Piltdown Superman

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 va...

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 ...

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 reces...

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...

Through indoctrination classes, Darwinian propaganda documentaries, and other places, many people have heard of how peppered moths were solid evidence for evolution. Light moths on dark backgrounds became bird chow while dark moths did well. Indeed, H.B. Kettlewell said that the Bearded Buddha would have been happy to see this. However, Kettlewell was a #liar4darwin. Despite the fraud in his videos and photos, this fake news is still in textbooks. (So are the fraudulent embryonic recapitulation drawings by Haeckel the Jackal.) I am once again asking why, if there is so much solid evidence for the "fact" of evolution, do they need dishonesty to promote it? 1931 peppered moth image source: Flickr / Ben Sale  ( CC BY 2.0 ) As will be demonstrated in the following two articles, natural selection is not evolution . Was Kettlewell potted when he made his claim? There was no added genetic information, no vertical evolution — peppered moths did not evolve into something else. (A vi...

It is one thing for scientists to make mistakes, but Darwin's acolytes are slow to correct them when the naturalism narrative is threatened. Indeed, several icons of evolution have been referenced on this site alone that continue unabated. One of these is the claim that the appendix is "vestigial". Neotinic atheists and many evolutionists are happy to let errors slide despite the oft-repeated mantra that "science is self-correcting". So-called vestigial structures/organs were supposedly unneeded leftovers from our evolutionary past, so they atrophied or became nonfunctional. Like the claim of "junk" DNA , evidence was hitched to the wagon of evolutionary presuppositions, and a passel of hubris was added to the load. All of these are assumptions based on worldviews, not conclusions based on scientific evidence. The hubris is that secularists did not understand DNA ( which had not been fully sequenced ), nor did they understand the functions of certain s...

For many years, it has been taught that our traits are the result of our genes. Did Ellen touch the cleft in your chin after you were putting up the Christmas lights, Sparky? That crease was caused by a gene, they say. Credit: RGBStock / Helmut Gevert Eye and hair color, straight or curled, sizes of various body parts, other things — a gene for each. While this idea is useful to advance the particles-to-paralegal storyline, it is not true. Unfortunately, bad science ideas (especially those that support evolution) tend to remain in textbooks. The truth is much more complicated; Dr. Robert Carter said, "If life were really simple, evolution might be possible"; evolution is increasingly less possible relative to the complexity of life. Several genes are involved in traits and trait expressions, and other factors come into play. Indeed, our Creator likes variety, and he gave us many factors to express our individual characteristics. I taught college level human genetics and was c...

Not only did Papa Darwin  plagiarize other people and hijack Edward Blyth 's idea of natural selection in his presentation of evolution, but he also tinkered with the formation of atolls, which was based in incomplete science. It is malarkey, but still taught to students. Palmyra Atoll, NOAA photo by Erin Looney Secular science indoctrination centers (schools) are famous for providing false and outdated information regarding evidence for evolution and the age of the earth. Indeed, they use fraud . (This is "education".) We've covered Haeckel's drawings that are used to support both abortion and evolution already, and the Miller-Urey experiment has been thoroughly refuted. Darwin's ideas on atoll formation is known to be junk science, but that and the others are still in the textbooks. Maybe it's because it makes secularists feel good, and they need to make the books bigger? Darwin investigated other questions than evolution, such as the nature of barnacl...

When Darwinists tell the tale of whale evolution, people should be able to liken it to a just-so story without much effort. But no, naturalism demands stories that resemble, "Life evolved in the sea, some went on land and evolved further, others went back into the sea and became whales". Because evolution. The Whale Beached  by Esaias van de Velde, 1617 Since they have no actual science to back up their story, evolutionists began blubbering until they came up with the idea of using phylogenetics. However, we already saw that this is based on personal preferences, omitting important information, and circular reasoning (see " Phylogenetics — Based on Worldviews "). Piling up speculations and fake science has become far too common in evolutionism, but hey, give the people what they want, right? Although phylogeny is easy to dismantle by knowledgeable people, Darwin's cheerleaders attempted to use genetics. It's interesting. Some genes are not the same i...

Betcha never heard of the Salt Range over yonder in Pakistan. Me, neither, until I read the article linked below. Although it is not expensive now, it was valuable way back in the old days. This area of plentiful salt deposits had some Darwinist geologists ready to slap leather with each other over the equivalent of Precambrian rabbits. Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Khalid Mahmood "Why did you mention Precambrian rabbits, Cowboy Bob?" Oh, you know. Evolutionists have said that if a rabbit was found in the Precambrian layer (which only exists in textbooks and imaginations, not reality), it would falsify evolution. According to their belief system, the fossil record is orderly, from simple to complex, and a rabbit would be too complex to be found in the Precambrian layer. But evolution is malleable — pliable — flexible — so it has no real explanatory value . If evolution were actual science instead of a materialistic philosophy, it would have been abandoned long ago. No...

It seems that our moon is trolling materialists. Secular astronomers and cosmologists have no verisimilar explanations regarding its origin, but they cling to faulty stories rather than admit that it was created recently along with the rest of the solar system. Credit:  NASA  / ISS /  Col. Jeff Williams  (usage does not imply endorsement of site's contents) Some resort to the poorly-considered method of counting craters so they can provide Darwinists the deep time that they demand. Our moon, like others in the solar system , show that they are far younger than materialists expect — or desire. It is cooling and shrinking , which contributes to tectonic activity. Then there are the many paradigm problems caused by lunar volcanoes ... We have a couple of recent items about how the moon is putting burrs under the saddles of secular scientists and defying cosmic evolution. The neat theories for the origin of the moon and its subsequent evolution unravel when...

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...

Although we discussed polystrate fossils a few months ago (see " Let Me Be Polystrate With You "), it is time to run the subject up the flagpole again and see who salutes it. Like the problems of soft tissues, DNA, and such in dinosaur fossils, assorted rescuing devices are manufactured. Original image from GoodFreePhotos /  Paula Piccard The main approach of secular geology is uniformitarianism, but occasionally Janus-faced geologists will invoke catastrophes when their philosophies fail. They have even imagined multiple small floods without evidence instead of the best explanation: the global Genesis Flood. Polystrate fossils are a serious problem, and these are often completely ignored in textbooks and such. Wikipedia, that font of secularist propaganda, does not have a section on polystrate fossils, but there is a sentence in the fundamentally dishonest section on creationism about what creationists believe. Of course, they wave the fossils off without providing...

This title may be alarming to some creationists and startling to believers in scum-to-skeptic evolution, but things should be clarified if you stay with me. Like any other science, creation science has had some errors and had to deal with misconceptions from opponents. Credit: Good Free Photos When creationist Carl Linnaeus developed his classification system, may creationists believed in what is sometimes called the "fixity of species". There are evolutionists who think that's what creationists believe, but they obviously are using extremely outdated material. Modern creationists know that natural selection, speciation, and variations are a part of God's design. I have encountered uninformed creationists who hold to that view. Perhaps they believe that admitting natural selection exists is a compromise in favor of evolution. That is understandable to some extent because Papa Darwin hijacked a legitimate concept and redefined it for his own ends. Unfortunat...

Mockers reject the biblical timeline for several reasons, most of them superficial. Some will say that there were civilizations in existence thousands of years before the Old Testament was written, but scoffers accept questionable sources while rejecting biblical material out of hand. Sumerian kings were listed as living thousands of years, and the Egyptian chronologies are in doubt . Add to questionable history the inaccurate results of carbon dating, and mockers have their biases confirmed. Triceratops image source: Good Free Photos Elsewhere, we considered dealing with discrepancies between secular geology and the global Genesis Flood . This post brings up related material. Although most readers probably know this, carbon dating does not work for deep time or the age of the earth. It only works on things that are or were organic. That means dinosaur bones and pottery discovered in rock layers that are assumed to be millions of years old can be tested, but they yield far youn...