Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Time and again, reports are brought to me by my prospector friend Stormie Waters about the occasional ruckus at the Darwin Ranch. She was over at Sour Wells a spell back. Along came Jacqueline Hyde (who was not quite herself again), the lady friend of Rusty Swingset (the foreman) and they commenced to jawing about the latest dustups. Then they came over to visit and give me the lowdown. Evolutionists tend to portray their worldview as mostly unified with just a few details to be ironed out. Not true. As we have seen on this site alone, there is considerable dissent among them . Apparently, some want to give evolution a complete overhaul instead of continuing to put lipstick on a pig and chanting the natural selection  mantra. Biblical creationists need to make our move and use this divide for the gospel message. Credits: Pixabay /  Gareth Weeks (for the pig) and  Irum Shahid (for the lipstick) For several examples of how evolutionary dogma does not square wit

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  On my original weblog, Stormbringer's Thunder , I was writing some articles about browsers, privacy, and extensions  as relevant to my Windows 10 desktop experiences. I conducted some of what I consider research because it involved considering variables, plus seeing what did and did not work. That became an odd inspiration for this article. It fits with discussions on shoddy research from the secular science industry, which in turn impresses the obedient lapdog fake science news media.  Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann There is an extension that I use on all of my browsers called Reader View by Yokris (yes, they have a version for Opera, Firefox and its forks, as well as Chromium-based browsers). Great for relieving eye strain when reading at the computer, and the user can edit a page to some extent, then save it as an HTML document. Very helpful to me when making reference points. Read to me, Electronic Friends Reader View can read aloud to us. Users can sel

The other day, the hands at the Darwin Ranch went a-riding into town, shot holes in the saloon ceiling, scared the showgirls, overindulged in firewater, and so on. They think they won the bid from the secular science industry for a model to improve science using evolution. Credit: Pixabay /  Fernando Latorre They have great faith in Darwinian thinking, but insert a passel of presuppositions about what they consider good morals and principles. Great, "improving" science by selecting the best of time, chance, random processes, survival of the fittest, mutations, natural selection, and so on. Would you  want that kind of thinking in your  program? Not me. More than that, these tinhorns steal principles from the biblical worldview. Why? Because theirs is incoherent. Instead of giving credit to the Creator, they simply take and pretend those things were their ideas all along. Need better science? Let the Darwin Party take over. They’ll give the next reformers an even bigger mess t

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Subjects like radical  and Saul Alinsky are not exactly what one would expect for the tenth annual Question Evolution Day , but hopefully this article will be interesting. This is in no wise an endorsement of Alinsky or Rules for Radicals , but there are some things that can be learned. Modified with a graphic from Photos Public Domain The word  radical  is frequently thrown around with little regard to its original meaning. It is quite often used as a pejorative. Nowadays it can have connotations of people with Molotov fire bombs or doing other acts of violence. It is used to label extremist views (making Charles Darwin a radical because his views were not readily accepted at first). The true meanings of radical are quite different, including holding to a  foundation or basic principle .  Saul Alinsky was friendly to communist views and leftist government, but did not seem to promote actual violence. What I read of Rules for Radicals  was interesting and unpre

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  The content of this post (and especially in the featured article below) is  both important and disturbing , so be forewarned on both counts. People want to believe they are special, and the Nazis used evolutionism, bad science, and propaganda to "prove" the Aryan "race" was superior. Background image furnished by  Why?Outreach An honest examination of evolutionary thinking reveals that it has spawned many evils, including: Medical malpractice such as  "junk" DNA  and  "vestigial" structures Communism Scientific Racism It played a major factor in  World War I Eugenics Abortion Nazi racist policies , which were not limited to the Jews,  but also Gypsies  and others As we have seen many times, many adherents of the  Darwin Death Cult® are not driven by evidence, but instead are trying to promote the atheistic naturalism narrative . (If evolutionists were indeed following the evidence, they would all be biblical creationists!

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A common accusation against creationists is that we oversimplify science with, "GodDidIt". While be believe that God is the ultimate first cause and has a plan, creation scientists want to know how God did it.  Creation of the World / Ivan Aivazovsky, 1864 modified with graphic from Open Clipart Biblical creationists presuppose the truth of Scripture and the majority of secular scientists presuppose atheistic naturalism. They are unable to give plausible scientific explanations and models for slime-to-slate-roofer evolution, so they draw upon circular reasoning based on other baseless explanations; these essentially come down to "EvolutionDidIt" and " It evolved ". I reckon that's a bit of a logical fallacy (or a psychological defect, mayhaps) to say that creationists are not interested in explanations for what is observed, but secularists offer little of substance themselves. The money and power in the secular science industry

Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas. Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem  is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous. As mentioned several times before,

The Kitzmiller v. Dover legal decision was one of the worst miscarriages of justice and violations of American freedom of our time. Atheists and other anti-creationists have celebrated it for years — which is both ironic and instructive for us. The ironic part is people having Atheism Spectrum Disorder cheer the ruling, saying that the judge was wise in declaring Intelligent Design a religious movement (and other words to that effect). Darwin's handmaidens will also tell creationists that we have no business discussing flaws in evolution if we are not scientists — but Judge Jones was not a scientist. Two standards, no waiting. Let me make this worse for them: they  have no business promoting evolution because they are not scientists themselves, nor can they criticize the Bible because they are not theologians. They get shot with their own guns that way. This decision was not binding outside of the school district, but anti-creationists have acted like it was a Supreme Court ruling.

A spell back, we saw how some of Darwin's disciples were erroneously asserting that a certain artery in the arm was evolution in action . That was a detailed example, and we can see that it was not simply an outlier. Mostly Made at FotoFunia Numerous instances of fake science presented as evidence of molecules-to-magician evolution are seen here, with links to other sites for more information.. They presuppose that evolution happened, never questioning if  it happened, then assume that whatever they see in nature (or think  they see) helps them further understand it. Although we have been taught that evolution takes a very long time, somehow it is so flexible that rapid changes are conflated with evolution and used to support it. Except that there really is no actual evolution happening. Still, they conjure up the spirit of Darwin (blessed be!) to give themselves credibility and get money for their phony baloney jobs. Naturalism and denying the work of the Creator is more important

There are several things on which secular and creation scientists agree, and one of these is plate tectonics.  The disagreements come about regarding how the whole shebang started, the rapidity of early tectonic activity, and the age of the earth. Image credit: US Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) "But Cowboy Bob, they have a new model!" Indeed. And that's how what we've tried to teach about rational thinking, presuppositions, and worldviews comes into play. The computer model, like any other, can only operate on the data that it is given. GIGO. Secular scientists used presuppositions based on their deep-time worldviews, and came up with a "what if" or "maybe" model. Even so, it actually explains nothing about how plate tectonics originated and other factors in the process. Biblical creation science models provide superior explanations. Yes, they admit to using  their  presuppositions regarding the tru

Once in a while, the unwashed masses get a glimpse into the workings of the secular science industry. Radiocarbon dating is not a closely guarded secret, but people tend to assume that scientists do not make assumptions. That is false. A new calibration for carbon-14 was proposed. To quote Nuke, " It did not go well ". Modified from an image at Pexels by  Francesco De tommaso Radiocarbon dating has many variables, and there have been discrepancies between historical records and the presupposition-based dating methods. It's not just creationists who have pointed this out for a mighty long time, secular scientists know it as well. (Biblical creationists have postulated that there were many changes to affect dating results during the Genesis Flood, which have been supported by evidence.) The new method is going to cause consternation and have a kind of ripple effect for established and new results. The latest calibration curve for radiocarbon dating is raising eyeb

There was a character put forward to show how clever scum-to-speech pathologist evolutionists can be, and that was known as Nebraska Man . That bad boy, his family, surroundings — everything was built from a single tooth. And that belonged to a pig. The fake science dino-bird paper reminded me of that. Mostly made at Vukki Tombstone Maker  (be careful poking around that site, possible malware) What we have is a rush to publish without due diligence in research. Once again, a fossil is found in amber. After consulting their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings® and blowing on the whistle, scientists decided that it was of a dinosaur evolving into a bird. Gotta keep the narrative going, don'tcha know. What did they really  find? A skull, some beak, and a bit of tongue, so the researchers worked from skimpy data and massive naturalistic presuppositions. But artists' conceptions prove evolution, right? They violated their artistic licenses. The paper was published but h

When proponents of universal common ancestry evolution insist that the fossils prove evolution, biblical creationists ask for the transitional forms. You know, where something is indisputably evolving into something else. They trot out variations and different sexes, but nothing convincing.  Elpistostege watsoni fossil image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Placoderm2 ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) There should be billions of actual transitional forms if evolution were true. Instead, we get evolutionists fighting tooth and nail for every possible candidate for a transitional form. What's this one fish hand thing? Yes, some are claiming to have definitive proof that the lobe-finned fish Elpistostege watsoni was evolving a hand. The evidence is dubious, and not everyone in the evolution camp wants to hop on that bandwagon. Indeed, a few similarities in a fossil or two does not indicate evolution of limbs. Consider the amazing complexity of the hand that the Master Engineer designed. See &qu

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Although some acolytes for Charles Darwin try to deny it, his racism has been abundantly documented ( here is a sampling ), so we have no need to spend much time on that. To go further, we will examine how presuppositions based on "race" and "primitive people" influenced the treatment of ethnic groups. Modern Comanche by Frederic Remington, 1890 Once again, however, it needs to be stated that racism (despite the fact that genetically and biblically we are all one race) is ancient, and was exacerbated by Darwinian views and "scientific racism" [ 1 ] . One problem with deeming people to be primitive is the evolutionary concept that our ancestors swung down from the trees and commenced to developing consciousness, hunting, language, and civilizations. Evolutionists have been repeatedly surprised that their presuppositions have been demonstrated to be fatally flawed. Roads discovered beneath ancient Roman roads in Britain [ 2