Piltdown Superman

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

First, a look behind the scenes. I did not title this using the singular possessive because of the way titles and certain other things are rendered. In this case, Noah's Ark. When challenging a position someone holds, rational people try to understand the opponent's point of view. The material should be examined to see if it is internally consistent and not chock full o' arbitrary assertions. Scoffers presuppose atheism, naturalism, deep time, evolution, and so on. To them, Noah's Ark and the Genesis Flood are just stories and not historical narratives.  Noah's Ark at Answers in Genesis, Unsplash / Elias Null Misotheists do not honestly examine what biblical creationists say for consistency and plausibility, instead writing it off because they filter what they say through their own worldview. Essentially, a straw man argument. They like to put Christians on the defensive and expect us to defend views we don't hold. We don't have to. You savvy that, Pilgr

Just yesterday, I was in town to send a telegram over the singing wires, then stopped in at the eatery. At the next table were several executives of the Darwin Ranch. They were finishing lunch before saddling up and riding back to Deception Pass. I was on the prod after having dealt with the same old "put 'em on the defensive" remarks from atheists. The ranch folks were getting rambunctious. Dewey Lye was going on about new research on feather evolution. I mentioned there has never been conclusive  evidence for dinosaur feathers. Al Buehterawl took a deep breath and evosplained it to me. Pond off Sawkill Road, Kingston, NY, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen , modified with FotoSketcher Actually, I learned very little. Researchers were looking in the wrong place at the wrong things on the wrong birds. Eventually, dinosaur scales were compared to those of crocodiles, so the dinosaur was getting ready  to evolve. "Evidence" was obtained by citing a paper from several

It is obviously human nature to want to know things. A wagon train-load of grotzits has been spent on space exploration even before rockets went up yonder. Telescopes, bigger and better telescopes, telescopes in space — not enough, people want to go and look. Cameras, telescopes, and communications equipment were loaded onto various space probes. Sending humans were just not feasible, so that was the next best thing. Jupiter and its moons have had several visitors from here: Pioneer , V'ger  (I mean, Voyager ), and others have shown Jupiter's moon Io to be recalcitrant to deep-time beliefs. Infrared view of Jupiter’s volcanic moon Io, NASA / JPL et al. It has been known for quite some time that Io is volcanically active, which should not happen if it was billions of years old. The Juno mission showed further images of volcanic activity. Secularists are attempting rescuing devices to explain what is observed, including how it spews lava, reconsumes it, and do it again hundreds

Original biological materials from fossils have been found for many years, but the 1997 discovery of soft tissues in a dinosaur bone  by Dr. Mary Schweitzer and company really took the rag off the bush . Things get worse for them because biomolecules are also found in dinosaur material. Despite numerous reports of dinosaur soft tissue discoveries reported in peer-reviewed journals, some jaspers still refuse to believe that they exist. Others admit they exist and come up with rescuing devices. The reason is that these things make Papa Darwin sad. Fossil dinosaur eggs, Flickr / Gary Todd (PD) As discussed before, worldviews strongly influence how people interpret evidence. A paleontologist evidence-denier wanted to be the smartest one on the bus, so he tried to refute claims of original biomolecules. It did not go well. Instead, he indulged in circular reasoning: Assume that dinosaur eggs are millions of years old, then prove biomolecules last for millions of years! Yeah, people get pai

Atheists and other anti-creationists use Stephen Jay Gould's claim that the panda has an ineffective thumb as an argument against creation and Intelligent Design, but this dysteleology fails in several areas. One should be glaring obvious: Why would a bear need a thumb like humans have? The comparison is not valid, as we are different creatures with different life niches. Gould and subsequent followers claim that it is a scientific refutation of creation and ID, but it is not a scientific argument ! It is philosophical — really, it is theological. Modified from "Giant Panda Tai Shan" /  Fernando Revilla / Wikimedia Commons Misotheists are very fond of "bad design" arguments, which is silly. They do not believe God exists, but presume to fault him for things in nature that (in their unhumble opinions ) are flawed. Those of us who use presuppositional apologetics can show that anti-creationists are not consistent with their own belief system, especially when they

Some of the hands from the Darwin Ranch traveled down from Deception Pass and gone into town to celebrate. Rusty Swingset, the foreman, was even paying for their drinks. The reason? Some evolutionists had used education, technology, and skill in making a hybrid plant receptor, supposedly demonstrating no intelligence or Designer was necessary. Study on that a spell. Good science is often tainted by worthless efforts to prove evolution. Plants pay attention to their environment with receptors, and two of them control development and immunity. Woodland sunflower, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen It is not an isolated incident. Instead, faulty logic, incomplete evidence, materialistic presuppositions, and more are common. For that matter, part of our DNA was called "junk" by tinhorns who did not know what they were doing and used a faulty dataset. Other Darwinists gleefully joined in and added their two grotzits-worth of opinions "Junk" DNA became the consensus — and it

It must be good  to be involved in the secular science industry. As seen here many times, research can be committed while ignoring important data, free money from governments in return for supporting leftist political views, adoration from the propaganda-consuming public. Good , to them. They can also change the definitions of words with the ol' bait 'n' switch. That is, change  is called evolution  even though nothing changed into something else. Speciation and variation fit biblical creation science, old son. It is also acceptable to invoke Darwinist Privilege™. Stopwatch image from Unsplash / Veri Ivanova , modified with Darwin's profile There is a wagon train-load of living fossils , which are organisms that were thought extinct then found alive and well, essentially unchanged over supposed millions of years. The excuse for that is stasis : They didn't evolve because they didn't have to, or there was no need to do so. That is just plain stupid, because Earth

One of the most ridiculous ways of justifying universal common descent is to throw huge amounts of time into a problem, such as saying, "Given enough time, anything can happen." That may seem plausible for a fairy tale and Darwin's magic wand , but not for people who want real answers. It seems to be a common occurrence that dinosaurs are found where denizens of the secular science industry say they should not be. However, scientists do not question their evolutionary paradigm because they presume it is the only possible explanation for what is observed, thus eliminating better material. Minqaria, Wikimedia Commons / UnexpectedDinoLesson ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) (modified) Lambeosaurs (a kind of duckbill) strayed from their expected home ranges and were found in Morocco. Using naturalistic paradigms, a scientist evosplained this by invoking millions of years and saying that mayhaps the ungainly beasties swam there. This jasper also tried to escape the obvious implications of the

Atheists and other anti-creationists have a tendency to say that the Bible is "fairy tales," but they clearly have only a cursory knowledge of its contents. Fairy tales tend to use "Once upon a time..." and do not have details. The Bible has specific details. Particles-to-paleontologist evolution is touted as science, but it is vague historical science at best. While evolutionists cannot give dates and times, there should be some specifics. A writer at LiveScience  got herself a notion to tell readers how ten traits in animals evolved. It did not go well. Charles Darwin, magic fairy of evolution generated with AI at NightCafe Many of the explanations offered were infested with bad reasoning. Worse, some actually ignored basic facts of science and displayed ignorance not only of evolutionary mythology, but animal anatomy and behavior. This child believes that the secular science industry succeeds at bushwhacking so many people is that they do not have logical thinkin

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  This here article was written with some reluctance, first because the linked article is a book excerpt. Second, it is from the Discovery Institute, the main site of the Intelligent Design people. Regular readers may have noticed that I am using material from that site a bit more, but I tend to include biblical creationist material in my write-ups. This one is worth doing because other biblical creationists and I want people to learn how  to think, while atheists and secularists tell them what  to think. Some things about Darwin's logic need to be addressed. Charles Darwin dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight via Bing AI, which made the devil resemble  Homo habilis There are disagreements about whether or not Charles Darwin was an atheist, especially since he claimed agnosticism. Part of his dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight was his determination to put down creationism, viewing it as unscientific. His way of dealing with it was through met