Piltdown Superman

When dealing with professing atheists, many make the claim that they can be "good without God." Misotheists can live apparently moral lives for the most part, but they tend to make exceptions for personal benefit. And they cannot explain their foundations. Laws? Laws change. Evolution? Not hardly ! Some atheists accuse creationists of lying about evolution (a ludicrous charge*), but they cannot coherently explain why , if such a charge were true, lying would be wrong in an atheistic worldview! There have been several attempts in secular philosophy to pin down morality without God. Broken foundation, RGBStock / Adrian van Leen Various secular frameworks have been proposed for morality, but they have internal inconsistencies. Some are arbitrary, so good and evil are based on following a set of rules that are incomplete in dealing with human experiences. Some appeal to higher standards outside themselves — when an atheist says that lying about evolution is wrong, they are appeal

Spend some time with atom-to-atheist evolution material, and you will invariably encounter drawings or other renderings of trees of life. Charles Darwin had an "I think" tree of life where all living things can be traced to a universal common ancestor. It makes sense that modifications in the tree of life concept would be made as evolutionary concepts evolved. However, there are many of them because there is little agreement; they do not work. Clinton Richard Dawkins tried his hand at making predictions with them. Burning down Darwin's tree of life, unmodified version is at Wikimedia Commons Dr. Dawkins made predictions based on two common ToL versions. One tree is based on the science of genetics that was pioneered by creationist Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him). Another uses physical characteristics. The trees do not coincide very well. Dawkins made a prediction for both design and for evolution. Since there's a huge amount of genetic data now available, his predict

Recently, there was an infestation of fundamentalist evolutionists at The Question Evolution Project on Facebook who were outraged — outraged , I tell you — about " Evolutionists Deny Evidence to make Darwin Smile ." Deal with the post? Nope. Their reactions indicated that it was threatening to their worldview. They used ad hominem s , red herrings, tu quoque , equivocation on both evolution with science  and modification with evolution . There are also arbitrary assertions and ignorance of evolutionary mythology. Darwin's internet disciples, just like the brass in the secular science industry, have an a priori  commitment to materialism. Straw man Noah and the Ark* Of course, they utilized one of the most common attacks of their kind, the straw man fallacy. Misotheists and other anti-creationists demonstrate that they are unwilling to learn what we actually believe and teach. Secularists criticize creation science from their  sources, their  perspectives and opinions,

When dealing with Darwin's disciples on teh interwebz, most are professing atheists who say they are driven by reason , not faith. When informed that atheism is a religion and that evolution has also become a religion , they become incensed. Some say that religious people want to atheists like them. Huh? I had a couple of trolling raids on social(ist) media that were saturated with fallacies and disingenuous questions. "Creation 'science' 🤣" ... "The human eye proves evolution" ... "Lucy is a human ancestor," and more. They ignored or rejected evidence that people presented. Summoning the Spirit of Darwin, made at PhotoFunia When on their secular jihads, these owlhoots are confirming that they do indeed have faith. Evolution cannot even be questioned. Sure, the minutiae, but not the "fact" of universal common ancestry — even though there are secular scientists who doubt evolution . "Where do fanatical evolutionists get their id

Christians who have spent any time in forums, on social(ist) media, and even in person defending the faith have encounterd professing atheists who play word games. We are commanded to spread the faith (Matt. 28:18-20, Acts 1:8) and to defend it (Jude 1:3, 1 Peter 3:15, Eph. 6:10-12). There are many times that misotheists are not asking honest questions, and we can see that they are dealing from the bottom of the deck, so we  should walk away . Having a basic knowledge of logical fallacies is extremely useful, as many of their challenges are trash. Image by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Ever notice that atheists cannot take a good-natured joke but have no qualms about firing off caustic humor about Christians? But I digress — sort of. Straw man arguments, often including personal attacks and statements railing against Christianity, are common. Others and I have countered some of these "arguments" with facts. Challengers often lie further (it's a lie when the truth is known and igno

Several months ago, we examined how the Dunning-Kruger effect, frequent fodder for anti-Christian and anti-creationist remarks, has been debunked . You know the routine: A Christian makes a statement of fact and atheopaths talk to each other as if the Christian was not seeing it, saying he is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Or it is a direct insult. People who do this are not citing science. (More like they got it from the seventh planet.) The D-K effect took another hit. This time, from mathematics. Partially made at ImgFlip , plus a great deal of editing The key point for Dunning and Kruger was that people don't know that they don't know. This came from a use of statistics. In that peer-reviewed paper, those fellas did it wrong. Now it is refuted three ways. Something this child has enjoyed is showing misotheists who think they are smarter than they really are is that they are using an ad hominem  from fake science. It also illustrates how atheists and evolutionists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Something that keeps getting slipped over the transom in my study is news about Dr. James Tour. He is a professor of several things including chemistry at Rice University, and friendly with the Discovery Institute, an Intelligent Design organization. He makes Darwin sad by refuting claims of materialists on the origin of life. No, I refuse to accept the claims of Darwin's acolytes on social(ist) media and elsewhere that the OoL has nothing to do with evolution, as that has been handily refuted many times over. Background image by Cowboy Bob Sorensen , photos from James Tour's YouTube post, then modified* Dave Farina considers himself an educator on science topic and has made good use of the popularity of YouTube. His channel is Professor Dave Explains . (People call themselves whatever they want, but in science and academia, claiming titles like doctor or professor is akin to stolen valor in the military .) Like other atheists, he presupposes a materiali

Although they keep it under wraps, the hands at the Darwin Ranch have worship services. Sebastian the latrine digger was talking about new prayer candles on order and select writings from Charles Darwin would be printed up in smaller volumes as gospels. Study on it a spell. Everyone has a worldview. Evolution is religious in nature, with not only the origins mythology, but also salvation and the coming glorious future. They presuppose atheistic naturalism in a way similar to Christians presupposing the truth of the Bible. Evangelism photo Library of Congress , 1939, colorized at Palette , monkey photobomb added  As stated in previous posts and articles, people have their worldviews that use presuppositions. We all interpret things through those lenses. Professing atheists often lean toward Postmodernism , saying there is no absolute truth or moral standard. When atheists assert things are right or wrong, or want to use evolutionary thinking for good in the world, they are inadvertently

There is no need for religion since we are moderun people, so it has no valid explanatory power. At least, that is the view of atheistic naturalists They suppress the truth of God (Rom. 1:18-23) and disparage a wrong definition of Christian faith. But they have their own faith. They turn science into the secular religion of Scientism , and descent with modifications evolution is a primary dogma. Secularists use religious trappings and even corrupt ideals they stole from Christianity. This is easily seen in evolutionary psychology . Creepy AI-generated Charles Darwin as a psychiatrist, made at Simplified Evolutionary game theory answers questions and solves problems, they think, so cooperation evolved. How do they know? Is that a good thing? Evolutionists also try to evaluate happiness, which is...truly bizarre since happiness is subjective. Joy in serving the Lord would probably short-circuit their minds. Another weird thing is to use weak thinking to say that the alleged self-domestic

People are inclined to feel awe over many disparate things including music, expanses of nature, great buildings, and so on. Sometimes it can be overwhelming; I have been moved to tears by great classical pianists seeming to become one with a concerto — and showing joy in the process. People in groups seem to share a sense of unity when experiencing something awesome. Atheists may try to deny awe because it seems religious, but they feel it too. Indeed, many places in the Bible tell of people overwhelmed with awe when shown the glory of God. It seems that we are born that way. Bridal Veil Falls, Waikato, New Zealand, Flickr / Adam Campbell ( CC BY-ND 2.0 ) The concept of awe has been difficult for scientists to define. They try to study it, but it is an intangible part of humanity like consciousness or the soul . (You don't see our alleged evolutionary cousins the apes staring at the night sky in awe — it is uniquely human , and we were created to have it.) But it is human nature

Misotheists and other evolutionists frequently use dysteleology arguments, which basically mean that they think something was the product of bad design, therefore, no Creator. The human eye  and the panda's thumb  are two of their favorites. Not too long ago, we considered similar claims about knee joints . This time we go a mite lower and dispense with bad design arguments about the human foot and ankle. Like knees, feet and ankles give us problems. The Master Engineer cannot be blamed when people do not use them in keeping with their design. Feet and ankles, Unsplash / Jan Romero Professor Nathan Lents wanted to slap leather with creationists and Intelligent Design proponents (and possibly to bolster the faith of fundamentalist evolutionists). Like other evolutionists, he apparently argued from ignorance instead of knowledge of the subjects he discussed. Lentz wrote a book about the things that are supposedly products of evolution, no designer need apply. It did not go well. Befo

Apologists have often encountered people who claim to have lost, or are losing, their faith. One problem is that they are willing to accept the authority of skeptics, so they do not do their homework. This child has seen many instances when someone will claim that they could not get answers to their questions, but they are complaining online , where answers are available — if they sincerely want them. People who are not grounded in the faith should not spend time interacting with or reading material by scoffers. Resurrection, Empty tomb  RGBStock / Alex Bruda Skeptics today are scoffers, unwilling to accept answers, or even consider than answers exist. They corrupt those who are weak in the faith and drag them down. Atheists are good at posturing and ridicule. Those who are weak in the faith may be afraid that if they get misotheists on the prod, they will say mean things to or about them. What they experience is nothing in comparison with what Jesus went through. That's worth thin

When people have mental health difficulties, it is often recommended that they see a psychologist. The largely discredited Sigmund Freud probably comes to mind, but there are many versions of psychology. They are all wrong. Talking to a therapist may help and whatever medication cocktail that is prescribed may benefit (even though they do not really know how those medicines work). Pretty much all kinds of psychology are based on atheistic materialism. The worst of the lot is evolutionary psychology . Psychologist, Pexels / Alex Green Give it some thought. They believe there is no God and presuppose evolution, then try to justify their malarky by building on a faulty foundation. Their philosophies and conjectures are fraught with contradictions. Do you want to trust you mental health to someone who believes in luck but has a nihilistic outlook on life? No Creator, no hope, no final justice or rewards, no joy. Some of the newest ideas are...truly bizarre. One tinhorn thinks that psychop

A spell back, we discussed how the Huxley family was promoting Charles Darwin's myth of origins by developing conspiracies , but they wanted to keep up appearances in Victorian England. Looking proper was important in that era, perhaps more so than it is today. One reason is that they wanted to promote evolution, but did not want their activities to besmirch Papa Darwin. What was under the surface did not remain hidden much longer. For many atheists, Darwin is a sacred character. Satire, irreverence, and the truth about him are not to be tolerated. Some folks in the secular science industry are iconoclasts, willing to pull his statue off the pedestal and be straightforward about him. In addition, the extreme immorality of the Huxleys (who were some of Darwin's biggest supporters, remember) are shown as bearing bitter fruit. It is worth considering that evolution is the necessary creation myth for those who deny God. It is not just an intellectual choice (since the evidence for

Back in 2013, an article in Psychology Today  portrayed atheists in a positive way. There was an undercurrent of victimhood where these nice folks just want to go about their business and just happen to disbelieve in God and the supernatural. They do not bother others. One problem atheists have is that those who are not so militant read and hear the propaganda from angry misotheists. That would explain how a co-worker reluctantly told me that she is an atheist, acting like she expected some kind of personal attack. It is the professing atheists who are on the prod . Although they portray themselves as moved by science, evidence, and reason, very few show skill in those areas. It is interesting that a discussion can be civil until evolution is not shown reverence. Then the fangs and claws come out because atoms-to-atheist evolution is foundational to their worldview. After all, they need a creation myth to go with their belief that reason brings some kind of salvation. Take a warning fr

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Materialists dominate the media with naturalistic propaganda for atoms-to-atheist evolution. Not only that, internet atheists try to bushwhack Christians and creationists, demanding equal time on our sites, social(ist) media, and so on — but not extending the same courtesy to us. Secularists have their peer-reviewed scientific journals, but biblical creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are not allowed to present scientific information for their views in them. It may be baffling to some creationists looking on that we present their own words instead of shunning them. What  is the deal ? Christians cannot hide or shield their children indefinitely from atheism and evolution. Instead, we must face it and learn how to properly deal with it. I'll allow that arguing with atheists is a difficult thing, and there are several reasons. One is that many professing Christians are woefully uninformed of what the Bible teaches, nor do they know what and why  they

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen From the standpoint of producing evidence for what they teach, biblical creationists can be baffled by the resistance displayed by anti-creationists. Some tinhorns claim that we never produce evidence — making such insipid claims on posts such as " Overview of Geologic Evidence of the Flood !" Material exposing evolutionary fraud and bad science is ignored or waved away. In literally thousands of books, articles, videos and such, Creationists and Intelligent design proponents have discussed how evidence for design is abundant. Instead of intelligently discussing interpretations of evidence, atheists and evolutionists go beyond insults and attempt to dehumanize us . Red-bellied woodpecker, Unsplash / Joshua J. Cotten When misotheists attempt to dehumanize us, it shuts down rational discourse. It also indicates fear on their part. Can't be letting evidence for design get wide circulation, nosiree! That's bad medicine for atheism. Further, what doe