Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen During October 9-11, a free online viewing of  Dismantled: A Scientific Deconstruction of the Theory of Evolution was announced. It was publicized here as a component in an article to discuss false accusations by atheists of Christian profiteering. We will focus on the movie itself now. Image taken from a screenshot of the trailer by Back2Genesis Dismantled  raises the question early on, a question that people have wondered for millennia: Where did everything come from? There have been many speculations throughout time, but the main considerations can be narrowed down. One is that life, the universe, and everything are the result of blind natural processes and chance; we are lucky accidents. The other idea is that the book of Genesis is real history. Rational people want evidence to support ideas. The movie makes the case for the differences between operational  and historical  science. Some people get on the prod about this (including a sci...

Except for fundamentalist evolutionists, many people know that radiometric dating is tenuous at best. It involves a number of assumptions, which is bad enough, but there is a passel of circular reasoning and cherry-picking of data to fit deep time presuppositions. The same is true in radiocarbon dating. Credit: Freeimages / Pedro Simao Some hominid remains were discovered in Portugal, and secularists commenced to assigning dates to the rocks. However, the standard used was predetermined to give researchers the deep time that they wanted to have. They also had results that were the opposite of what they wanted, and inconvenient dates were simply rejected. Very unscientific and dishonest. A recent Neanderthal study in the journal Science mixed detailed archaeological finds with stories about human origins. As is typical, the report’s age assignments for fossils fit evolutionary time instead of the Bible’s much shorter timeline of thousands of years. Its age-dating exercises revea...

In Part 1, we saw that proponents of evolution have a mess, and they are constantly needing to rewrite human evolution because the facts do not fit the narrative. As we continue, we see that other scientific disciplines are also recalcitrant to evolutionary ideas. Background image :  The Passion of Creation ,  Leonid Pasternak, 1880s Radiometric dates assigned to Neanderthal remains conflict with archaeological finds, and the radiometric dating methods used are based on circular reasoning. In addition, these dates were disingenuously adjusted to fit what scientists wanted — especially when they were more compatible with biblical timelines. The archaeologists discovered that the Neanderthals engaged in the same kinds of activities that modern humans would enjoy. A recent report in the journal Science mixed detailed archaeological finds with stories about human origins. As is typical, age assignments for fossils fit evolutionary time instead of the Bible’s much shorter...

New material added to the end of this post. There was a time when Neanderthals were considered partly-evolved cavemen, a link to our simian ancestry. Scientists caught up to what biblical creationists have said for decades: Neanderthals were fully human just like us. Evidence continued to mount that showed how they were not only human, but intelligent. Now we learn that they were rather sophisticated! Modified from an image at Openclipart Neanderthals were creative and intelligent and fully human. Some scientists were skeptical that there was evidence proving they were the ones who did those high-quality cave wall paintings. While it seems obvious, study on it a spell. Nobody saw them doing the painting, and they could have taken over furnished caves or shared them with Denisovans and modern humans . Nope. Now it is believed the Neanderthals did the painting. This may have been put aside for a spell since they apparently had a proclivity toward sexual promiscuity — like moder...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A word that has gained popularity in recent months is "—splaining". As you can see, it is based on explaining, but current lingo often means that someone is pretending have greater knowledge than he or she actually possesses. Also, it is done in a condescending manner. Advocates of muck-to-man evolution are fond of evosplaining  to biblical creationists and the unwashed masses. Replica painting from the Chauvet cave / Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain Some owlhoots refuse to admit that Neanderthals were fully human. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they will seek out evoporn that makes them feel good about their preconceptions. One claim to keep the myth in the saddle is that Neanderthals did not make recognizable art. That story was based on evolutionary presuppositions that the art was done by more modern humans instead of Neanderthals. This idea was given a serious slap down a few years ago , and the fact of Neanderthal-made art ha...

Creationists have been saying for a mighty long time that Neanderthal people were fully human, and the evidence from paleoanthropologists and others continues to affirm this fact.  Evidence for the humanity of Neanderthals, including the inner ear, interbreeding (sharing DNA) with modern humans, facial differences between us and them are minor, home organization, heating water, and advanced art techniques help make the conclusion of the humanity quite solid (see " Losing Face to Neanderthals " for more, including links).  Credit: Freeimages / kelly suzuki Of course, facts will not stop some uneducated anti-creationists from digging up irrelevant rescuing devices and outdated links . Since their phantasmagorical death cult needs every scrap of tendential "evidence", some folks will never admit that this battle is over. The possibility that they were in Spain was met with hesitation , and cave paintings over thataway were compared with those in France and fo...

Once again, I want to emphasize a couple of things. First, informed biblical creationists do not believe in "races", as evinced in Acts 17:26 and the fact that the Bible does not use the word "races". Also, we do not say that evolution causes racism. Racism has existed for millennia, but Darwinism has been used to make it scientifically respectable . If you study on it, the ones making the "science" thought darker-skinned people were of inferior evolution and Caucasians were superior. And before someone from Fallacy Central puts words in my mouth: no, being an evolutionist does not mean you're a racist. There are no races, but there are people groups. But since "people group-ism" is a mite awkward, I'll use the more widely understood and less syllabic word racist for the purpose of discussion. Despite evolutionary mythology, scientists have reluctantly admitted that Neanderthals were indeed fully human. (See the links at " Losin...

Seems that with all the attention given to the accumulation of evidence that Neanderthals were fully human , those folks called Cro-Magnon seemed to have fallen out of favor as members of the human cave man parade. They used to be in the textbooks. There are a few of reasons we don't hear much about those skilled hunters and artists much anymore. Photo of Lascaux cave painting credit: Wikimedia Commons / Prof saxx Cro-Magnons were named after an area in France where some of there skeletons were discovered. Sure, they were "cave men" at times. Let me ask you something. Does living in a cave make you "primitive"? Nope. Like other people, Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon people groups were resourceful and used the shelter caves provided. (You may want to give it a try yourself .) Since their times on Earth overlapped, mayhaps Cro-Magnons, Neanderthals, and "modern" humans shared some living spaces? I'm just speculating, though. The hands at the Dar...

Meteorologists can be wrong frequently, but they still have their jobs. Looks like the same kind of thing happens in evolutionary sciences. We hear conjectures about how the cosmos evolved, "junk" DNA, the ridiculous walking fish concept — they keep turning out to be very, very, wrong. Usually, the weather forecasters are shown to be wrong in short order (except the global climate change apocalypse prophets, whose errors are shown later). Bad science sometimes takes a mighty long time to be discovered, and the public doesn't hear about those things so much. Not a lot of money in refuting evolution and affirming creation, you know. Paleoanthropology is one of the worst sciences for accuracy. Like the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals , their "rulings" are frequently overturned. Look at the timeline in our alleged evolutionary history. Them critters get themselves thrown out of the family tree, reclassified as fully human, fully ape, blatant fraud, outrageous st...

Can you imagine a game show where people need to match survey questions about items found in a cave? "Stalactites, Steve!" Yes. "Bats!" Yes. "Water!" Yes. "Dirt!" Yes. "DNA!" Gets a strange look from the host, checks the results. Buzzzzz! Nope, DNA didn't match the survey. But DNA is in caves, especially in the soil. Some of it comes from our fully-human Neanderthal ancestors, too. Credit: Morguefile / Koan Scientists are disagreeing about the age and movement of the DNA. The stuff breaks down over a short amount of time. Maybe soil helps preserve it, but water in the soil helps mix it up and seep into deeper rock layers. Some secularists are believing that the DNA is way, way old, and others are saying, "Waitaminnit, it has age limits". To date the DNA because of their long-age assumptions require it to be old is circular reasoning, but actual science shows that the DNA cannot be all that old. There w...

While there are honest evolutionary scientists who seek to find and promote evidence of all live evolving from a common ancestor, their militant comrades use skulduggery to promote their worldview. In this instance, the Neanderthal was fully human (as affirmed by archaeology, DNA, anthropology, and more, presented on this site several times), but some insist on portraying Neanderthals as less-than-human brutes. Things get worse, as we shall see. Credit: Unknown, Public Domain, even used at NASA Why do some folks continue to believe that Neanderthals were not quite human and a link to our evolutionary ancestry despite the evidence? They want to. It fits their paradigm, and they are adverse to admitting that the evidence refutes evolution and supports special creation, and that is anathema to them. Portrayals of Neanderthals have been based on presumptions of evolution and on chimerical visions, but not on evidence. Science isn't supposed to work that way, old son. Even in r...

Who were cave men? Men who lived in caves. Next question. Oh, too short? Okay. In the parlance of proponents of evolution from a common ancestor, our predecessors were stupid brutes that gradually evolved human characteristics, intelligence, culture, and so on. The Neanderthals were popular cave man icons because some lived in caves, but they were not only intelligent, but fully human — much to the consternation of some anti-creationists. It's kind of fun to learn about our distant fully-human cousins, and new discoveries keep on refuting evolutionary ideas. One reason is that we have a whole passel of information about Neanderthals to work with than the usual fragments of teeth and bones of our other alleged evolutionary ancestors. By the way, people in modern times have lived in caves, especially in hot climates. Morguefile / richard_b If you're not too bright and just trying to survive, or just passing through, you're not likely to gussy up a place too much. Neand...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Hat tip to Doug McBurney for giving some inspiration for this article. The atoms-to-acrobat evolutionists at the Darwin Ranch have the view that people were stupid way back when. It's consistent with their philosophy, since we supposedly came from minerals, fish, animals, and up the ladder to where we are today. So, we're wired to be the best, right? Image credit: Pixabay / Cornfreak We're created in God's image but are in rebellion against him, so we're a mix of good and bad. Technological and medical advances, taming animals, the ability to compose music, write literature, and do all sorts of things that are not possible for animals to accomplish. We can also do something else that is unlike animals: self-destruct, whether individually, culturally, or destroy millions of our fellow beings in a short time. Also unlike animals, we can celebrate our downward spiral. We've made same-sex marriage not only legal, but want people...

Can you imagine a cowboy working the Montana Territory with allergy problems? All that dust, animal hair, hay and such — may as well go back East. When you commence to sneezing, your immune system is trying to protect you. Sometimes it gets a mite overwrought and reacts to things that are not necessarily threats, and for some people it goes into hyperdrive with a severe allergic reaction. Where did this come from? Image credit: David Castillo Dominici at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Scientists aren't exactly sure how allergies develop and what can be done about them. They do know that we have two types of immune systems, the innate and the adaptive. A study was done tracing some genes back to the Neanderthals, which were passed along when these "archaic" but fully-human people interbred with modern humans. However, there is no rational reason to think that genetic information came about through the random processes of evolution. Our immune system was created to do a job....

Depictions of Neanderthals as stupid, ugly, partially evolved brutes are becoming increasingly unrealistic. Studies of the inner ear , surprises by advanced art techniques , interbreeding with modern humans , heated water and organized their homes , and more factors show that they were inaccurately portrayed. If you study on it, you'll realize that the differences between us and them is shrinking all the time. Beautiful and Ugly by Adriaen van de Venne, 1634 There was a variety among Neanderthals. Indeed, there is a wide variety among the people you pass on the street every day. Were Neanderthals "ugly"? By what standard? Additional research on their facial constructions shows that the "ugly" features were bone constructions, and in fact, modern humans may actually be physically inferior to them! Let's face it, they are not the products of evolution, and neither are we. Humans are created beings, as are all creatures. The facial differences betw...