Piltdown Superman

Laypeople who are devout evolutionists are a gullible lot. That's right, I said it! Especially the ones who troll the Internet, looking to harass non-believers . Their sources of information include outdated textbooks (where the alleged "ancestors" of man that have been discredited, reclassified, revealed as outright fakes and so forth), popular evolutionary propaganda sites and publications that only reveal the acceptable side, as well as their own willingness to be deceived. I have received comments about this site being "wrong". Why is it wrong? Because some wandering evolutionist fundamentalist said so.  (Even more interesting is when a fellow told me that the article that I linked was completely wrong. It turns out the link was broken; he had never read it! On Twitter, this is an example of #Liar4Darwin.) Most of the time, these pop evolution propaganda readers only bolster their emotional reactions and enthusiasm, but not actual science learning. They ce...

The famous "geologic(al) column" that is presented as evidence for uniformitarianism and evolution has several problems. The first one is that the sequences do not exist except in textbooks and the imaginations of Evolution's True Believers ®. The layers are out of order. A second problem is the circular reasoning used to date the layers by use of index fossils (we know how old a layer is because of the fossils in it, and we know how old a fossil is because of the layer in which it was found).  A further problem for evolutionary geologists and paleontologists are the missing layers, totally disrupting the expected sequences. These are not minor aberrations in small areas that can be dismissed. Instead, they cover large areas and involve alleged millions of years. The frequent flatness add to the annoyance. To make matters worse for uniformitarianism, these gaps support  Noachian Flood models postulated by creationists. ‘Flat gaps’, generally known as paraconfor...

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...

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 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...

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 ...

One problem we have in dealing with Darwin's Drones is that they believe yarn-spinners in the science industry, then they spread that stuff as if it was genuine scientific research. It's bad enough that they believe unsubstantiated conjectures such as the Oort cloud (gotta keep the universe old, Pilgrim), but they spread tentative findings as well. The science press doesn't help matters much, what with spreading propaganda and all. The criticism that common-ancestry scientists are telling Just So Stories is appropriate, since they've engaged in Making Stuff Up® for many years. Many times, the stories have village evolutionists stampeding to their keyboards to spread the "news", and then they are forgotten. Other times, false science ends up in textbooks, where discredited material languishes for years. Now scientists are flaunting their storytelling abilities (and getting paid for not doing serious science) in their efforts to deny the Creator. Again, ...

Advocates of minerals-to-microbiologist evolution are none to fond of information that contravenes their worldview. One way they do this is through outright censorship of creationary evidence . Another is to pile on misrepresentations, logical fallacies, and outright falsehoods . When caught lying, keep on lying. It's what they do. For that matter, I am convinced that many atheists and other evolutionists are afraid of creationary material, so they won't read it; some are so determined to contradict us that they will ridicule material based on a title or introduction alone — and have humiliated themselves by contradicting the evolutionary scientists they adore! CSIRO scientist sequencing DNA credit: CSIRO / Health Sciences and Nutrition Another tactic, frequently observed in leftist news media, is to ignore inconvenient truths and pretend that they do not exist. Darwin's Flying Monkeys© on the internet and other places bombard evolution skeptics with "mountains...

In a previous post, I brought up Darwin's so-called "Tree of Life" . From what we saw about dishonest textbooks and bad science information in earlier posts , it should not be a surprise that this relic still has not been cut down. Although it is "misleading" and scientists admit to it, the tree is still used. The fundamental thesis of evolution is that the species evolved according to the evolutionary tree. Students learn about the evolutionary tree in biology class and biologists use the evolutionary tree in their research. But in fact the evolutionary tree is based on a limited, and carefully selected, set of observations. Ever since Darwin, science has continued to document exceptions and anomalies—species that don’t fit neatly into the evolutionary pattern. These biological contradictions come in various forms and are found throughout the tree. For instance, species that in many regards appear to be quite similar, which evolutionists have placed on...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen "Science" is treated by many people like a kind of pantheistic force, or even a deity. It is personified, and phrases like, "Someday, science will find a cure/pill/answer". (No, science will do no such thing. Scien tists , the people who use the philosophy and methods of science, try to do that.) Likewise, scientists have a position of adoration, especially in Western cultures. This reverence for science and scientists contributes to the fallacious philosophy of Scientism, where all that matters can be reduced to, and explained by, scientific means. Indeed, attitudes of Scientism are going beyond the bounds of science . There's a joke floating around that goes something like this: "Scientists say that most people will believe something if you begin a statement with, 'Scientists say'" . There's often truth in humor, and I think many people see the truth in this one. Sure, scientists do quite a bit of good. But t...

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 ...

I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.” — Colin Patterson   Fundamentalist evolutionists insist that the fossil record proves macroevolution is true. Creationists cite evolutionists who say that there are no transitional forms, then get accused of quote mining . Damage control! Then, the evolutionary faithful will trot out pictures of fossils, say that there are many transitional forms, and paste material from angry anti-creationist sites like talk.origins (they should check out...

With the help of outdated textbooks, errors and frauds in paleontology, evolutionary propaganda and especially the popular media, we are provided with images of cavemen as brutish sub-humans. For that matter, evolutionary presuppositions tell us how "primitive" humans were in the old, old days. (Some of this takes the form of, "They were too stupid to build the pyramids, so space aliens had to help them".) The truth is radically different. Here is a scientific and Biblical view. As far as stereotypes go, cavemen make easy targets—especially when transplanted into the twenty-first century. Their brutish way of dealing with contemporary situations earns a laugh on commercials and TV shows. They just don’t understand us modern humans, and their misunderstanding strikes humor gold. But when we cut away the laugh track and the bumbling ways, we’re left with something of an enigmatic figure—a being without a settled place in our understanding of history. Perhaps,...

Review by Cowboy Bob Sorensen When I obtained the free PDF download of Debunking Evolution Taught in Public Schools, with the subtitle, "A Six-Lesson Video-based Training Program for Christian Public School Students", I didn't expect much. After all, there's a heap of books, articles, videos, and so on with similar names, and I had heard of neither Genesis Apologetics nor editor and author Dr. Daniel A. Biddle. (Which is fine, they've probably never heard of me or Piltdown Superman, either.) So, I converted the PDF to my e-book reader's format. Glad I was mighty wrong about my initial reaction! Turns out that the PDF version of the book is not only available free on the Genesis Apologetics Website , but you can buy it in paperback as well as Epub and Kindle versions. Debunking Evolution Taught in Public Schools  is primarily intended for students in the public indoctrination centers. They are presented with sanitized "evidence" for evolution, i...

A great deal of science depends on consistency and predictability; we expect things to behave in certain ways and according to established patterns. In biology, cells have mitochondria or traces of it so they can survive. Monocercomonoides seems to be making its own rules, and causing a whole heap of consternation for biologists and especially Darwinists. Assembled at the Says-it sign generator Naturally, some "Just-so" stories are being fabricated, such as  Monocercomonoides having mitochondria, then losing it, surviving now through a cellular version of horse trading. Funny how these people use an alleged loss  of function as evidence of onward and upward evolution, isn't it? Not that this protist showed any sign of ever having had mitochondria, can't let that get in the way of good propaganda. Here's a thought: the Creator built it that way so it could thrive in its particular environment! But no, materialistic worldviews preclude the possibility of th...

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...

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...

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...

Every once in a while, a petulant evolutionist will tell a creationist to visit a natural history museum, read a book about evolution, watch a documentary, or do something else approved by the secular science industry. Then the creationist will learn something. That is true, but not in the way evolutionists would expect. Darwin's disciples know how to present opinions as facts. They can also obfuscate evidence, present what they like and ignore inconvenient truths. Charts, drawings, dioramas, and phylogenetic trees are used as evidence for evolution. Not hardly! Enhanced version of Darwin's Tree of Life Sketch (PD) These things arose from those things. The phylogenetic tree proves it. No, the drawing shows what someone believes . It is not factual, but conjectural. It is also illogical to use an illustrated hypothesis (because that's what a phylogenetic tree is) as evidence . Even Papa Darwin himself had the decency to write, "I think" on his drawing. Creationists...