Piltdown Superman

When Darwin's acolytes evosplain, anything goes. The complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™ is frequently invoked, bringing along compatible principles such as bad logic, ignoring inconvenient facts, and all that good stuff. When dinosaur soft tissues were found, it was, "Katie, bar the door!" Evolutionists assume deep time (it is imperative for their storytelling), so they tried all sorts of rescuing devices to get away from the implications. Similar things happen with ancient DNA. Derived from DNA and clock images at Clker clipart DNA is fragile, so it should not last very long. Ideal conditions can extend its shelf life on occasion. The narrative demands deep time, so it is presumed that Neanderthal DNA is 50,000 years old. Because evolution. Darwinists put on top hats and tap dance around the age limits of DNA. They simply cannot allow themselves to face the fact that evidence consistently shows that the earth is far younger than they want to believe. Ther

Not only has the secular science industry been promoting leftist causes and twisted morality, but it seems to be lacking the ability to do basic science. A few mavericks in their ranks will pull back on the reins and slow things down so scientific claims can be reexamined, which is a plus. When something is caught such as, say, Piltdown Man , toffee-nosed secularists may excuse it with "science is self-correcting." (That particular fraud fooled the secular science industry for over forty years!) Yes, things get corrected, but too many should have been caught much sooner. This "1889 Guy" was colorized at  Playback.fm , further modified with  FotoSketcher Now I'm going to say a few things in defense of those in scientific practices, because scientists may not have believed certain things that have been kicked to the curb recently. Some claims are considered  scientific, but the public as a whole does not utilize healthy skepticism or critical thinking; they need t

There have been times when I have posted something I strongly believe, that biblical creationists teach people how  to think and not what  to think, and it is met with ridicule. Ironically, us st00pid djumb creatards catch atheists, our supposed intellectual superiors, in numerous logical fallacies. It is indeed unfortunate that some people play dumb, or even convince themselves that they are not bright in some areas, that they surrender the thinking to others. When that happens, they become sheeple and become victims of false teachers and others with bad intent. Man thinking by a lake at sunset, Pixabay / StockSnap When thinking is discussed, it seems that some folks assume it means activities of the intellectual elite, discussing philosophy and such. Not so! With just a little effort, people can learn to spot common logical fallacies so they're not hoodwinked. From there, they can learn how to think in other areas — such as how creationists and evolutionists have the same facts,

Although this subject was discussed in one of the posts on " Plants Under Ice Fluster Evolutionists ," there are additional details that should be considered. Also, the technical parts will appeal to some people while the rest of us read around those and learn something anyway. Believers in deep time think that drilled ice cores provide evidence for millions of years, but there are problems that are not brought to the table. Including faulty logic. Consider that they act as  if evidence can be interpreted in their favor, they win . In this case, if one strips off the presuppositions that hang on evidence like barnacles, it points to the Genesis Flood! Greenland ice sheet, Wikimedia Commons / Eric Gaba ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) There is ice, and plants under the ice. Secularists are surprised because they believe in multiple ice ages, each conveniently destroying evidence of the last so all they have is interpretations  of marine sediments. When ice core data like this and others are

Darwinists dutifully repeat the title of an essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," then smile smugly as if they cited a creation-destroying maxim. Actually, evolution is scarce in college textbooks in life sciences . It is useless when it is not harmful in medicine. As I mentioned elsewhere, nobody consulted or referenced the Darwin oracle during my extended stay in the hospital. At least, not in my presence or to discuss my treatment plan.  Darwin spirit and medical science modified from a photograph at Pixnio It's a good thing evolution is scarce in textbooks considering all the harm that evolutionary thinking has produced in medical science. For example, the  vestigial organs concept has been refuted . Using faulty presuppositions, evolutionists stifled research because they declared  large portions of DNA to be "junk ." Don't forget the risible thinking that  heart problems exist  because of

Creationists have been using the concept  of irreducible complexity for years, but the term was coined and defined in Darwin's Black Box  by Michael Behe in 1996. Irreducible complexity is frequently used by the Intelligent Design community, and some biblical creationists have picked up on it as well. One of our favorite examples is the bombardier beetle . It has an amazing defense mechanism that demonstrates the basics of irreducible complexity: Everything must be in place from the beginning or nothing works or makes sense. Indeed, if components existed separately, they might kill the organism. Fish spawn in an anemone (showing developing eyes), Flickr / prilfish ( CC BY 2.0 ) Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a part of the Discovery Institute, a leading Intelligent Design organization. (Weak-minded atheists say that ID folks and creationists reject evolution because we don't understand it. That's a lie. Two glaring academic examples I can think of are Joel Tay of Creation Minist

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 for many years (nor did it have the worshipful status that Scientism  has today). Nonetheless, the founders of scientific disciplines were ge

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