Piltdown Superman

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 you try to stu

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

We think they are dead, but Darwin's acolytes keep using the black magick of scientism and wishful thinking to bring them back. Not living organisms, but their bad ideas. In this case, the idea that an unborn child goes through evolutionary stages in its development. This has been proven false for a mighty long time, pilgrim, but it is still used to justify abortion. Original image credit: Pixabay /  Ahmadreza Heidaripoor If scum-to-sorcerer evolution were "settled science" or a fact, there should  be no need to use bad logic, misrepresentation, startlingly bad mistakes — and outright fraud. When posting about Haeckel's fake drawings on social media, people said those long-discredited things coupled with the rejected recapitulation idea can be found in modern textbooks. As any knowledgeable propagandist can tell you, concentration and repetition coupled with the Big Lie are effective tools to influence the undiscerning. Devious Darwinists seem to be trying to

As we have seen several times, it is important to define your terms in certain discussion. In this case, the word metal means something different to astronomers than to us reg'lar folk. For them, it is an element more dense than hydrogen and helium . The terms heavy metal or heavy element are not defined consistently. RCW 86 supernova remnant enhanced image credit: NASA / ESA / JPL-Caltech  / UCLA / CXC / SAO (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) According to Big Bang mythology, that event produced hydrogen, helium, and some lithium. Then stellar fusion produced some of the lighter metals. To rock on to the heavy metals, however, requires supernovas and even kilonovas. Cosmologists deny recent creation and keep digging themselves in deeper because they cannot explain the abundance of useful elements on Earth. They also have other problems that are conveniently ignored. Stuff happens is an accurate summary of "scientific explanations" presented t

Julian Huxley was a propagandist for Darwinism, and he published something in 1952 that should have been immediately dismissed. Huxley, and later Carl Sagan, claimed that the "Samurai Crab" (heikegani) is an example of evolution in action, and people ate up this concept — but not the crabs. Samurai statue image credit: Pixabay/ Samuele Schirò In their efforts to dismiss our Creator, Huxley and Sagan claimed that natural selection was at work because superstitious Japanese fisherman threw the heikegani back into the water because they resembled samurai warriors. The samurai became the military ruling class and rose to prominence during medieval times. So, the crabs with the resemblance to samurai warriors were thrown back and kept reproducing. People accepted this dishonest propaganda. I believe that is is partially based on authority because Huxley and Sagan were scientists. Being a scientists does not make someone right, pilgrim, but it impresses people who are unwi

This post is courtesy of the "Through the Side Door" department. That is, I wanted to post this on Fazebook (which is linked to Twitter) "as is", but they were unable to validate the link. I already did that. No, I am not going to claim censorship or anything because that is not warranted. School Teacher by Jan Steen, 1668 Many Christian parents do not want their children attending the state-run indoctrination centers (often called "schools"), so they opt for alternatives. Those of us who reject evolution and millions of years because of both theology and science do not want to deprogram children and teach them the truth. After all, the government has control of them for several hours a day most of the year. Anti-creationists get furious when we undermine their indoctrination that is, in many cases, falsely called education. Christian schools? Possibly, if they are affordable. Unfortunately, having Christian in the name does not guarantee Bible-

There are many indications that our solar system is far younger than those who believe in cosmic evolution are willing to admit. Saturn has received a great deal of scrutiny with the planet itself, its rings, and moons that testify of recent creation and baffling proponents of deep time . Other mysteries have arisen, including Saturn's rotation rate. Credit: NASA /JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The outer planets are gas giants, so determining their rotation rates is rather difficult. Spots and things can move at their own accord and different speeds based on latitude, so those don't help that much. Different methods have been used including examination of its magnetic field, but that has actually changed. The different rotation rates may be another indication that Saturn's age is far less than the expected millions of years. A recent news story reported on the latest measurement of Saturn’s rotation rate–10h

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A while back, someone sent me a link to a short article in Forbes , " Why Do Scientists Get Excited About 'Rewriting The Textbooks?' ", which I last accessed on October 13, 2018. It was written by contributor Carmen Drahl, an evolutionist. She had some enthusiastic things to say about the idea, but they were a mix of both realistic and idealistic concepts. Credit: Freeimages /  Jean Scheijen First of all, the title tells us that scientists write textbooks. Mayhaps that's why they keep getting their atoms-to-author evolutionary research fouled up, as they spend so much time writing textbooks? Do a search and you'll find that many different kinds of people can write and publish textbooks, then committees review them. Some scientists write them, many do not. I’m one of the lucky folks who was trained to see science as a process, as a way of looking at the world. And when you see science that way, you realize that while the concepts and