Piltdown Superman

Anti-creationists are known for pseudo-intellectual posturing with dysteleology (claiming something was poorly design, so there is no God), but they use false comparisons. Clinton Richard Dawkins and others railed (out of his area of expertise) that the human eye as badly designed, and no amount of science and reason refuting such claims  will be considered by their disciples. They even compare our eyes to those of critters and criticize the Master Engineer. Because atheism. Our eyes were designed for our environment, other eyes were designed for other environments. You savvy that, pilgrim? Whiteleg shrimp image credit: NIH NLM (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The design of shrimp eyes is extremely intricate and irreducibly complex. The eye reflectors are comprised of nanospheres, and those are optimal for reflecting light so these critters can see in low-light conditions. Humans want to indulge in biomimetics to imitate this, but it would be a huge project requirin

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Day in and day out, people are bushwhacked by assumptions of minerals-to-manicurist evolution. It is presupposed by the secular science industry, so all their observations are made wearing Darwin spectacles . From there, the obedient lapdog science press, movies, television, science documentaries, friends and neighbors all talk evolution. Many people are not even aware that creation science exists. Instead of forcing the atheistic naturalism narrative on the observed evidence , biblical creationists seek to honor God and uphold the authority of Scripture. Background image: Unsplash / Angelo Carniato Creation ministries large and small, as well as individuals, try to make their views known. There's a prairie schooner-full of linked articles available, as well as numerous books, videos, and other materials available. Much of this is free. Of course, we must contend with angry atheists (because evolution is foundational to atheism) and fundamentalist evolutionis

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Misotheists have a nasty habit of lying and misrepresenting God, the Bible, creation science, Christians, the Genesis Flood, and Noah's Ark — just to name a few. For the Ark, they may be thinking of the cringeworthy " Bathtub" versions  from children's storybooks. Misotheists also like "memes". In internet usage, they are basically captioned pictures. But atheists are not very good at them because they are irrational and easily dismantled by thinking people. I happened across one that was ridiculing Noah's Ark. Noah's Ark at Answers in Genesis, Unsplash / Elias Null Atheopaths don't want us to argue or debate what we  actually  believe and teach. Rather, they try to have us defend straw men. Indeed, when debating, taking cheap shots or using logical fallacies makes the accuser lose credibility. An informed, skilled debater goes after the strong points of his opponent's view and allows a reasoned response. This is rare

As it is with minerals-to-meteorologist evolution, so it is with global cooling. I mean, global warming. I mean, climate change. Evolutionists and climate alarmists have several things in common: Appeal to consensus Only their  interpretations of evidence permitted Contrary data is ignored or suppressed Driven by atheistic naturalism paradigms Fact-free assertions used to "prove" their assumptions Climate change alarmists such as Extinction Rebellion are using the complex scientific method of being jerks to force political action, such as disrupting Amazon on "Black Friday"  and gluing body parts to objects . Others are irrational as well. Great way to earn respect and a seat at the table with the grown-ups — especially when leftists write incoherent biased "news" to support them. Evolutionists saw fit to saddle up and ride with that gang. As we have seen, the secular science industry is taking up leftist interests , including abortion , demonizing Christ

Although misotheists and evolutionists try to deny it, the writings of Charles Darwin had a profound influence promoting racism . He also had a hand in the machinations of dictators and Communist mass murderers , who obviously felt that evolutionism gave them intellectual fulfillment. This is prominent in the rabble of socialists and communists. We know that Karl Marx was enthusiastic about how the thought Darwin's work showed his ideas in nature, but the influence of Friedrich Engels seems to have been downplayed or even forgotten. In those days, Christians were surrendering science to the secularists and their philosophies based on atheistic naturalism. (For that matter, the so-called Age of Enlightenment that began in the 17th centuray was rooted in rebellion against God and embracing a multitude of atheistic philosophies.) Atheistic materialism and secularism were (and are) of primary importance. On a side note, the family unit was instituted by God . Marxists and neo-Marxists

This is Thanksgiving Day in the formerly United States, and other places around the world have something similar. This kind of thing is mostly done mostly in areas with Christian populations. But have you ever noticed that thankfulness does not seem to be a part of human nature? Gratitude has to be learned. I reckon most of us can relate to giving a child a gift and a parent has to prompt, "Say thank you!" Eventually we learn to express gratitude — especially if it betters our chances of getting more stuff. More importantly, learn  why  we should be thankful. Unsplash / Guillaume de Germain Secularists recognize gifts of our Creator but try to make them into naturalistic responses or will rewrite history (such as the disgusting modification of the Pilgrims gave thanks to the natives , omitting God). Some fools thank the universe, an obvious appeal to pantheism. Others use reification and hate, such as this reaction to a Thanksgiving post (Rom. 1:21): Today is the anniversary

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen There is so much misrepresentation of biblical creation science nowadays, one might be justified in suspecting that prizes were awarded. Misotheists and evolutionists build a straw man, add a heapin' helpin' of ridicule, then commence to laughing about refuting creation science. Not hardly! A popular false accusation is that creationists rely on a God of the gaps  position. This means that when we lack scientific knowledge about a subject, we refer to God to cover those gaps in our understanding. Geierlay Suspension Bridge, Pexels / Sven Huls   There is a substantial amount of hypocrisy in accusing us of using a God of the gaps approach because they have an evolution  or science of the gaps  tenet of faith . This child has pointed out for a long time that people have believed in evolution despite  extreme gaps in knowledge that even Papa Darwin existed (such as the dearth of transitional forms in the fossil record that he hoped would be discovered later )

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Although misotheists are divided on many things, some pretend that they are unified and it is the fault of Christians and creationists for not understanding them. Some time ago, I made a disparaging remark about an atheist's claim that people get morality from evolution. When I mentioned it later, another told me I was being ridiculous because they do not believe such a thing. The telegraph lines must have been down because one or the other did not get the correct message. Atheists frequently get on the prod and seem compelled to contradict anything the st00pid dujmb theist will say — even at the point of denying their own mythology or actual scientific facts for the sake of being disputatious. Trying to have a rational discussion with the average internet atheist is often like trying to teach a pig to sing (it wastes your time and irritates the pig). As a student of presuppositional apologetics , I've learned that the apologists needs to show that the u

By Cowboy Bob Sorensen There are arguments that evolutionists should not use [1] , and a different way to supplement this is how some make false arguments about word choices. Many items will be referenced below, but this child is not endorsing them. Misotheists and other evolutionists feign outrage about the words we use, but those are disingenuous at best. These objections serve as red herrings, distracting from the points being made. In addition, such pretense at offense is often used for straw man arguments, the genetic fallacy , and ad hominem  attacks. Original image: Unsplash / Kimberly Lake They are very angry people, and when they claim to believe in reason and logic, it's often quite difficult to see anti-creationists use such things. Words Cause Discomfort A common malison hurled by promoters of atoms-to-atheist evolution toward creationists is that we use words they dislike. When seeking ammunition against Christians and creationists, anti-creationists are all over thei

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen, edited for clarity 2 November 2021  This material should come in handy — especially the featured article linked below. When defending Darwin, The Mighty Atheist™ online is reflexively confrontational. The content that put a burr under his saddle is not dealt with adequately, however. There are several common tactics that are used in their efforts to dehumanize Christians and creationists. (Do not expect civility from a misotheist, because that indicates you are a person.) Their  ad hominem  attacks involve "Poe's Law", "projection", and the Dunning-Kruger effect. Partially made at ImgFlip , plus a great deal of editing Although many who have Atheism Spectrum Disorder insist that they love science and want extraordinary evidence from creationists (which they promptly ignore), many accept internet parlance when it suits their purposes. We know that ridicule is usually their first course of action. (A newer trick on socialist media is when

Some of the things pointed out previously can be seen continuing to happen, as secularists use what they call science against Christians and creationists. We have seen that opinions and speculations are often falsely presented as facts. Materialists will assert that their atheistic view is "reality", Darwin's disciples often claim that evolution is  science, global climate change caused by humans is "settled science". Christians, scientists, and creationists are demonized in many ways , including as "science deniers" because we oppose faulty science and logic. Unsplash /  Kelly Sikkema The public has a love/hate relationship with science, not really understanding much about it (often viewing it with suspicion), but using "science" as a weapon when convenient (see " Science in Name Only "). If the spectral monolith of Science (as an entity) is invoked as an authority, "Science says...", then something is assumed to be true

Believers in universal common ancestor evolution believe that humans back in the thrilling days of yesteryear were not very bright, what with having recently swung down from the trees and all. To go along with that, misotheists like to use the astronomically stupid remark that the Bible was written by Bronze Age goat herders. That remark embarrassed a professing atheist . Someone told me  illiterate  Bronze Age goat herders wrote the Bible. When I challenged him to explain how illiterate people could write, he conveniently redefined illiterate .  Pixabay /  Jean Louis Tosque Those Stone/Copper/Iron Age designations are a fabrication  for the convenience of evolutionary storytelling. (They may have some use related to economic practices.) The idea that the Bible authors did not know about iron is spread by sidewinders who have no knowledge of the Bible, and probably have no desire to understand or discuss it accurately. It's unthinkable that we were created by almighty God, and inte

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Many years ago, I asked someone to criticize an article I had written. He replied, "No, but I will critique it." Then I learned that criticize has a connotation of negativity, but a critique can be positive and constructive . The term constructive criticism  is often mere criticism and not constructive. While a critique is most commonly known for art and literature, it is also useful when discussing science and writing papers. Critiques help determine if claims are supported or where the material is lacking. Creationists critique evolutionary material. Pexels / fauxels (seriously?), modified with FotoSketcher In my article on debate challenges , I emphasized some things learned from Dr. James R. White. In a true  debate, there is structure and some amount of graciousness. Debaters work on the material presented instead of taking cheap shots at the people. (I'll allow that it's very difficult to remain clinical when discussing deceivers and v

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  A great deal of noise was heard all through Deception Pass, and was even noticed all the way down to Stinking Lake. The hands at the Darwin Ranch were celebrating, and foreman Rusty Swingset even bought both fire water and cheese curls. This was in response to the news that people in the formerly United States embrace evolution. (At least, to some extent.) The question in a survey to which they responded was a mite disingenuous. Efforts at indoctrination were having the desired results. It seems to this child that there would be more of a push to get people educated in science, mathematics, and basic reading skills, since our academic achievements in those areas would satisfy the Greek philosopher Mediocrates . Also, was there a concerted effort to convince people to believe in actual, demonstrable science facts? Not hardly! No, it is more important to get people to believe in fish-to-fool evolution. The primary worldview in the secular science industry is mate