Piltdown Superman

In many philosophies, to be enlightened  means to have attained a superior mental or spiritual place. Professing atheists use it to claim that they are free from the bondage of religion, therefore, are superior to religious people. This in itself is fallacious and gives lie to their claim. Misotheists even have a period in history called the Enlightenment (or Age of Reason). This was an intellectual movement that the philosophers of the time adored. Modern secularists say that religion held back scientific progress and brought in the falsely named Dark Ages. Storming of the Bastille , Anonymous, 1789 Enlightened atheists — alleged freethinkers — are making assumptions and spreading them as facts. The most egregious is that Christianity imprisons minds, but that's the opposite of the truth. Science was more of a curiosity than something useful (nor did it have the worshipful status of Scientism today) for many years. Nonetheless, the founders of scientific disciplines were generall

Yeah, sure. Evolution is the manipulation and omission of facts so that evidence gives the appearance of supporting it, especially since people are deceived. (This is because they have not been taught to think critically.) Secularists can tell tales of dinosaurs and make them seem to obey the bidding of naturalists. Some famous illusionists may seem to make huge statues disappear, have their heads drop off, levitate, or even the comparatively tame card tricks — which can still be impressive. The tricks have the appearance of legitimacy because only a select few know important details. Dinosaur jumping through hoop made at NightCafe AI image generator As you have probably gathered, the tricks are on those on the receiving end of evolutionary propaganda. Some of us know how to watch for weasel words where probably, scientists think, and other things are used to get people excited because they think they are learning scientific facts. They won't because dinosaurs were created, not ev

This post is about hearts. Mine is broken. Yesterday, my wife died from complications after surgery. She is now with Jesus and others who have gone on before. That takes some of the edge off my immense sorrow. Please pray for me and all I have to deal with in the next few weeks. Long before she was stricken, I wrote this post. Interestingly, I learned that she was greatly distressed over my time away for heart surgery. Now it is the opposite. She expected me to return home, now I will meet her in our eternal home... One of the most outrageous comments I ever saw from an atheist was regarding how a biblical creationist should not be allowed in the space program. The reason? A Christian's beliefs may cause him to do stupid things and jeopardize lives of astronauts or wreck space probes and such. Obviously, he did not know what creationists actually believe, so he filled up on bigotry and prejudicial conjecture — without evidence. What if we applied the same reasoning to fish-to-fool

Time and time again, materialists demonstrate disdain for freedoms of speech and thought. One way this is demonstrated is when misotheists insist that certain things cannot be questioned, such as atoms-to-atheist evolution. They frequently tell people what  to think. Such an approach is contrary to true science. Indeed, it suppresses free speech — and thought. Biblical creationists encourage critical thinking, which includes asking questions. Not just to clarify, but difficult questions as well. Materialists have a tendency to leave important or even obvious questions unanswered in their reports. Question mark in system, Pixabay / Gerd Altmann (Geralt) Some very basic questions can raise the hackles of secularists, and if consumers of secular science will study on some things, they can ask probing questions as well. Asking such things takes some of the power out of the propaganda efforts; shut up and believe. This is good practice in critical thinking and may prompt secularists to be

Out at the Darwin Ranch, Russell Watchtower of the Ministry of Truth and his pal Al Buehterawl were a mite giddy. Word has it that they were all excited about a new report on the horse evolution. Although the horse series has been touted as one of the best examples of evolution, it is full of difficulties . The flimsy story is something that biblical creationists have been using for many years as an example of interpreting data from a fundamentally-flawed presupposition, ignoring other possibilities for observed data, and just bad logic. But those old boys are thrilled that the mystery of the disappearing toes has been solved. Horse hoof, Pexels / Barbara Olsen Darwin's disciples selected candidates for the horse lineage from (among other things) size. They also claim that over time, the toes on the critters reduced until we have the single hoofed animal we see today. That has been a problem. Some evolutionists think that all four toes are still present, but vestigial. Hail Darwin,

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Like the late Rush Limbaugh, I illustrate the absurd with absurdity. (And sarcasm. So much evolutionary research is so irrational, it practically begs for sarcasm.) A spell back, I wrote about how some Darwinists were saying that people feeding birds were influencing their evolution . One of the simplest lessons there is that they were being disingenuous with the word evolution — again. It is who they are and what they do in order to trick people into believing that Papa Darwin was right. No evolution happened at all. For a lighter article, that will be my springboard to show that computers influence my evolution. Cowboy Bob Sorensen at the computer, image modified with FotoSketcher Centuries ago, I watched and eventually used my father's Woodstock typewriter . He was a pastor and typed his notes on it, and that machine was a workhorse. Strictly manual, and he used it for many years even though electric typewriters came out around 1925. I would be distracte

There are a few things that I keep repeating because they are so important, the primary of which is that scientists (and everyone else) operate from their worldviews. These are comprised of presuppositions (things believed without experimental support). Most evolutionists presuppose materialism, creationists presuppose the truth of the Bible. Believers in descent with modifications look at information through their Darwin spectacles, usually rejecting contrary evidence and predictions. Some researchers had numerous assumptions about humans having lost tails through evolution, so they studied the tails of mice. Darwin Spectacles and mouse tail, spectacles image by kkiser at Freeimages A prairie schooner-load of assumptions is involved in the study. First, evolution is not questioned, so that is assumed. Add to that the dogma of humans and apes diverged from a common ancestor millions of years ago. Somewhere in the mix, apes lost their tails. That is historical science — or would be if

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Another trolling raid at The Question Evolution Project  was just like previous disruptions, with people using prejudicial conjecture, ad hominems , boilerplate talking points from evolution, and other things to shout down and humiliate creationists. This shows that the hands at the Darwin Ranch are making their message heard and believed. Evolutionists have themselves some rules and laws. Some of those, especially on social(ist) media, are made up. Others appear scientific, but those rules apparently were made to be broken — or used in bad logic to "demonstrate" evolution. Parakeet image before modification at imgflip : Pexels / Egor Kamelev Keep in mind that Darwin's disciples call things "evolution" that have nothing to do with it. When changes in body size, variation, modifications, and other things are invoked, people are deceived into thinking that Darwin was right. It is ironic that speciation, natural selection, and speciation are

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

Believers in descent-with-modifications evolution frequently equate their flawed science with empirical science. What is presented here often deals with origins, but there are scientists working in the secular science industry who just want to do their jobs. Most science has nothing to do with evolution. They get their models all gussied up and mount them on their prize ponies, mayhaps nobody will notice the bad science and deception. (Sometimes bad guys get caught but their papers are not retracted. Just ask  Vishwa Jit Gupta .) Evolutionists pretend to be just as good at science as the others. Charles Darwin as a cowboy on a horse, made with AI at Bing There are stories that are pretentiously presented as scientific research, but skip over the important details. F'rinstance, molecular machines called nitrogenases  are not understood for the process of nitrogen fixation. Experiments yielded conclusions that would not withstand serious examination. So, how about those marsupials? T

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

When the word shark  is mentioned, people may think of certain movies involving man-eaters with powerful bites. There are over 300 species of sharks but only a dozen are dangerous to humans. (In a ludicrous example of appealing to Darwin, NOAA said that they evolved before we did, so that is why we are not usually on the menu !*) Checking sources on which animals have the strongest bite force yielded disagreement, but the Great White was the only shark on those lists . Tiger Shark, Flickr / Oregon State University, N. Hammerschlag ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ), modified at PhotoFunia Evolutionists wanted to make Charles Darwin smile so they studied a variety of shark jaws. The researchers claimed that habitat and prey shaped their jaw evolution. (The fact that sharks have always been sharks and there is no sign of evolution should have given them pause on asserting jaw evolution, but that's none of my business.) No, old son, the Master Engineer designed them to adapt, and calling what is found

Regular readers have seen how the secular science industry is supporting leftist causes, and how evolution is the centerpiece on the table. This child wants to keep political matters to other weblogs, but when secularists infuse themselves into policy making, things need to be discussed. Once again, it should be said that genuine  environmental concerns are well in keeping with biblical creation principles , but leftist politicians are taking environmentalism to extremes. Elitists in the secular science industry are joining in to further the agenda. Range of the Caucasus mountains , Ivan Aivazovsky, 1869 Biblical creationists point out how believers in descent-with-modifications evolution play fast 'n' loose with their definitions. They tend to broaden them so that variation, speciation, and other changes (which are compatible with creation science) are deceitfully termed evolution  so people will think that Darwin was right. It's who they are and what they do. Similar word

As biblical creationists have pointed out for quite some time, the study of origins is historical in nature. Both creationists and evolutionists use science in their efforts to determine what happened way back when. Something I learned from Ken Ham at a creation science seminar many years ago was the simple question, "Were you there?" (I used it in presentations of my own as well.) A follow-up question is, "Do you know anyone who was there?" Asking this cuts through a wagon train-load of bluster and assertions, and evolutionists get mighty agitated. Night sky, Pixnio / pattomolina They dislike it because some folks think for themselves instead of accepting evolutionary propaganda. It also puts a bit of pressure on secularists, and we need to keep that up. Evolutionists and atheists appeal to the authority of evolutionary and deep-time scientists, but they usually evosplain things and expect people to accept it. "Were you there?" also reveals the lack for c

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