Piltdown Superman

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

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? If evolution were a "proven scientific fact", it could successfully slap leather with all challengers. Helpful hint: Science does not prove anything, only disproves. Hypotheses, theories, even laws stand until even one contrary piece of evidence brings them down. That is falsifiability . I gave Charlie a floral wreath at PhotoFunia . It's quite fitting. 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,

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

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  The content of this post (and especially in the featured article below) is  both important and disturbing , so be forewarned on both counts. People want to believe they are special, and the Nazis used evolutionism, bad science, and propaganda to "prove" the Aryan "race" was superior. Background image furnished by  Why?Outreach An honest examination of evolutionary thinking reveals that it has spawned many evils, including: Medical malpractice such as  "junk" DNA  and  "vestigial" structures Communism Scientific Racism It played a major factor in  World War I Eugenics Abortion Nazi racist policies , which were not limited to the Jews,  but also Gypsies  and others As we have seen many times, many adherents of the  Darwin Death Cult® are not driven by evidence, but instead are trying to promote the atheistic naturalism narrative . (If evolutionists were indeed following the evidence, they would all be biblical creationists!

Sometimes it get baffling how people persist in believing universal common descent evolution, what with all the bad science, frauds, and all. Then I remember that such pedagese exists because naturalists will believe anything rather than allow a Divine foot in the door . Consider crocodiles and punctuated equilibrium. Modified from an image at Pexels / Rutpratheep Nilpechr It's been "the trade secret of paleontology" that there are no undisputed transitional fossils. (In fact, many putative transitional forms were simply different genders, adults, juveniles, variations of the same critter.) Since Papa Darwin knew that the fossils did not support his views, he took it by faith that they would be found someday (which is not science in the least). Since there is no actual evidence for evolution, what's a Darwin devotee to do? Trade one story without evidence for another tall tale, of course! Otto Schindewolf proposed that evolution happened in bursts, so that's why

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen When the possibility that evolution is a religion comes up for discussion, the hands at the Darwin Ranch get down on all fours, arch their backs, and hiss. Their anger and resentment are not motivated by reality. Thanks to Why?Outreach for the background image If you want to get those owlhoots really upset and watch the hair on the backs of their necks bristle, mention that evolutionism is a religion in the same way as atheism . Misotheists and Darwin's disciples are correct when they point out that neither atheism nor evolution worship a deity, but they conveniently deny only the first definition of religion and pretend the others do not exist. There are non-theistic religions, including forms of Buddhism, Charvaka Hinduism (very close to Epicureanism, whose followers were debated by Paul the Apostle in Acts 17:22-31), and formal Satanic religions believe in a force, not a person. Indeed, the Jedi religion believes in the Force, which is a farce. One can pa

Way back when Charles Robert Darwin was popularizing his version of evolution, he admitted that a problem with his "tree of life" idea was the scarcity of transitional forms. He had faith that maybe someday these would be found. Then there was the insurmountable problem of the Cambrian explosion... By blind faith, evolutionists claim to have many transitional forms. These are disputed, and even the word  transitional  has been the subject of obfuscation. In Darwin's time, the Cambrian was known as the Silurian age. Instead of the orderly progression of fossils indicating simpler to more complex life forms, the Cambrian layer had complex life forms exploding on the scene without any signs of transitional forms.  The fossil record is contrary to the evolutionary tree of life, and evolution's defenders have contrived many rescuing devices. For example, if creatures were considered extinct but later found doing right well, or have remained unchanged over the vast amount o

Not only did Papa Darwin  plagiarize other people and hijack Edward Blyth 's idea of natural selection in his presentation of evolution, but he also tinkered with the formation of atolls, which was based in incomplete science. It is malarkey, but still taught to students. Palmyra Atoll, NOAA photo by Erin Looney Secular science indoctrination centers (schools) are famous for providing false and outdated information regarding evidence for evolution and the age of the earth. Indeed, they use fraud . (This is "education".) We've covered Haeckel's drawings that are used to support both abortion and evolution already, and the Miller-Urey experiment has been thoroughly refuted. Darwin's ideas on atoll formation is known to be junk science, but that and the others are still in the textbooks. Maybe it's because it makes secularists feel good, and they need to make the books bigger? Darwin investigated other questions than evolution, such as the nature of barnacl

When I first saw the material that is linked below, I was not exactly enthusiastic. While I do have some interest in history, I was not all that interested in the history of France. I was glad I paid attention, however, because we can follow the connections and see the impact it has for us today. Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann It has been said that no movement occurs in a vacuum or because of a single incident. We can follow the origins of various events of history. The Russian Revolution of 1917 didn't begin with Lenin, evolution was an ancient religion before Erasmus and then Charles Darwin picked it up, the American civil rights movement did not being with the staged Rosa Parks incident , and so on. Evolution and deep time are entrenched in civilizations. The British were influenced by the French (but downplayed that for the sake of national pride), and the French were influenced by paganism and the so-called Enlightenment (read: rejecting the Creator and the authorit

Years ago, I remember a cat having a great time with catnip. While she was getting a buzz, sirens began sounding outside. She looked out the window, so I did what I call a "voice over" impression of Tommy Chong, "They're coming after my stash, man!" Darwin's disciples seem to have a narcotic of their own. Our departed, beloved Basement Cat grooving on the nip Catnip affects many cats and does not cause addiction. The only minor hazard is if they eat too much , then they give it back to the carpet. So, don't overdo it. Pay attention to evolutionists who talk about natural selection (Darwin's corrupted version, not real natural selection). It seems to this child that they get high, have irrational thinking processes, and get addicted. They need to seek therapy in the truth of creation and the Word of the Creator. Slapping the word evolution  on something seems to give it extra credibility in the secular science industry, and Darwinian

It is well known that Charles Darwin had racist views which in turn exacerbated so-called scientific racism through evolutionism. What may be less known is that Darwin also promoted his view that women are evolutionarily inferior to men, which influenced scientific communities. A Man and a Woman Seated by a Virginal [an instrument in the harpsichord family], Gabriel Metsu, 1660  Some people may think that such observations are ad hominem  attacks on Darwin and are irrelevant (some even excused him because he was "a product of his times"), but they are quite relevant. His views influenced his doctrines, which in turn had impact on many scientists through the years. These were based on presuppositions of evolution and the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™. There was no scientific, observational, or experimental data. Just beliefs that women were inferior because evolution . Not hardly! Perhaps the facts this his own family tree had inbreeding and that

We have probably seen lichens in many places in various forms, but tend to pay them no nevermind. Some resemble houseplants, but they are far more complex and have baffled scientists for many years. They are actually different organisms that comprise individual entities. Wolf lichen image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Jason Hollinger ( CC by-SA 3.0 ) In the television show Stargate SG-1 , there was a complicated storyline involving Symbiotes , creatures that had humans as hosts but also gave them strength and healing. However, these things were wicked and took over the hosts' personalities. This is similar to a view that the symbiotic relationship between fungi and algae consisted of the fungus dominating the algae. This is not the case. Despite the view of Darwin and his followers that organisms competed, there are many living things in symbiotic relationships — all the way to the beneficial microorganisms living on and in each of us. Lichens not only show symbiosis, but th

This title may be alarming to some creationists and startling to believers in scum-to-skeptic evolution, but things should be clarified if you stay with me. Like any other science, creation science has had some errors and had to deal with misconceptions from opponents. Credit: Good Free Photos When creationist Carl Linnaeus developed his classification system, may creationists believed in what is sometimes called the "fixity of species". There are evolutionists who think that's what creationists believe, but they obviously are using extremely outdated material. Modern creationists know that natural selection, speciation, and variations are a part of God's design. I have encountered uninformed creationists who hold to that view. Perhaps they believe that admitting natural selection exists is a compromise in favor of evolution. That is understandable to some extent because Papa Darwin hijacked a legitimate concept and redefined it for his own ends. Unfortunat

Out yonder past Deception Pass, the hands at the Darwin Ranch are frantically attempting to find evidence for evolution. One owlhoot named Lee Berger has had several discoveries that have been interesting in and of themselves. Unfortunately for evolutionists, he keeps giving them dead-end candidates. Image before text: The Angry One by Ferdinand Hodler Naturally, the media for the secular science industry got the bit in their teeth and ran with the latest story that human evolution's tree would be "shaken up". We've heard that song and dance before. While I detest the genetic fallacy (where something is rejected simply because of the source), there are times when someone's track record can give someone reasons to hesitate in accepting information. Berger (as is common with evolutionists) seems to neglect that some of the variations bones and fossils can be the results of fragment mixing, diseases or conditions, devolution, and other factors that can false

At first glance, this may look like a repeat of the recent post on research at Harvard supporting an Institute for Creation Research model of environmental adaptation. Actually, this is new information involving living cells. An interesting study on yeast cells was conducted to see if they had built-in mechanisms for gene expression. Credit: Pixabay / ractapopulous Engineers design things to respond to changes. This includes sensors and logic involving feedback to trigger responses. Darwin believed that organisms change because of their environments, but the ICR model states (and demonstrates) that the opposite is true: organisms were designed by their Creator to sense and respond to environmental changes. Yeast cells displayed "control theory" that engineers use, further confirming the creation science model. New research goes a long way in explaining how creatures actively sense their environment and adapt to it. One mechanism enables some organisms to track the ch

There is a song that says words sometimes have two meanings, but that is an understatement. We can be led the wrong way by erroneous assumptions about word definitions . Creation science ministries try to encourage people to learn how to think, in stark contrast to secularists who try to tell people what to think. With a bit of study, we can learn how to understand the malarkey of Darwinese. There are two posts featured here to emphasize the point. Modified from an image at FreeDigitalPhotos.net by Stuart Miles Although the Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ is useful if you can find one (the version with the whistle in it is a very expensive collectable), we really need to put our hearts and minds into interpreting Darwinese.  Watch for maybe, scientists believe, earlier than we thought, perhaps, and other words that the secular establishments pass of as "science" instead of earning their pay. Another big help is learning to spot basic logical fallacies . On

Since evolutionism is pantheistic in nature, we should not be surprised then its adherents appeal to animism regarding the origin of life or the usual "forces" and "evolutionary pressures" in their imagined explanations. If you ponder it a spell, evolution seems like magic more than science. Background image credit: Pixabay / Kai Kalhh Papa Darwin bushwhacked creationist Edward Blyth and stole his concept of natural selection , then then turned it upside down. Instead of culling the unfit and preserving the best members of a species, Darwin imagined it as a creative force. It was largely abandoned, but neo-Darwinism conjures up new life forms through mutations and natural selection. Like magic. via GIPHY Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ will use evolution to "explain" anything, even when phenomena are contradictory. If something explains everything, it really explains nothing, old son. The late Philip Skell was an evolutionist, and he had proble

Evolution is not supported by the evidence. Clam eyes have it, motion carried. Well, it seemed funny when I wrote it. Or were you unaware that those things on the beach and in the water that have hard shells have eyes? Supposedly simple organisms have simple eyes according to Darwinian mythology. Nope. Credit: RGBStock /  K Rayker The Master Engineer has surprised scientists with the specified complexity of eyes, even with clams, scallops, and such. Their eyes are very different from ours. Although their pupils expand and contract like ours, the light hits them in a different way. The retina is between the lens of the retina. Evolutionists all the way back to the Bearded Buddha thought that their eyes were simple, but they actually support special creation and defy evolution. Aside for the problems noted above falsifying Darwin’s rationalization, we now know that so-called simple eyes are not at all simple, but in some ways are more complex than the so-called highest, most evo