Piltdown Superman

As seen before, big ideas and movements rarely spring up suddenly. Charles Darwin did not create evolution , it is an ancient pagan philosophy going back to the Greeks, Hindus; the first evolutionist is the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4). Indeed, Darwin was also influenced by Lamarck, his grandfather Erasmus, and others.  Charlie even hijacked and retooled Edward Blyth's work on natural selection for his own purposes, making it a creative force. (His acolytes over the years have even made it into a being with the power to make choices.) Apparently he backed off a bit by the time Origin of Species reached its final edition. Sun obscured by tree, Mt. Tremper (NY) trail, 14 Sept 2022 by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Darwinism was embraced by academia — finally a way to get that pesky Creator out of their lives! There was a time that Darwinism was at risk of falling out of favor because of its substantial problems. People aware of Gregor Mendel's work in genetics (peas be upon him) thought

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

As explained previously, this biblical creation science site upholds the authority and accuracy of Scripture, so it is helpful to discuss archaeological and other material on occasion. For example, David, Saul, and Solomon  have been validated, and an ancient Egyptian monument mentioned Judah . Then we encounter tinhorns who say that the early chapters of Genesis are not written as history: The creation week is some kind of framework, or it is mythology used to teach some kind of lesson. Wrong! There are effective ways to determine that Genesis is intended to be read as history. Dame's Rocket, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob When examining claims, doing a internal critique is helpful (similar to how presuppositional apologists show that atheism is incoherent). People can set up questions to see if the Bible is consistent, but also how the rest of the Bible authors treat Genesis. For example, since Jesus said that he came to speak the truth, he referred to Genesis as authoritative and histori

It is a fact that young people will be indoctrinated in particles-to-professor evolution in schools, whether public or Christian. Indeed, some homeschool curricula are not to be trusted. Some parents may want to shield students from evolution. Bad idea, because they will learn it one way or another — and possibly wonder why their parents are afraid of "the truth." Evolution is not just a biological theory. Instead, many people (especially in science organizations or academia) have evolution as a worldview, guiding their thoughts and actions, then preaching fallacious principles. University lecture, Pixabay / Nikolay Georgiev It may seem like drama, but it is a fact that professors use evolution as a "scientific" way of destroying the faith of students. Well-documented is the fact that students lose their Christian beliefs. Why is that? One simple reason is that parents are unable to answer questions, and just wave them off. They know that creation is true, but their

This is the second of two installments, Part 1 is here . Several times, atheists and other evolutionists on teh interwebs attempt to wave off the Cambrian Explosion by downplaying its importance. One tinhorn challenged me by demanding to know why it is important, and how creationists deal with it. If they do not know its importance, they should not be apologists for evolution and deep time. But I think people like this enjoy attempting to put creationists on the defensive. It has been a major difficulty for many years, and efforts to solve the problem are doomed to failure. Life on Cambrian Miaolingian sea, WikiComm / Zhixin Sun et. al . ( CC BY 4.0 ), modified at PhotoFunia Note that in all of these things, evolutionists believe  despite  the evidence, and even resort to bad science and bad logic to protect Darwin from mean looks as he saunters down Evolution Street. They get downright deceptive. That's right, I said it!  No amount of tampering with data or reimagining it can cha

As discussed previously, the Cambrian Explosion is classified by secular scientists as happening over 10-25 million Darwin years. Animals with very different body plans are found, but there is no evidence of precursors . This has been a problem all the way back to Darwin, and evolutionists have been attempting to solve it ever since. There has been a great deal of recent news and noise by secularists presenting rescuing devices only to have them wither in the cold light of reason. Yes, some evolutionists want to cut through fake science. We have five articles, three today and two tomorrow, to consider. Diorama of the Burgess Shale Biota, Flickr / James St. John ( CC BY 2.0 ) Creationists know that the Cambrian Explosion is best explained by the Genesis Flood, but secularists reject that out of hand. Gotta have that naturalistic philosophy intact, you betcha! So we watch as evolutionists work on plans and others shoot them down. One was a speculation that the sudden increase in diversi

This news is a mite confusing on several levels. The secular science industry is outraged — outraged , I tell you — that evolution has been dropped from the education system in India. That may change momentarily, but like evolutionists feeling threatened by Neanderthal intelligence , principles here are important. One thing this child found confusing is that officials said one reason to remove evolution is that it "conflicts with creation stories." Evolution is in keeping with Hinduism, the majority religious viewpoint. (Christians are a minority, and atheists are a tiny fraction of the population.) Secularists were disingenuous in their objections. Angry shouting scientist image made at Bing AI Image Creator As expected, tinhorns said that evolution is essential for science. That is false, and there are many times when genuine science is performed without rubbing the belly of the Bearded Buddha. Molecules-to-mystic evolution is unhelpful in teaching medical science , and we

Saturn pleases us when the angle is just right and we can be amazed by its series of rings, but there are other planets that have rings as well. It took powerful telescopes to finally see them. The story goes that smaller bodies get too close to planets and break apart, forming rings. Way out yonder is a minor planet, a trans-Neptunian object, called Quaoar. That name came from a deity of indigenous people in the area that is now southern California. (I reckon it is preferable to one of his other names, Chinigchinix.) Smaller than Pluto, it has a moon. And a ring system ? Quaoar, NASA / JHUAPL / SwRI (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Cosmologists please themselves with their Just-So Stories about solar system formation and cosmic evolution, but those don't withstand scrutiny. Naturalists need tales that reject God the Creator, so they keep them despite their inadequacies. One of these is how rings form. Since a ring system was found around Quaoar where it "s

The hands at the Darwin Ranch were dispirited, and the baker Stevia Dolce told me she was feeling the mood. She even tried baking some pastries favored by the hands, hoping those might pep them up some, but with little effect. What could cause this? A misidentified fossil. It was supposedly from 550 million years ago, from the Precambrian rock strata. The original discovery caused something that seems to be happening quite frequently: Rewriting the geology textbooks. This time, regarding the Indian subcontinent. Not happening after all. Indoor beehive, Flickr / Lynne ( CC BY 2.0 ) The fossil was later identified as something made by bees, not the fossil of some ancient animal. It is modern, and it is a beehive impression. Stung by the news, secularists are still trying to present the cave in which it was found as very old. Such scientists seldom question their beliefs in deep time because they are working in accordance with their worldview. Constant evidence that should cause thinking

With improved technology and analytic skills, well-preserved fossils are discovered more frequently. Older fossils are also being reexamined with new technology. Yet another fossil from the Cambrian is causing consternation for evolutionary paleontologists. Sometimes it is a bit surprising that previously-studied fossils are reexamined, and certain details are studied that could easily be overlooked. Bones and other hard things — sure those are are expected to be fossilized, but when brains and nervous systems were involved, paleontologists are surprised. Neurons, Pixabay / Gerd Altmann Tiny worms in the Cambrian were found to have brains. Even secular scientists will admit that brains are incredibly complex things, but to have such soft things fossilize cannot happen with the slow 'n' gradual scenario. The critters had to be buried quickly, like all those other organisms in the Cambrian, during the Genesis Flood. Once again, a rewrite of textbooks on "how brains evolved&q

A frequent evidence used by biblical creationists in support of  the young solar system is short-term comets . These dirty snowballs have elliptical orbits around the sun, and with each pass, part of each gets burned away. If the solar system were as old as secularists maintain, these comets would no longer exist. Jan Oort used some jiggery-pokery to help save deep time by saying that way out yonder, beyond the orbits Neptune, Pluto, and all that good stuff, is a huge collection of comets just waiting to be stirred up by wandering stars and such. Then we have comets again, deep time be praised. NASA / JPL, based on illustration by Donald K. Yeoman (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) There is no observational evidence for this obvious rescuing device. Like invisible space aliens and the Big Bang, believers in cosmic evolution take this by blind faith. Some are determined to propagate the mythology, sometimes through ignorance, but probably by deceit: Used under federal

Scientific models are supposed to change in light of new evidence, but earlier than thought  is expressed so often, evolutionists should get the signal that their presuppositions are wrong. First, descent with modifications. Next, innumerable changes. Then, one of our ancestors was a fish. Teeth, jaws, and all that good stuff gradually evolved. But the fossil record does not sing along with the sheet music provided by Darwinists. A new discovery prompts yet another substantial rewrite of fish ancestry. No wonder college students have to keep buying new textbooks every year. Fishing at Kāneʻohe Bay, Unsplash / Drew Farwell Interesting that these instances of frequently rewriting models because of new discoveries doesn't happen to biblical creationists. That should give secularists something else to think about. Especially since fossils do not support the gradual processes required by evolution. The evidence supports recent creation — with teeth, jaws, limbs, and so forth fully form

This time, I am going to take you along a different trail. It is a series of articles from an Intelligent Design site worth considering. The ID movement has some serious limitations , but they do some good work in showing design   (obviously)  and flaws in evolution. When talking to typical evolution supporters, they often repeat material from secular news releases. We have seen that the press is often disingenuous and exceeds what evolutionary scientists actually claim. Darwin's acolytes claim to have mountains of evidence, but evolutionary scientists know otherwise. Ardipithecus ramidus , Wikimedia Commons / Sailko ( CC BY 3.0 ) One sidewinder actually said that human evolution is complete and has no gaps. That's the guy who gets quoted by evolution supporters who deny the Creator, but he's at odds with the majority of experts. That's right, there are disputes about evolution and major flaws in candidates for our ancestors are known. Unfortunately, people are impress

If you study on it, Neanderthals have evolved in evolutionary history. They were links to our apelike ancestors as portrayed in textbooks and museums. Once some of the presuppositions about apeness were dropped, improved technology was invented, and better research was conducted, they were found to be fully human. What did these guys think about? Well, what do you  think about? What is important to people can often be determined by what they own and how they act. For example, visiting the dwellings of people can indicate what is valued or at least what is interesting to them. The same may be said of Neanderthals. Neanderthal reconstruction, Flickr / Michael (a.k.a. moik) McCullough ( CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ) We should know that it is possible to generalize what groups of people think about, value, and provides them entertainment, but to generalize that each individual was the same as the others is the fallacy of division . My interests in music, science, theology, and other things are vastly

Chuck Darwin released the wolves over 150 years ago in search of evidence for evolution, especially ancestors of modern humans. While uninformed disciples claim that evolution is "settled science," evolutionary scientists know that it is anything but settled. Sure, they keep finding evidence of early humans, but nothing that can be considered a candidate for Ancestor X, the beginning of all people groups. (Sounds like a "patient zero," the first infected with a contagion.) They have many disputes and no firm evidence — and even some possible racism. It must be admitted that a great deal of evolution is ethno-centric. After all, Darwin's Victorian myth placed his white Englishmen be the pinnacle of evolution, but darker people were less evolved. (I reckon it must have grated on " scientific racists " to propose the idea that humans evolved and spread out of Africa. That is disputed, and some believe the Middle East is the source of humanity. That's

It amazes this child that sciency folks believe in things they cannot see or test, but dark matter is at the top of the list along with the Big Bang, cosmic and biological evolution, deep time, and all that good stuff. Creationists tend to reject dark matter because it is a rescuing device for the Big Bang. Also, it can only be inferred, not observed. When searching for images at NASA, I noticed that there were numerous articles where scientists were amazed because the supposed dark matter did not behave in a manner that secular cosmologists expect. Some are getting on the prod about how it constantly defies explanation, and are proposing a replacement. Hubble image of galaxies, NASA , ESA, & J. Lotz & HFF Team (STScI) (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) A few secular cosmologists believe in Modified Newtonian Dynamics. It is thought that this approach to science offers better explanations for what is observed that trying to use dark matter. Of course, the majo

It is common knowledge that the secular news media are, for the most part, heavily biased toward the political left. This obviously influences their reporting — which seems more like propaganda than actual journalism. After all, journalists are expected to investigate and ask hard questions. There are a few reporters who want to do their jobs. Unfortunately, they are obscured by the lapdog majority. In the secular science industry, leftist causes and Darwinism are paramount as well as symbiotic. The public wants answers and is getting annoyed with the science press. Sausages by Amanda Lim at Unsplash (modified, obviously) In an article on an Intelligent Design site titled " Why Are Science Reporters So Credulous? ", David Klinghoffer points out that secular science journalists are assembling press releases instead of doing genuine reporting. He quotes Nicholas Wade, who indicates that journalists put scientists on pedestals which hinders doubt or healthy skepticism. The secu

Defenders of deep time, especially on social(ist) media, despise any discussion of the global Genesis Flood. Many refuse to examine evidence for it, clutching their pearls and crying that there is no reason to consider the evidence because there was no Flood. Because atheism. (One may justifiably wonder if these owlhoots have always been anti-science and anti-thought.) Uniformitarian geology cannot adequately explain many observed facts without making excuses for recalcitrant data, but creation science Flood geology does a better job — especially with an accurate geological model. Coward's Falls, Flickr / Cowboy Bob Sorensen  ( CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ) Using extensive data, geologist Dr. Tim Clarey and others from the Institute for Creation Research made a map of the Flood effects. If evidences creationists used to support the Genesis Flood were one-off anomalies, they could arguably be easier to ignore or dismiss. Instead, geological features of the Flood stages span continents. Creatio

Whenever the fact that the moon is receding from the earth is presented, one can hear raucous laughter from the Darwin Ranch* as far toward town as Stinking Lake. They bring out Lotta Lyez, the kitchen maid, to recite the rescuing devices. Ridicule is a standard operating procedure for misotheists, because (like dinosaur soft tissues) the implications are devastating for long ages. Papa Darwin needs lots of years his magick to perform. Using calculations of secularists against them, lunar recession is evidence for recent creation. Moon over Grand Canyon, Pexels / Eberhard Grossgasteiger At the current recession rate as an upper limit and calculating backward, the moon would have been  touching  our marble 1.5 billion Darwin years ago. That is not possible, obviously. The standard paradigm for secularists is slow and gradual processes, like we see in geology. From a creationist perspective, the moon has not moved away from Earth all that much. However, the small amount of recession is k

The idea that life could come from non-life defies reason, but people believed it for years. One reason is that people considered it scientific, and like sheeple today, would "follow the science" even when it was bad. Universal common ancestor evolution itself is an ancient pagan idea, and spontaneous generation (also known as abiogenesis or chemical evolution) likely originated from ancient Greek philosophers. Some scientists doubted spontaneous generation, and began disproving it in the sixteenth century. Some people still believed until Louis Pasteur put the kibosh on it. Flickr / Cowboy Bob Sorensen  ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) Evolutionists falsely claim that "abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution", but textbook writers, makers of documentaries ( including David Attenborough ), and others apparently never got that telegram. By distancing themselves from the origin of life (even resorting to directed panspermia , where the OoL becomes a problem for space aliens), th