Piltdown Superman

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

Rusty Swingset, foreman at the Darwin Ranch near Deception Pass, was all excited about new efforts that are being made to show how morality itself evolved. Those rascals keep trying to find ways of explaining immaterial things using materialistic presuppositions. That is, only naturalism: No Creator need apply. Their efforts do not go well. To have morality, it stands to reason that consciousness itself must exist. Secularists cannot explain the evolution of consciousness . Then there is the puzzle of how morality evolved, but that is not explained either . Are new efforts to explain the evolution of morality faring any better? Puzzled chimpanzee is puzzled, Pixabay / Marcel Langthim , modified at PhotoFunia Before we go any further, a bit of history. While Charles Darwin gets applause for creating evolution ( no, he did not ), Alfred Russel Wallace is sometimes credited as a co-discoverer of evolution through natural selection. What is less known is that, although they maintained a c

A term that has become common in recent years is fact check , predominantly used in political matters. It seems that fact-checking organizations (as well as individuals) are bolstered by appeals to their authority and popularity — as well as those who want their biases confirmed. Who checks the checkers? The Snopes site was outstanding for looking up information and refuting silly urban legends, but it became disingenuous when supporting leftist politics . The FactCheck outfit claims that Snopes is reliable (this post has a mix of good and bad information, but supports leftist sources), but they are biased themselves . Negative biases are used when fact-checking the Bible using archaeology. Study room at Qumram, Israel - Flickr / Dennis Jarvis  ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) Although this may seem like the genetic fallacy , it is worth considering the presuppositions of people making assertions and challenges. Many times on social(ist) media, people will simply make claims. For example, in Matthew

Dreadful reasoning under the pretense of science is not a new phenomenon, having been a problem for many years. A glaring example that is often overlooked is how when the Bearded Buddha wrote Origin of Species , he presented his theory and admitted that fossil evidence did not support it. He did not admit that his conjectures were wrong. He blamed  the fossil record . In addition, his disciples continued to have faith that evidence would be found. That is the opposite of science, old son. The Fossil Record, made at PhotoFunia using a photo by  Alejandro Quintanar at Pexels The owlhoots who believe in the General Theory of Evolution are working from their worldview to interpret data. Fine, everyone does that. But they have a tendency to try and force the data into their paradigm and blame the fossil record for being "incomplete" when their speculations fall flat. It's not working, Wilberforce. Some evolutionists are willing to play the cards they've been dealt to so

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Some things pertaining to evolution are not common knowledge. For example, there are many  strange religious ideas presented as empirical evolutionary science . In addition, people have the notion that evolution was invented by Charles Darwin, but he did not come up with the idea all by his lonesome: Evolution from a common ancestor is actually an ancient pagan belief. Although science thrives on challenges, folks like to protect the consensus and are slow to accept better ideas. One example is phlogiston. That was the stuff that was thought to cause burning. When that idea was overturned because of better science , it met resistance and was slow to extinguish. Of course, evolution itself is protected red in tooth and claw by the secular science industry, and evidence refuting it and supporting biblical creation science are repressed with a vengeance. Some ideas, however, are allowed to be heard and presented — as long as they do not favor the Intelligent Desig

Well, something escalated quickly. My prospector friend Stormie Waters stopped by my place, then we went into town for supplies. After loading up her buckboard, we went to lunch. Al Buehterawl and Lotta Lyez from the Darwin ranch joined us. Our jawing turned to the beauty of the canyons, buttes, arches, rock layers, and so on. I agreed and added that this planet is wrecked, and that nobody can imagine its splendor before the Genesis Flood. Lotta Lyez was incensed, and Al Buehterawl took a deep breath and railed against the Flood. Victoria Falls gorge and bridge, Wikimedia Commons /  JackyR  ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Al and Lotta went on to make the ridiculous boilerplate remark from anti-creationists that there is no evidence for the Flood. I pointed out that if secularists would remove their uniformitarian slow 'n' gradual processes spectacles , they might be able to honestly examine the evidence and see that yes, there is a passel of evidence for the Flood. Lotta turned a shade of pur

Once again, my prospector friend Stormie Waters had ventured past Creek Road and was in sight of the Winkie Guards at the Darwin Ranch ( not   the one in the Bridger-Teton National Forest ). At that moment, foreman Rusty Swingset was heading out, so Stormie hid behind some   greasewood . Rusty passed close to her, but he was busy talking with some ranch hands about land plant evolution from stonewort and didn't notice her. (She gets shy when trespassing.) Some evolutionists are writing checks on the bank of science that cannot be cashed. Stonewort image by   Jeremy Halls   at Flickr ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) If you study on it, evolution is taken by faith, not by sight. People have believed it by relying on   science of the gaps : eventually, evidence would be found. Materialists presuppose evolution, and when it comes to land plants, believe they have found a way to fill in the evolutionary gaps appealing to genetics. However, they have no actual evidence, and many questions are left unans

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Although misotheists are divided on many things, some pretend that they are unified and it is the fault of Christians and creationists for not understanding them. Some time ago, I made a disparaging remark about an atheist's claim that people get morality from evolution. When I mentioned it later, another told me I was being ridiculous because they do not believe such a thing. The telegraph lines must have been down because one or the other did not get the correct message. Atheists frequently get on the prod and seem compelled to contradict anything the st00pid dujmb theist will say — even at the point of denying their own mythology or actual scientific facts for the sake of being disputatious. Trying to have a rational discussion with the average internet atheist is often like trying to teach a pig to sing (it wastes your time and irritates the pig). As a student of presuppositional apologetics , I've learned that the apologists needs to show that the u

As you probably know, biblical creationists believe the Bible indicates that Earth is only a few thousand years old. This is contrary to the atheistic naturalism narrative of 4-1/2 billion years. Radiometric dating cannot support that number without unwarranted assumptions , and evolutionary population genetics is even more ridiculous. Darwin's disciples have to play fast and loose with observed data to make it appear like their presuppositions are valid. Storytelling has its rewards because people obtain phony-baloney jobs — unlike having a degree in, say, history of art. Credit: RGBStock /  Sanja Gjenero Anyone making a hypothesis or model works from presuppositions, then attempts to see if data and testing bear them out. Creationists and evolutionists make assumptions. Using very conservative assumptions about population growth, it is easy to reach a figure consistent with today's population. For evolutionary views that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of y

When critiquing a theory, hypothesis, worldview, or whatever, it is necessary to see if it is logical and consistent within itself. Ideas of universal common ancestry evolution require that living things began as simple organisms and became more complex over time. This is consistent within itself. People with a worldview based on atheistic materialism must believe in evolution. However, observed evidence does not support evolution, and scientists frequently remark about being surprised at how findings do not fit the belief system. Pantolambda by Heinrich Harder, 1920, via Wikimedia Commons This is because they are locked into erroneous views, and we have seen many times that they try to evosplain away their predicaments. A recent post about cave women, DNA, and Neanderthals  shows how unyielding evolutionists are troubled by discoveries. Similarly, they presuppose that mammals of yesteryear were "primitive". Because evolution. Because dating methods. But examining what is kn

It may come as a shock to some people, but there are absolutes in the universe. Think about them: moral standards, people can think logically, do math and science, and so on. Because of a risible and self-refuting trend that truth is subjective, Francis Schaeffer coined the term true truth , meaning truth that was absolute. The idea that there is no ultimate or absolute truth fits in quite nicely with Darwinism, atheism, Marxism, and other false salvation philosophies. Atheists do not have a consistent moral standard, preferring their morality to be subjective — again, this is self-refuting . Credit: Pexels /  RF._.studio Science needs the proper environment . This precludes atheistic naturalism as well as pagan and Eastern religious views, which will not let science thrive. A number of biblically-based presuppositions are necessary for science. One of these is objective truth. If you study on it, the subjective or relative truth ideas of postmodernism make science impossible. This fit