Piltdown Superman

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

Obstreperous atheists and fundamentalist evolutionists patrol teh interwebz, targeting Darwin doubters for destruction. They have many weapons drawn and ready, but one of these is dominant: Arbitrary assertions. When those are frequently used to put down Christians and creationists, the people using them are being illogical and indicating that their worldview is incoherent. It is indeed unfortunate when scientists also build arguments on arbitrary and false statements instead of actual evidence. But then, it has also been shown that storytelling brings in the grant money. Darwinoptera pterosaurs, Flickr / Francisco Gil ( CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ) Just off the western coast of Scotland is a group of islands called the Inner Hebrides. A representative of a pterosaur clade called Darwinoptera had apparently been found on the largest, the Isle of Skye. (A nice place to fly, certainly.) Evolutionists were surprised, especially since certain pterosaurs were only known in China, not Scotland. To cov

Down Colombia way near near the town of Villa de Leyva is an area full of fossils. Paleontologists like it a lot. However, what they found is challenging to uniformitarian beliefs (deep time, slow and gradual processes). The scientific principle of Making Things Up™ was implemented. Regular readers have probably noticed that the secular science industry has a habit of evosplaining  with fake facts, ignoring real facts, and raising unanswered questions. Apparently, what matters more than scientific truth is praising Darwin and bolstering deep time so the grant money keeps coming in. Villa de Leyva, Colombia toward Andes Mountains, Flickr / Rosario González Morón ( CC BY-NC 2.0 ) In the article linked below, there is an example of something that makes this child wonder how the researchers got advanced degrees in the first place. Giving weak explanations for what is observed as if there was no other possibility is commonplace. It just so happens that the story they are confabulating appe

Although atheists and other anti-creationists try to avoid inconvenient truths, some of us still try to present them. First, many insist that creationists lack the intellectual prowess to be scientists. We show them that many great scientists of the past were Christians , even biblical creationists. Then they may whine that we are discussing dead people, so we tell them about modern scientists that are biblical creationists . No, they are disqualified because the only true  scientists are materialists. Lather, rinse, repeat, they move the goalposts like they were jet propelled. Plesiosaur skeleton, Flickr /  Kim Alaniz  ( CC by 2.0 ) In 1660 London, the Royal Society was formed to encourage the development of natural philosophy (the earlier term for what is now called science). While some sidewinders say that biblical creation science was initiated fairly recently, the Royal Society had members who believed the Bible, including recent creation and the Genesis Flood. One of their member

One fine day in what is now Morocco, some folks took a notion to walk on a beach. Believers in descent with variations evolution guess at pragmatic reasons and not for fun. Mayhaps they were on their way to get some tangia with a side of zaalouk. Although researchers said the footprints were made by "hominins," they were clearly made by humans. Not just the robust he-men of the tribe, as the group had members of differing ages. Deep time is once again thrown at the public because reasons  and all that good stuff. Beach footprints via Freepik In addition to using a dating method that makes the footprints seem to be 90,000 years old, circular reasoning ensued. That is, they used a wagon train-load of assumptions and speculations about evolution in order to support evolution. The existence of footprints that old doesn't fit the evolutionary paradigm, and the narrative is more important than the facts — again. The article linked below discusses the footprints, and describes h

Regular readers may notice that certain things are repeated here, but it is necessary. Those things may also benefit new readers. Atoms-to-author evolution is not just a discussion for scientists, it is a worldview that permeates many areas of life. Since scientists are not the paragons of virtue that people seem to believe, fraud and trickery have been utilized in science for many years. Fake research papers are becoming more frequent, especially with the rise of artificial intelligence . The secular science industry says bad things are happening. Late autumn bleak view from a mountain in Ulster County, NY, photo by Cowboy Bob Sorensen For the most part, secular scientists are materialists. That is, nothing exists except atoms, molecules, and all that good stuff. They have no room for God in their worldview. How can they complain about right and wrong when the Author of those things is rejected out of hand? It doesn't make sense, Stanley. They cannot even say why  something is wr

Denizens of depths of the the secular science industry keep trying to buffalo the public into believing that Charles Darwin was right, and that there is no Creator — or that he is a bungler if indeed he does exist. It is in their best interests to deny, ignore, or downplay facts against evolution. Grant money. Atheists and other evolutionists also promote outdated and false information. Although vestigial organs  (also called vestigial structures, rudimentary, or useless) were used to validate evolution, they have been debunked. Yet Darwin's disciples continue to zombify them. After I took this picture* in Rosendale, it did not go well, as you see. One way of making a zombie out of the vestigial organ nonsense is to keep acting like it is a valid argument. It came about in the first place because those in medical science did not understand the functions of the organs, so they argued from ignorance and presupposed evolution (circular reasoning). Also, the fake drawings of Ernst Haec

Retail merchandisers in big chain stores often use  planograms , which are basically maps for the placement of items. Those are from the dictates of corporate headquarters, and some of them are very strange. Placement of merchandise is often quite irrational. Believers in universal common descent evolution believer in the evolutionary tree of life , and the secular science industry has naturalistic versions of planograms called cladograms . This is phylogeny, attempting to show relationships between organisms. Enhanced version of Darwin's Tree of Life Sketch Clades can be useful tools showing relationships between living things, but within well-defined limits. Evolutionary planograms — I mean, cladograms — are based on the presupposition that fish-to-fool evolution happened. Although it is considered a theory, evolution is treated like a fact that should not be questioned. No free speech, no free thought. But yes, by all means, indulge in circular logic by assuming evolution to pro

It is well known in these parts that many of the hands at the Darwin Ranch add peyote buttons to their religious rituals. It is just after readings from God is not Real but I Hate Him Anyway  by Riekert Darkens. Sometimes the noisy celebrations can be heard all the way to Stinking Lake. No word if scientists in the secular science industry ingested peyote or fermented beverages in the writing of an insultingly stupid paper. Apparently, these jaspers think that fermentation technology was important in our evolutionary ancestors getting bigger brains. Neanderthal man drinking whisky, made with AI at NightCafé It amazes this child that disregarding important details and using bad logic do not result in scientists like these filing for unemployment. They do not question evolution in the first place, but assume it to prove it (circular reasoning). Some physiological effects of fermented products on "hominids" to grow bigger brains. As is too often the case, not a shred of evidence

The word apologetics  comes from the Greek word ἀπολογία ( apologia ), which essentially means to make a reasoned defense or argument. (In this regard, an apology does not mean saying one is sorry.) We discuss the Bible internally and also use outside references. There are apologists for many things. Biblical apologists strive to show that the Bible is true. Otherwise, it is simply an item of curiosity for stuffy intellectual types having parlor discussions with brandy and cigars. Our faith would be worthless, Question Evolution Day would have no relevance, we would be worthy of ridicule. Section of P-45 Greek papyrus manuscript of the Gospel of Luke, via Wikimedia Commons That is not the case. The Bible has been shown to be an important historical reference, and it is the Word of God, changing lives and bringing salvation. Interestingly, some of the technology that backfires on evolutionists  has been used to examine extremely delicate biblical manuscripts that could not even be o

There have been numerous ways that evolutionary thinking has harmed medical science, but disciples of the Bearded Buddha claim that it is essential. Not hardly! Such thinking gave us harmful thinking about vestigial organs such as the appendix and thymus , and "junk" DNA hindered needed research. If you study on it a spell, the idea of actively integrating a historical belief system that is based on presumptions rather than evidence is risible (see " The Farce of Evolutionary Medicine "). Also, secularists refuse to learn from their colossal errors. Modified from a medical science photograph on Pixnio The materialistic mindset has affected modern medicine. Like in the secular science industry, there are individuals who want to do a good job but are caught up on the money-making machinations of organizations. Talk in company break rooms often turns to lousy treatment by doctors, staff, and especially agencies. When I had my heart surgery, I felt like a piece of mea

Darwin skeptic Dr. James Tour has been in the news related to Intelligent Design lately, quite probably because he is a brilliant scientist and outspoken Christian. He issued a challenge to ten origin-of-life researchers , but not one rose to accept it. A few months back, he had a debate with atheopath Dave Farina. It did not go well. Farina is abusive and irrational, and Dr. Tour also got excited but was not offensive . Something similar happened with Drs. Tour and Cronin. My Pond-Full-o-Algae photo modified at PhotoFunia In a pair of articles by Casey Luskin, we learn that Dr. Lee Cronin agreed to have a public discussion with Dr. Tour. Apparently Cronin was civil, he still managed to say things that were untrue about Tour, and he spent a quite a bit of time focusing on his opponent rather than dealing with the science. James talked about origin-of-life science and its tremendous problems, but Lee seems to have avoided the subject for the most part. There was a recent exchange at The

Stevia Dolce, the lead baker at the Darwin Ranch up yonder near Deception Pass, surprised me with a visit. She brought Dekker Halls, who was visiting for the Christmas season. They heard talk about pseudogenes that did not sit right with them and wanted to ask me. After digging into the fabulous croissants that Stevia brought, we commenced to discussing the problem. Evolutionary thinking is bad for medical science, and even science itself. Scientists studied DNA, but expected everything to code for proteins. Big mistake. Directional street sign generator at RedKid Like when someone receives a delivery that isn't interesting, "Just set it over there" and it gets forgotten. These things called pseudogenes  look like genes, but did not work the way Darwinists expected. "Why do you say Darwinists , Cowboy Bob?" Dekker asked. "Nobody really believes classical Darwinism anymore." I replied, "True, but it has a couple of uses. The first one is for simpli

Believers in universal common descent evolution appear to have cognitive difficulties, or mayhaps it is bravado. I say this because when faced with data they cannot explain, deep-time anomalies, theories shown to be false, they pretend to receive good news and something important about evolution has been learned. Indeed, fundamentalist evolutionists may shuffle the deck and deal again, but they do not question if the deck is valid in the first place — the deck being evolution. They need to cowboy up and question evolution itself. Fighter pilot with nice eyes wearing an oxygen mask, Flickr / Aviatrix (public domain) In their determination to give praise to Papa Darwin, some of his disciples compared the eyes of mammals with those of cephalopods. Interesting that people and critters have two eyes, but many like birds and cuttlefish use each eye independently — but some cuttlefish occasionally use stereoscopic vision. The differences in eyes also means the organisms with them need to hav

Some of the hands at the Darwin Ranch were having a party over yonder by Stinking Lake (which is not as bad as it sounds). It seems that they had received good news that their efforts to promote convergent evolution were progressing. Papa Darwin himself would be riding over to visit. Al Buehterawl noticed that I rolled my eyes and kind of snorted, so he took a deep breath and demanded to know why I had an attitude problem. I explained that convergent evolution is unscientific, based on circular reasoning, assumptions, and consensus. Charles Darwin as a cowboy on a horse, made with Img2Go Darwinism itself is an excuse to perform lazy scientific thinking , and convergent evolution ramps it up. Different critters have the same or very similar traits, bones, or whatever, but nothing else in common. They are not biologically related. Therefore, each evolved the same things independently. To be blunt, that is stupid. Homology is classifying things according to appearance and traits, and it i