years and was never resolved. Flowering plants existed too soon for evolutionists, a fact which supports recent creation. Deal with it, hippies. But no, living by faith, evolutionists have tried to hoodwink us with tall tales and even outright deception instead of admitting that they have insurmountable problems. Of course, the end justifies the means, so fraud and lying are acceptable in their fundamentally flawed worldview. The facts in this story are opposite what a BBC headline promises. Why do they get away with it? Because like Stalin-type totalitarian regimes, they run the science, the schools and the press. No one is ever held accountable. "New light shed on Charles Darwin’s

The "One Gene, One Trait" Myth

Image
For many years, it has been taught that our traits are the result of our genes. Did Ellen touch the cleft in your chin after you were putting up the Christmas lights, Sparky? That crease was caused by a gene, they say. Credit: RGBStock / Helmut Gevert Eye and hair color, straight or curled, sizes of various body parts, other things — a gene for each. While this idea is useful to advance the particles-to-paralegal storyline, it is not true. Unfortunately, bad science ideas (especially those that support evolution) tend to remain in textbooks. The truth is much more complicated; Dr. Robert Carter said, "If life were really simple, evolution might be possible"; evolution is increasingly less possible relative to the complexity of life. Several genes are involved in traits and trait expressions, and other factors come into play. Indeed, our Creator likes variety, and he gave us many factors to express our individual characteristics. I taught college level human genetics and was c

Deplatforming Darwin in the Cancel Culture

Image
Of the currently popular movements that this child finds nonsensical, deplatforming  and its ugly brother  cancel culture  are especially baffling. They seem to be a means of punishing people for making statements or having views that are currently unpopular. Why are they not taking shots at Charles Darwin? Assembled and modified from various components, including some at Clker clipart That's right, people who are dead can be punished. Mayhaps it's revenge. In many instances, people just want to destroy. These mindless mooncalves even tore down statues of abolitionists like Frederick Douglass and  Hans Christian Heg . Much of the current hatred is directed toward not only slave owners in the formerly United States, but regarding racism. Why not deplatform and cancel Darwinism? It would be consistent. One big problem is that evolutionary thinking is prominent in the scientific community and academia, and the Marxist groups are actually living out Darwinism ! Evolutionists are

Rules for Radicals and Question Evolution Day

Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Subjects like radical  and Saul Alinsky are not exactly what one would expect for the tenth annual Question Evolution Day , but hopefully this article will be interesting. This is in no wise an endorsement of Alinsky or Rules for Radicals , but there are some things that can be learned. Modified with a graphic from Photos Public Domain The word  radical  is frequently thrown around with little regard to its original meaning. It is quite often used as a pejorative. Nowadays it can have connotations of people with Molotov fire bombs or doing other acts of violence. It is used to label extremist views (making Charles Darwin a radical because his views were not readily accepted at first). The true meanings of radical are quite different, including holding to a  foundation or basic principle .  Saul Alinsky was friendly to communist views and leftist government, but did not seem to promote actual violence. What I read of Rules for Radicals  was interesting and unpre

Cave Paintings and Evolutionary Timelines

Image
As we are coming up on the tenth annual Question Evolution Day , we can hope that some believers in atoms-to anthropologist evolution may begin to realize that the narrative has problems. Consider the news about older cave art than previously known. Credits: Unsplash / Max Saeling , modified with PhotoFunia Out Indonesia way is the island of Sulawesi. Paintings of animals were found there, and secularists gave kinda-sorta-maybe dates that were older than the famous Chauvet (the Ardeche region of France) cave art. There are many facts to consider , and they should give a thinking evolutionist a passel of reasons to ask questions. According to evolutionary timelines and fact-free speculations, intelligence "emerged" eventually after we were done evolving from some apelike critters. Nobody knows when that allegedly happened , nor do they know about the "emergence" or self-awareness or artistic expression. Those scrawls from the Ice Age didn't help their belief sys

When Evolutionists Use the Bible Against Creationists

Image
Biblical creationists are accustomed to being called upon to defend their views when challenged by supporters of universal common descent. Unfortunately, some of these are theistic evolutionists. When these and misotheists saddle up to ride for the Darwin brand, they occasionally try to use Bible against us. Something I have learned and then stated many times is that when choosing to slap leather with an opponent, it is important to learn the other side's views (see " Debate Challenges " for more about this). If one misrepresents the other or does not do proper research, that person is beclowning himself. Atheists and evolutionists do this to biblical (young earth) creationists frequently, but humiliate themselves when facing knowledgeable opponents. One owlhoot in particular, Michael Jones, got his ownself a YouTube channel, and people wanted his challenges to creationists answered. Like other deniers of the truthfulness and authority of the Bible, he misrepresents it.

Brain Development and Faulty Evolutionary Logic

Image
There is a formal logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent . If one condition is shown to be true, then what follows is also true: If it is raining, the grass will be wet. The grass is wet. Therefore, it is raining. Credit:  yodiyim  at FreeDigitalPhotos.net If you noticed in the example, affirming the consequent also leaves out other possibilities such as neighbor kids having a water balloon fight, someone left on the sprinklers, and so on. One more: If it is snowing, it is cold outside. It is cold outside. Therefore, it is snowing. The above error in reasoning was applied in a study of the development of the brains in mice and human babies. Human brains are all wrinkly. Actually, those are folds called convolutions . These give the brain more space in which to perform complex thinking, and critters have less of this folding or none at all. It was discovered that a specific gene that affects this folding is common to both humans and mice. Purveyors of evoporn presupposed evol