Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen There is a line in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy   that states , "Earthmen are not proud of their ancestors and never invite them round to dinner." Well, I never have my ancestors round to dinner either because they are dead. In context, Douglas Adams was referring to our alleged evolutionary cousins . No, you will not find it in the book. Adams was an atheist and an evolutionist, and he probably wrote the sequence showing a chimpanzee at a formal dinner party for the BBC series . So he probably meant cousins . Formal dining with a chimpanzee, made with Bing AI image generator , modified at PhotoFunia In " When a Child and a Chimp Were Raised Together ," Denyse O'Leary wrote about an experiment in 1931. A couple of married psychologists decided to raise their ten-month-old son and a seven-month-old female chimpanzee together. Whoa there a minute, Pard. Back in 1931, Sigmund Freud was held in high esteem and the field of psycholo

Everyone has presuppositions and worldviews, and these things drive science. Secular science assumes that the universe is billions of years old and that cosmic, chemical, biological, and other evolutions happened. Biblical creation science affirms recent creation, and modifications are not evolution. Evolution extends beyond academic and scientific discussions and influences the lives of people. While people disliked other ethnic groups different from their own, Darwinian evolution (and modifications) gave rise to "scientific racism" and greatly increased the problem. Smithsonian Building, Wikimedia Commons / Noclip (modified at Fotosketcher ).jpg Evolutionists often become incensed when it is pointed out that Charles Darwin was a blatant racist. Some try to improve history , but the facts cannot be changed. In the Victorian era and later, scientists attempted to justify racism and eugenics. They insisted that darker people were physically and mentally inferior to white folk

There was a time that people who believed in Unidentified Flying Objects and extraterrestrial life were considered to be a part of the kook fringe, but that is the opposite of the way things are today. There are respectable people who believe in UFOs, and they are in the news again. The newer designation of UAP (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena) came from the US government, and the changing of the middle name to anomalous from arial was because they followed NASA's lead on wording. Seems like a good idea. There are many reasons for the interest in UFOs, and if you follow the money, the funding comes from the secular science industry. Somehow they think if UFOs are found, it will prove that life evolved elsewhere in the universe, with the subtle implication that God does not exist. This is terrible logic. Old train with UFO in background via Pxhere US Air Force veteran David Grusch testified that the government had alien remains in its possession. Problem is, he did not g

When dealing with professing atheists, many make the claim that they can be "good without God." Misotheists can live apparently moral lives for the most part, but they tend to make exceptions for personal benefit. And they cannot explain their foundations. Laws? Laws change. Evolution? Not hardly ! Some atheists accuse creationists of lying about evolution (a ludicrous charge*), but they cannot coherently explain why , if such a charge were true, lying would be wrong in an atheistic worldview! There have been several attempts in secular philosophy to pin down morality without God. Broken foundation, RGBStock / Adrian van Leen Various secular frameworks have been proposed for morality, but they have internal inconsistencies. Some are arbitrary, so good and evil are based on following a set of rules that are incomplete in dealing with human experiences. Some appeal to higher standards outside themselves — when an atheist says that lying about evolution is wrong, they are appeal

Added link about altering facts to fit views on 10 July 2023. As we have seen many times, people interpret evidence according to their worldviews. For example, an evolutionist can see a trilobite fossil and say that it is millions of years old, a biblical creationist uses the same evidence and interprets it as representing the Genesis Flood. Nobody is strictly neutral. Secular scientists are thought to be objective, following where the evidence leads, but that does not happen when the narrative is paramount. It is adjusted so Darwin's frown will turn upside down and people continue to be hoodwinked. Darwin Approves of Evoluton Fairy Tales, modified from Favourite French fairy tales / Barbara Douglas , 1921 In The Face of Evil , a 1977 "Dr. Who" story, The Doctor was given these words by writer Chris Boucher: You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common, they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views,

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

People may take the tongue for granted, but it is more than just a lump of meat that we distend to express disdain or taste food. It is essential for speech (apes have tongues but still cannot articulate sentences) and other purposes. Many critters including mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and whatnot, have tongues. Lizards and some birds use specially-designed tongues to snag insects. Tongues come in many shapes and styles showing that the Creator put variety into his creation. Once again, believers in descent with modifications cannot explain them. Cat showing tongue, RGBStock / Gesine Kuhlmann As usual, Darwinists beg the question by using evolution to prove evolution. They presuppose that life began in the sea, then some life continued on land. One problem is that fish, our assumed ancestors and distant cousins, do not have actual tongues. A prototongue evolved, but there is no evidence of this. Just stories. Tales of the tongue ( Science Magazine, 25 May 2023). “Tales” is right. O

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

Apologists have often encountered people who claim to have lost, or are losing, their faith. One problem is that they are willing to accept the authority of skeptics, so they do not do their homework. This child has seen many instances when someone will claim that they could not get answers to their questions, but they are complaining online , where answers are available — if they sincerely want them. People who are not grounded in the faith should not spend time interacting with or reading material by scoffers. Resurrection, Empty tomb  RGBStock / Alex Bruda Skeptics today are scoffers, unwilling to accept answers, or even consider than answers exist. They corrupt those who are weak in the faith and drag them down. Atheists are good at posturing and ridicule. Those who are weak in the faith may be afraid that if they get misotheists on the prod, they will say mean things to or about them. What they experience is nothing in comparison with what Jesus went through. That's worth thin

Admittedly, this post is a departure from the usual fare of this weblog. It is because Christians need to know about not only evidence that supports the authenticity of the Bible (such as historical records and archaeology), but dealing with attacks on it as well. Taking a critical view of many things is helpful, but when this approach is coupled with a scoffing attitude, almost nothing can penetrate such a mindset. A person like this presumes the worst about possible evidence against the Bible. Apostle Peter statue, Pixabay / Dog Warrior , edited at removebg , then cropped The Second Epistle of Peter was met with suspicion because it did not read like his previous epistle. Liberal scholars who tend to disbelieve the authority and authenticity of the Bible brought several assumptions to the table. Peter was lacking the intelligence that is exhibited in the second epistle, they claimed. There are several explanations to remove both of these doubts. People have different writing styles f

It is interesting to watch how believers in universal common descent promote their speculations (often with the secular science industry's media sensationalizing). Then creationists and the Intelligent Design camp show the flaws in the science and logic of secularists. Hopefully, regular readers have learned how to spot fake science news. This can be done without owning science degrees. Evolutionists make their pronouncements and attempt to bamboozle us, but we can see when they are talking non-science and are full of hooey. Consider the evolution of a certain type of octopus. Octopus image from Hippopx One aspect of presuppositional apologetics is that biblical creationists presuppose that the Bible is true, and we examine other worldviews to see if they are internally consistent. Misotheists frequently misrepresent and ridicule this apologetic, and they deny something very obvious: They are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves, presupposing evolution and naturalism. With this

As said before, Question Evolution Day (12 February) is multifaceted. In addition to speech and academic freedoms, it is an encouragement to get people to ride up on the hill to look at the bigger picture — and think . Folks cannot simply accept the assertions of scientists regarding historical science and origins. There should be a passel of red flags dropping when reading explanations about a group of ichthyosaurs that were fossilized. One flag is that secularists have been attempting to explain it for decades. The latest effort is...truly bizarre; that should be a red flag all by itself. Shastasaurus altispinus (ichthyosaur), WikiComm / Dmitry Bogdanov ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) On a quick side note, people group critters like these, mastodons, pterosaurs, and others with dinosaurs. It makes things easier when issuing postage stamps and the Bag-O-Plastic-Toy-Figures. And casual conversation. Ichthyosaurs came in various shapes and sizes, and there are numerous types. Some rivaled (and poss

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen From the standpoint of producing evidence for what they teach, biblical creationists can be baffled by the resistance displayed by anti-creationists. Some tinhorns claim that we never produce evidence — making such insipid claims on posts such as " Overview of Geologic Evidence of the Flood !" Material exposing evolutionary fraud and bad science is ignored or waved away. In literally thousands of books, articles, videos and such, Creationists and Intelligent design proponents have discussed how evidence for design is abundant. Instead of intelligently discussing interpretations of evidence, atheists and evolutionists go beyond insults and attempt to dehumanize us . Red-bellied woodpecker, Unsplash / Joshua J. Cotten When misotheists attempt to dehumanize us, it shuts down rational discourse. It also indicates fear on their part. Can't be letting evidence for design get wide circulation, nosiree! That's bad medicine for atheism. Further, what doe

Believers in universal common have been known to patronizingly tell creationists and other evolution doubters to go to a natural history museum and learn. What people see are exhibits with tendentious usages of evidence, displays involving artistic license, and so on. Actual science, not so much. Remember, facts do not speak for themselves, but are interpreted according to worldviews , and then presented. Secularists presuppose evolution and make that their starting point. Unfortunately, many are so convinced that it is true (despite contradictory or nonexistent evidence), they play fast and loose with their presentations. Australopithecus afarensis , WikiComm /  Wolfgang Sauber ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) Take a look at photos of  A. afarensis  (Lucy) models as well as other illustrations. I found some where a male specimen is gazing heavenward, as if contemplating the mysteries of the universe. Another exhibit has Lucy overjoyed that Alan arrived at the museum — or is that Steve? One model has

Long ago, the coelacanth was considered extinct. Its fossils got believers in fish-to-fire marshal evolution all excited because it had nubbin fins that they thought resembled feet. Yee haw boy howdy, this bad boy was a transitional form. It was evolving for land life as required by the Darwinian narrative! The geologic column has numerous problems including fossils in the wrong order and so-called ghost lineages (where certain fossils appear, disappear for a few million Darwin years, and then reappear). That stuff gets left out of the millions of years with transitions narrative. The coelacanth was not willing to be a part of it. Coelacanth,  NOAA  (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Evolutionists made their pronouncements about the fossils according to their presuppositions. Then the coelacanth decided to stop playing hide and seek. One was found, but not in good enough condition for detailed study. Eventually, more were found, and were pretty much identical to their

One of the most common complaints by professing atheists is that there is insufficient evidence for God. They have disingenuously redefined atheism from one who believes there is no God or gods  into lacking belief . Many will not give a direct answer as to what would constitute evidence for God, or even whether or not he would be able to make himself known. Many want God to meet their arbitrary subjective standards. The Creator of the universe is not a performing seal, old son. Webb telescope galaxies, NASA , ESA, CSA, and STScI (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Those of us who believe that the Bible means what it says know that despite their protestations, God has indeed made himself known. A standard argument by theists is to say that unbelievers just need to look around, his design is clearly evident. Do not  fall into the "prove it to me" trap because they are getting you to admit that you don't believe what God's Word says. Somehow, tinhorns li

The Bearded Buddha admitted that the gradual evolution of the eye seemed absurd. Presupposing his conjectures and refusing to consider any other explanation for the origin of the eye, he believed by blind faith that evidence supporting his ideas would be found. Disciples of Darwin have been trying to meet his challenge for years. There are sidewinders who simply avoid the challenge by saying that the human eye was poorly designed, but such a religious claim is based on opinion, not science. Cat eyes, Pixabay / Christel Sagniez It is not just the human eye, though. There have to be gradual stages of development and organisms had to benefit each step of the way.  National Geographic  attempted to support Charlie in 2016, but that effort was shot down by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell. A more recent contender arose in something called Visual Capitalist , but this deceptive Just-So Story also fails. Indeed, there is dissent in the ranks about not only the evolution of the eye, but how particles-to

Once again, the narrative is more important than empirical science. We learn that some of Darwin's disciples evosplain (and make a false assertion) that they have observed  the evolution of single-celled algae into multicellular organisms. That is the opposite of the truth. Like everything else, organisms split from their ancestors early on. The differences between land plants and Zygnematophyceae (a class of green algae) are extensive, and land plants have cells and tissues. There is inference instead actual evidence for their common ancestor. Spirogyra green algae, Wikimedia Commons / Bogdan ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Sure, they can build a plan of likely evolution, but again, these researcher are presuming evolution in the first place. (Indeed, we saw similar self-serving logic just recently involving fish hearts and our hearts .) There are also assumptions made about " selection pressure " (that occur over millions of Darwin years and cause things to evolve). It is taken by fa

As mentioned before, unbelievers try to undermine the historicity of the Bible in their efforts to negate it. Genesis is maligned by atheists with their materialistic paradigm (there is no God and miracles are impossible). Unbelievers take that kind of approach to other parts of the Bible as well. You probably know the account of how the Israelites left Egypt, and Exodus 12:37 mentions 600,000 men, plus their families . Laypeople tend to forget that the Bible and other ancient texts do not conform to modern approaches regarding minute details and strict sequences of events. Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh / Benjamin West There is something that I want to say here. Thoughtful Christians and creationists do not simply appeal to miracles as a matter of course. When the text indicates a miracle occurred, yes. But to use it as a reflexive explanation, no. That is not the manner of serious researchers and scholars. To first seek a natural explanation before using one that is supernatural is