Piltdown Superman

Charlie Darwin believed evolution by blind faith. His followers past and present accept it despite lack of strong evidence, hoping that their beliefs would be justified later. That is the opposite of science, old son. They have problems with living fossils that, in and of themselves, falsify evolution. Living fossils are creatures that were thought to be extinct but later found doing well, or that have gone mostly unchanged over alleged millions of years, such as sea lilies and feather stars. Darwin knew about them . Now someone is stepping up to evosplain the problem away. Sea lily (crinoid), Wikimedia Commons / Alexander Vasenin ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) People who know evolutionary concepts can see through attempts at rescuing Papa Darwin. F'rinstance, evolution is presented as almost an irrevocable force in nature; things must  evolve over millions of years. There are "evolutionary pressures" that force them to change — except when they do not  change, and that is called stas

People who study origins and evolution have heard of Darwin's Abominable Mystery. Like the irreducibly complex eye was a serious problem for Darwin  (yet he still believed in gradual evolution anyway), the fact that flowering plants appear in the fossil record too soon was another problem for him. Neither was resolved. Evolutionists are prone to lying to con people to accept evolution, and they did so a spell back about DAM . This time, however, they are honest about the inescapable conclusion (based on their systems) that flowering plants existed millions of years sooner than they previously thought. Phylica pubescens , WikiComm  Marco Schmidt ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Something that adds to their problem is that a flower found in amber is a Phylicia, which is basically identical to its living counterparts. It did not see fit to evolve after being subjected to "evolutionary pressures" through all those alleged millions of years. In addition, there should be a chain reaction in e

Lisa Myworries, the supervisor of the Winkie Guards at the Darwin Ranch, was rather subdued when I bumped into her (almost literally) at the store in town. She noticed the mood at the ranch and how they go from thrilled to somber. This time is the latter. Charlie's cheerleaders are happy to be told Just-So Stories and unleash the flying monkeys on those of us who are unwilling to be satisfied with the unscientific statement " it evolved ." It has been documented that there are secular scientists who have the audacity — the unmitigated gall  — to doubt Darwin. Pond, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen  (cropped) That number is growing. A couple of people published a paper on problems with gradual evolution. "Survival of the fittest" oversimplifies things, and still fails to explain how complicated structures came into being in the first place. Something I have noticed, and Calvin Smith discussed quite well in " Science or Philosophy? ", is that people believ

A few days back, I was talking with Trevor "Red" Schnapper about how the hands at the Darwin Ranch are flighty about birds. Red told me about some new Just-So Stories. Evolutionists are usually unable to break out of their framework so they can conduct real science. Charles Darwin had his idea about a Tree of Life with everything developing from simpler life forms and branching out. That concept is just plain wrong , and some evolutionists are rejecting it. Several examples of the useless Tree of Life come from studying birds. Hoatzin, Flickr / Carine06 ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) That punk-rock chicken called the hoatzin, down South America way, wreaks havoc with Darwin's Tree. Like the platypus, it cannot be successfully classified and has long been a problem for evolutionists . Place it on one branch of the Tree and it clumsily (they're not good flyers) moves to another one. Evolutionists also cannot determine how it reached its current living quarters. Another weird tale is

Since evolutionists have a tendency to move the goalposts by changing dates and other trickery, it is a rare thing for them to admit that they have wrong ideas. Some failed icons linger quite a while (such as Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings ), others that have been are quietly ignored. Charles Darwin's Tree of Life has been used for over 160 years, but it appears to have been rapidly losing favor over the years. There are numerous variations that are presented. In fact, some evolutionists reject them completely. Kill it with fire! The unmodified Tree of Life image is here . Those who read the previous post (" The Mostly-Complete Fossil Record ") and followed the link to the article featured therein (do people still use that word?) will have noticed a reference to the Tree of Life. It also mentioned that the creation orchard of life is a better explanation for what is observed in the real world. Of course, fundamentalist evolutionists reject the creation orchard,

Dreadful reasoning under the pretense of science is not a new phenomenon, having been a problem for many years. A glaring example that is often overlooked is how when the Bearded Buddha wrote Origin of Species , he presented his theory and admitted that fossil evidence did not support it. He did not admit that his conjectures were wrong. He blamed  the fossil record . In addition, his disciples continued to have faith that evidence would be found. That is the opposite of science, old son. The Fossil Record, made at PhotoFunia using a photo by  Alejandro Quintanar at Pexels The owlhoots who believe in the General Theory of Evolution are working from their worldview to interpret data. Fine, everyone does that. But they have a tendency to try and force the data into their paradigm and blame the fossil record for being "incomplete" when their speculations fall flat. It's not working, Wilberforce. Some evolutionists are willing to play the cards they've been dealt to so

Although he opposed slavery, Charles Darwin was a racist. His disciples become infuriated with us when we point out this fact and cry, "That is an ad hominem! " While it is indeed about the man, it is not fallacious. His racist views were instrumental to his version of evolution. Darwin considered black people and others to belong to less-evolved inferior races. Eventually, those "races" would be replaced by civilized man — white people. (This child wonders if the best white people were the Victorian English.) This exacerbated racism and formed "scientific racism." Tops Friendly Market, Flickr / Nicholas Eckhart  ( CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ) The way mainstream media refer to white supremacists, neo-Nazis, etc., make it sound like there are quite a few of them. I have never met any. Yes, I've met racists but not the hardcore types, and turned down connection requests on social(ist) media for white supremacists. The Buffalo shooter on 14 May 2022 was racially mot

When creationists point out that Charles Darwin was a racist , atheopaths are quick to circle the wagons and cry, "That is an ad hominem !" The more intellectual evolutionists simply try to distance themselves. Darwin's views on women as inferior to men should also be troubling. Neither his racism nor his misogyny are simple mud slinging. They illustrate the views that were prominent in his evolutionary conjectures, and how they affected science and society afterward. He based his opinion of women on the myth he devised. Emma Wedgewood Darwin was Chuck's wife and first cousin According to Chuck's evoporn, women are intellectually inferior to men, and have smaller brains. When the smaller brains thing is true, it should not be surprising because women usually have smaller frames than men. Also, the idea of brain size as a measure of intelligence has been refuted for many years. "But Cowboy Bob, Darwin's racism and sexism are just because he's the produ

When votaries in Evolutionism accuse biblical creationists of lying about evolution, they are unable to back up their claims. As I have said numerous times before, disagreements, errors, jokes, disliking facts and so forth — those are not lies. But lies are fine when promoting evolution. Charles Robert Darwin as a great scientist, even though he had no formal scientific training. (His only degree was in theology.) While he made many observations and took copious notes, his science skills were lacking. In his third major book, his integrity was conspicuously absent. When one makes charges of lying or fraud, extreme caution is necessary and the facts must support the accuser. Darwin presupposed evolution when writing about expressions in animals. Our "closest relatives" have far fewer muscles for facial expressions than humans, but he used animals as a basis for expressions in humans anyway. It did not go well. The expression "pictures don't lie" is definitely unt

On Question Evolution Day , I had some greenish soup that I called "Darwin's warm little pond." Darwin speculated to a hooker — "That was Joseph Hooker, Cowboy Bob. Pay attention!" Oh, right. He thought maybe life came from a warm little pond. Some evolutionists think it is the likely scenario for the OoL, other have far different ideas. One of the big lies from Darwin's disciples is that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, but that is repeatedly shown to be false. Made at Redkid What is probably the main reason OoL is disassociated from evolution is that it cannot happen by itself , and defies many facts of science. What is probably the main reason naturalists distance themselves from the abiogenesis problem is that the logical conclusion is our Creator made it happen. (Ironically, one term for the OoL is chemical evolution .) Instead, many evolutionists want everyone to spot them that insurmountable problem so they can commence to dealing from th

Although evolutionists try to distance themselves from their racist past, it has been a serious problem since the Bearded Buddha published his tomes. Not all of the public has been fooled by denials of evolution supports. Elements of racism in evolutionary studies are found even today. An area that could be severely damaged is forensic anthropology. (The television show Bones was loosely based on a real forensic anthropologist, portrayed by Emily Deschanel.) Forensic anthropology can be used to determine a victim's race. Skeletons in the' Boat Houses', Herculaneum, Flickr / Big Albert (Public Domain) If enough material is present, forensic anthropologists can determine with a high degree of accuracy the size, sex, and other details regarding the victim. This is where we clarify something: God created only one race. There are no "races", but the term is used as a convenience despite its flawed evolutionary background. More realistically (and biblically), there ar

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

Science is supposed to be about searching for knowledge, which includes forming ideas and testing them to see if they work. The process should thrive on examination and challenges. Unfortunately, the narrative of atheistic naturalism is more important than knowledge. Many of Darwin's disciples consider evolution a "fact" and "settled science". I am once again asking evolutionists why they need dishonesty, fraud, omission of pertinent data, and outright suppression of contrary views supporting this alleged fact. That is not the true spirit of science. Modified from an image furnished by Why?Outreach Charles Darwin knew that his theory had numerous flaws, but didn't want a bunch of sycophants propping up the thing. He wanted challenges and impartial discussion. Of course, he expected to prevail and make our Creator irrelevant despite the lack of evidence supporting his conjectures. One attempt at putting forward a rational view was shut down as "fake scie

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Recently, I was surprised by a weblog article, " Now creationists are white supremacists. Wait, what? " That really takes the rag off the bush ! I commenced to gathering thoughts so I could use it as a springboard, but then asked my contacts at Creation Ministries International , who replied that they were going to respond. Here we go. There are several instances where " Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy " by Allison Hopper agitated so many people — in addition to its glaring stupidity.  Scientific American  is known for anti-creationist hit pieces, and they let this opinion thing fly without checking the facts. Background image credit: Pixabay /  Beate Bachmann This amazing new offal is reminiscent of the  Paul Braterman attack on Ken Ham and creation science in general  — which also was allowed to post despite glaring falsehoods. This is much worse, and since Scientific American  and Hopper are not dry gulching an individual

It seems that anyone who has seen pictures of nature knows about the giraffe, what with the spots, iconic neck, and those knobby things on their heads. They may look cute, but their kicks can kill lions. Those necks are heavy and muscular, and they use them for fighting each other. Best keep your distance. Of course, the long neck is the giraffe's most famous feature. Lamarck told a just-so story that involved giraffes stretching for food up high, then this was passed on to succeeding generations. (For some reason, this technique never worked for other critters.) Then Charles Darwin made the long neck origin story better because he was the wisest and most brilliant scientist who ever lived. Credit: Freeimages /  Leslie van Veenhuyzen Neither Lamarck nor the Bearded Buddha gave satisfactory answers, and even raised other questions by their speculations that could not be sufficiently answered. Darwin's disciples try to tell us that giraffes have seven neck vertebrae , so do other

Back in 1859, Charles Darwin gave the world his hijacked view of natural selection in  Origin of Species . It was in 1874 where he called his proposal evolution  and made his racist views known in Descent of Man . The second part of the latter book's title is  Selection in Relation to Sex . Essentially, he said that the good-looking males get the female mates. He did not say how  beauty and the female's ability to choose a handsome mate arose, and admitted that his sexual selection idea had problems from the beginning. Courtship  / Edmund Blair Leighton, 1903 People who know about societies and culture should question this principle, as it doesn't make sense even on the surface. Despite stories of romance, women do not tend to select the handsomest gent for marriage (I'm a prime example). Appearance is not the most important of criteria, which also include personality, humor, financial prospects, and more. Nor are women in charge, since men are involved in choosing some

After Darwin's idea of evolution through natural selection grew in popularity, it began to fade in the early twentieth century. Katie, bar the door! Gotta keep that ancient pagan philosophy dressed up in a lab coat going so there is an excuse for denying the truth of the Creator! The science of genetics, pioneered by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him) was added, yielding neo-Darwinism. Skipping forward several years, the effects of radiation and mutations were also incorporated into the naturalistic monstrosity. Scientists seemed to have had a grand time researching radiation, but it did not go well. Artificially mutated from an illustration by Sidney Paget , 1895 The pagan nature of evolutionism was once again revealed, giving Darwin's version of natural selection the ability to make choices and decide from the mutation buffet which traits to use. They even thought that by subjecting living things to X-rays, forcing and accelerating mutations would make wonderful things happen.

It is one thing for scientists to make mistakes, but Darwin's acolytes are slow to correct them when the naturalism narrative is threatened. Indeed, several icons of evolution have been referenced on this site alone that continue unabated. One of these is the claim that the appendix is "vestigial". Neotinic atheists and many evolutionists are happy to let errors slide despite the oft-repeated mantra that "science is self-correcting". So-called vestigial structures/organs were supposedly unneeded leftovers from our evolutionary past, so they atrophied or became nonfunctional. Like the claim of "junk" DNA , evidence was hitched to the wagon of evolutionary presuppositions, and a passel of hubris was added to the load. All of these are assumptions based on worldviews, not conclusions based on scientific evidence. The hubris is that secularists did not understand DNA ( which had not been fully sequenced ), nor did they understand the functions of certain s

We saw how  Dagon of the Philistines  is the fish god of evolution. Read in 1 Sam. 5:1-8 that the Philistines brought the Ark of the Covenant to Dagon. It did not go well . Evolutionists get truly bizarre in their efforts to connect humans with fish. The hands at the Darwin Ranch keep carping that not everyone believes we evolved from fish (with innumerable transitional forms that are taken by faith, not by sight). Evolutionists want us to apprehend the knowledge of our inner lungfish. Original Dagon image of Dagon fish god, Internet Archive Book Images by Joseph F. Berg , 1838, then modified Of course, no evidence is presented, just arbitrary assertions and something resembling praise to Papa Darwin. After all, evolutionism is an ancient pagan religion, so bringing Dagon to mind seems quite fitting. On a scale of one to ten, their resentment of the fact that we were created in the image of God must go to eleven. We've been teaching people about avoiding their lures with healthy s