Piltdown Superman

Believers in descent with modifications evolution claim to have science on their side, but certain evidences for evolution are simply false. One is phylogenetic trees , which are diagrams of hypotheses and conjectures. They are not evidence. Another is homology . Note that the root word is the Greek word for same , and used in words like homogenous. In homology, if critters have things in common like each having two eyes, tails, external ears, heads on necks, etc., then boy howdy! They must have evolved from a common ancestor. Not hardly! Horse and Cow in a Meadow , Paul Gauguin, 1885 Essentially, a presupposition  is something that is assumed to be true without proving it beforehand. Many times for the sake of discussions, things are presupposed by the mutual understanding of readers or listeners. Other times, evolutionists presuppose evolution and then confirm their biases. That is circular reasoning. Biblical creationists presuppose that the Bible is true from the very first verse —

The Big Bang story has been built, rebuilt, cobbled, and Frankensteined in general. When told by card-carrying members of the secular science industry, it sounds tidy and almost plausible. It brought on both cosmic and biological evolution. Looks good on paper. However, the tale is told as if scientists were trucking along in complete unity. Nope. Cosmologists and cosmogonists in the ranks disagree. It is also presented without any actual science, driven by presuppositions and mathematics that support them. The cosmological constant problem may be a good reason to put the thing down. Made at  photofunny  with a  NASA / ESA  image (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Something that supports science itself is how scientific laws (as we understand them) are consistent and predictable, which fits both Intelligent Design and biblical creation science views. A scientist made a claim that is...truly bizarre: The fundamental principle called the cosmological constant  — isn'

Not too long ago, we looked at how scientists and others use phylogenetic diagrams as facts , but they are nothing of the kind. They are hypotheses — ideas — illustrating what people who were not there think may have happened in the distant past. Scientists are fond of models. They can be useful in making predictions about the future or as speculations about the past. Biblical creationists have models about the Genesis Flood and other things. Like phylogenetic drawings, models are not facts despite how they are often presented. Model airplane, Unsplash / William Hadley Weather reports about hurricanes use models, and it is not uncommon to see vastly different paths of hurricanes projected because the models did not agree. Indeed, one scientist tried to use competing computer models to discover unusual formations on the moon. It did not go well. Instead of reaching a happy harmony, things became more muddled. As it is with artificial intelligence, computer modeling is highly dependent o

Back in 1986, Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union. There was a disaster at the Chernobyl reactor, which caused many fatalities and had some worldwide effects. It is interesting that when scientists discuss what will happen after nuclear disasters, including war, long-term habitability predictions are bleak. Because of high radiation, there is an exclusion zone where access is possible but strictly limited. Other areas are less dangerous. Radiation is equated with mutations and death, yet critters like dogs are doing well . Tree frogs there are proclaimed as evidence for evolution. Eastern tree frog, WikiComm / K.Kalaentzis ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ), modified at PhotoFunia Black tree frogs adapting to radiation levels are obvious examples of natural selection, which is something that knowledgeable creationists accept. Is it because black frog lives matter, Cowboy Bob? You betcha. Anyway, do we see evolution? That'll be the day! Lighter-colored frogs do not have enough melanin to surviv

Knowledgeable biblical apologists understand several things about worldviews, including how they must be internally consistent. Atheists and evolutionists frequently ignore logic while pretending that science and reason support their beliefs. That is a characteristic of an inconsistent worldview. Another indication of a faulty belief system is the reliance on arbitrary assertions. So is circular reasoning, such as assuming evolution in order to prove an instance of evolution. Changing or assigning new meanings to words and phrases also indicates a weak worldview. A couple of evolutionary psychologists presented irrational material about consciousness. Brain and consciousness, Pixabay /  Gerd Altmann  (Geralt) Like others involved in the secular science industry, psychologists presuppose atoms-to-atheist evolution and build from there; they do not question whether or not evolution happened in the first place. In this instance, two psychologists suggest consciousness may have evolved not

Every once in a while, a petulant evolutionist will tell a creationist to visit a natural history museum, read a book about evolution, watch a documentary, or do something else approved by the secular science industry. Then the creationist will learn something. That is true, but not in the way evolutionists would expect. Darwin's disciples know how to present opinions as facts. They can also obfuscate evidence, present what they like and ignore inconvenient truths. Charts, drawings, dioramas, and phylogenetic trees are used as evidence for evolution. Not hardly! Enhanced version of Darwin's Tree of Life Sketch (PD) These things arose from those things. The phylogenetic tree proves it. No, the drawing shows what someone believes . It is not factual, but conjectural. It is also illogical to use an illustrated hypothesis (because that's what a phylogenetic tree is) as evidence . Even Papa Darwin himself had the decency to write, "I think" on his drawing. Creationists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Although the word iconic  is overused, it does apply to The Rifleman . It ran from 1958-1963 and has been syndicated in the subsequent decades. Lucas McCain (Chuck Connors) was a widower raising his son Mark (Johnny Crawford). (I liked it before becoming a widower myself.) The actors had a bond that lasted until Connors died. Another star of the show was that tricked-out Winchester 1892 using 44-40 loads that could be swapped with the right pistols. Chuck Connors and Johnny Crawford, Wikimedia Commons / ABC Television , 1960 (PD) In "The Clarence Bibs Story," comedian Buddy Hackett played the part of a "mop boy" for a general store. He was wearing a gun that he cleaned for a customer. Bad idea because he had no skill with it. Clarence wound up killing a tough guy through a stupid accident. Although I have to spoil the ending somewhat, I'll leave out some details in case you want to see it. Shouldn't be too hard, it's even posted o

Proponents of universal common descent are highly skilled in the scientific principle of Making Things Up™, and they make lotsa grotzits for it. Peer review approves rubbish , they use bushwa logic to compare human and ape Y chromosomes , etc. The secular science industry is doing a number on hearts. Although they say all life came from a common ancestor, there is a variety of hearts in the animal kingdom. The Creator designed hearts to meet the needs of various creatures. Humans and apes share some similarities in design, so there are similarities in some in hearts as well. Heart diagram, Pixabay /  burlesonmatthew Did they consider other research that says we have heart problems because we evolved from fish ? Asking for a friend. These jaspers first presupposed evolution (and rejected creation), then told a story about the distant past. A few weasel words crept in like may suggest , but ignored the stark differences not only between heart styles. The physical differences between huma

Chromosomes contain a great deal of information, far more than just eye color, height, stature, and all that good stuff. Some of Darwin's disciples decided to compare the Y chromosomes of humans and several types of apes. Although they hailed it as good news for evolution, in reality...it did not go well. Right from the get-go, errors were happening. For one thing, the source was too big by using several sources of Y chromosome information. Another problem is that the comparisons were between modern humans and apes because of assumed evolution directions. Human chromosome Y, WikiComm / National Center for Biotechnology Information , U.S. National Library of Medicine (PD) (Usage does not imply endorsement)  Y chromosomes are difficult to sequence because of repetition, mutations, deletions, and more. Secularists tend to evosplain genetic differences away by assuming evolution did it. Of course, no mechanisms or supporting evidence is offered. Circular reasoning, arbitrary assertions

Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Robert Darwin came up with a version of evolution at almost the same time, but Darwin is given most of the credit because he published first. Also, Wallace was an outsider in science circles  and was open to a form of Intelligent Design. Each had an idea of how butterflies evolved, but scientists did not seem interested in pursuing the matter. New research was presented after getting help from studying pictures of birdwing butterflies with machine learning, and both Wallace and Darwin were said to be right. Birdwing butterfly, Flickr / Charles Patrick Ewing ( CC BY 2.0 ) If the researchers were seeking awards or applause by the secular science industry, that probably happened. They use both natural and sexual selection (but not the true meaning of natural selection). People who care about truth and logic in science may have a different view. For one thing, the sample size was far too limited. Another problem is despite praising the puny god of evoluti

Drawing frequently from the scientific well of Making Things Up™, Darwin's acolytes have been making a passel of chin music about ants. Apparently, ants evolved from wasps. There is no evidence for this, only conjecture and fanatical devotion to evolution. That makes it all right. The reason for the talk is because certain ants were found in amber. They are mostly indistinguishable from their modern counterparts all the way down to the communications equipment. Instead of invoking the cop-out of stasis , more stories are tacked on. Ant in amber, WikiComm / Dlussky, Radchenko, & Dubovikoff , 2014 ( CC BY 4.0 ) Social structure in living things is a field of its own, and it is quite detailed in ants. Evolutionists say that it's important because altruism was brought into the world through sociality. Essentially, thank evolution for socialism. (Is this another reason that the secular science industry favors politically leftist attitudes ?) In reality, evolutionists are baffled

Something unlikely to appear in a dinosaurs-go-bezerk-and-eat-people movie is  Psittacosaurus.  The largest species is not all that impressive. There is a prairie schooner-full of specimens, including intact skeletons. Adults were bipedal like the iconic T. rex . This particular specimen from China had an interesting fossilization characteristic. Some of its skin was turned to glass, so to speak. Instead of the usual minerals, silica found its way in. Watch how Darwin's acolytes get bizarre — and illogical — promoting dino-to-bird and also feather evolution. Psittacosaurus specimen, Nature Communications / Maria McNamara   et al . ( CC BY 4.0 ) Once again, evolution is assumed despite lack of evidence. (Stories, inferences from stories, and so on, yes, but not real evidence.) Although they admit that feather evolution is "profound," feathers are loaded with specified complexities because they were created, not evolved. There is no evidence of feather evolution. Researche

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Although this content has special concern to Americans, readers from other countries may want to read and learn see if your own country is doing the same kinds of things. As stated before, it is indeed unfortunate that science material has political content, but the secular science industry is prompting examination. Two things must be repeated. First, scientists are not  dispassionate and willing to follow where the evidence leads. They are biased and have presuppositions like everyone else. Second, note that critical thinking skills apply in many areas of life, but are now seldom taught. Marionette puppets, Unsplash / János Venczák Remember, scientists per se  are not the problem, as many of them want to do science stuff and hopefully improve the world. The secular science industry is a major concern, and wants to be involved in pulling the strings of political power. They promote causes dear to the cold hearts of the political left, so gullible jaspers accept

Although it is not something that attracts a great deal of attention of the general public, there are occasions when materialists spit venom at one another. Some things that this child has seen is that some atheists are not vicious enough to please other atheists. Misotheists lead the charge against Intelligent Design and biblical creation science, showing hostility toward people who have views that they dislike. As mentioned before, the ID movement is distinctly non-creationist as a whole, but atheists still portray it as creation science. The Ambush , Albert Bierstadt, 1876 Folks like Clinton Richard Dawkins as well as many other professing atheists are committed to materialism; material is all there is, therefore, no God. When someone says that God exists, that person is considered stupid and anti-science. However, atheists have a fundamentally-flawed epistemology and they presuppose a universe without God, They claim to love science and logic, but their reasoning is irrational. Ev

The tension in the room was obvious to everyone, and I was aware of my neck and back muscles tensing. "Evolution is a fact.  A law!" Rusty Swingset had raised his voice considerably. He punctuated his exclamation by slamming his fist on the table. The teaspoons rattled in our empty cups. Many believers in descent-with-modifications evolution emphatically agree. Some say scientists know that evolution is a fact, but they are still hashing out the details. Indeed, to say that evolution is a law seems excessive, but the claim was even used in a paper in Academia Biology . Hollow log in forest, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen (modified) More specifically, they are talking about evolution by means of natural selection. Some folks say that natural selection is  evolution, but that's conflation on definitions, old son. Creationists believe in natural selection, and it does not produce a new organism; no new genetic material is added. It's a mite silly to call evolution a law

There are creatures in the fossil record that show no appreciable difference between supposed millions of years to their modern descendants. Charles Darwin was displeased with this additional evidence against his conjectures. He called them living fossils . If a handful of them existed, they might be waved away as odd quirks. But there are many living fossils. Evolutionists change mystical hats, trading the one where evolution is an undeniable force with the other where stasis occurred. That is, they did not have to evolve. These owlhoots get downright dishonest as well. Horseshoe crab (which is not really a crab) is a living fossil, MorgueFile / xpistwv Unfortunately, people are  not taught  critical thinking, and they seldom display healthy skepticism. The Bearded Buddha taught that things evolved from a common ancestor, branching out on the Tree of Life, gradually turning into something else. Right? People know this, but when dishonest evolutionists change the definitions with the

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Part of this post will be out of date soon, but the principles remain important. Critical thinking skills are not just for debates and academic matters, but apply to many areas of daily life. It is indeed unfortunate that students today are taught what to think, but how to think — not so much. Crime dramas have detectives saying they cannot have someone arrested because the evidence is only circumstantial; there are no eyewitnesses or other compelling material. They "know" someone is guilty, but they are reasoning from insufficient evidence . The Cunning Thief / Paul-Charles Chocarne-Moreau, 1931, Wikimedia Commons (PD) A quick side note that this Creation Cowboy has discussed is how Darwinists, climate fearmongers, and others will ignore and even suppress inconvenient evidence . They have also been known to falsify information to fit an agenda. People have a tendency to "fill in the blanks" or "connect the dots" to reach a conclu

Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is essential for human life. Fortunately, it is easy to obtain in the Western world, and the recommended intake is less than 100 mg. It helps the immune system and is important in other areas. What is the first thing that comes to mind when vitamin C is mentioned? For me, oranges. The average person who eats a healthy diet probably does not need a supplement, as it is found in many foods. It is not stored in our bodies. Since humans cannot synthesize vitamin C, is is suggested as evidence for evolution. Assorted citrus fruits, Pixabay / Roberto Justo Kabana Most plants and animals can make their own vitamin C, but it has been evosplained that humans and some animals lost that ability way back in time. It involves a mutation. When using this to support evolution, their reasoning is fundamentally flawed. One big monkey wrench in the works is that humans and apes supposedly evolved from a common ancestor. Our closest supposed evolutionary cousin is the chimpanzee

Atheists and other anti-creationists try to put biblical creationists on the defensive, a tactic that works on those that re under-informed. As we have seen, they use "bad design, therefore evolution" arguments (dysteleology). Another trick is to try to make the Creator seem immoral. Either God is bad, or he does not exist. It is interesting that they often pretend their arguments are scientific. That'll be the day! Those alleged arguments are feckless theological opinions. In addition, they are examples of bad logic. Consider the challenge that a loving God made a killer jellyfish. Box jellyfish, Wikimedia Commons / Guido Gautsch ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) As stated before, when attempting to refute someone's argument, it is intellectually honest to see if the argument is consistent from the other person's framework. Atheists tend to take fragments of creationist views and filter them through materialistic glasses, which means they presuppose that the creationist is wrong

Finding extraterrestrial life is exceptionally important to the secular science industry. Readers of creationist sites have seen that lotsa grotzits have been poured into attempts to find ET, but nothing has ever been found. Astrobiology? Nothing to study. They do not want to settle for microbes, it has to be intelligent alien life. One of the biggest arguments makes a bit of sense on the surface: So many stars, there must  be life out there so we can dance with space aliens in the pale moonlight . Cranky Alien image by Why?Outreach There are glimmers of hope for true believers, but it disappears under scrutiny. Like the prank of tying currency on a string, hiding, and yanking it away when someone reaches for it. But secularists keep chasing and hoping, though tere's no observed science involved. Only blind faith. Many maybes and what ifs about extraterrestrial life, such as water on Mimas . Water is necessary for life, and if there are signs of evolution out yonder, mayhaps it hap