Piltdown Superman

Of the currently popular movements that this child finds nonsensical, deplatforming  and its ugly brother  cancel culture  are especially baffling. They seem to be a means of punishing people for making statements or having views that are currently unpopular. Why are they not taking shots at Charles Darwin? Assembled and modified from various components, including some at Clker clipart That's right, people who are dead can be punished. Mayhaps it's revenge. In many instances, people just want to destroy. These mindless mooncalves even tore down statues of abolitionists like Frederick Douglass and  Hans Christian Heg . Much of the current hatred is directed toward not only slave owners in the formerly United States, but regarding racism. Why not deplatform and cancel Darwinism? It would be consistent. One big problem is that evolutionary thinking is prominent in the scientific community and academia, and the Marxist groups are actually living out Darwinism ! Evolutionists are

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Subjects like radical  and Saul Alinsky are not exactly what one would expect for the tenth annual Question Evolution Day , but hopefully this article will be interesting. This is in no wise an endorsement of Alinsky or Rules for Radicals , but there are some things that can be learned. Modified with a graphic from Photos Public Domain The word  radical  is frequently thrown around with little regard to its original meaning. It is quite often used as a pejorative. Nowadays it can have connotations of people with Molotov fire bombs or doing other acts of violence. It is used to label extremist views (making Charles Darwin a radical because his views were not readily accepted at first). The true meanings of radical are quite different, including holding to a  foundation or basic principle .  Saul Alinsky was friendly to communist views and leftist government, but did not seem to promote actual violence. What I read of Rules for Radicals  was interesting and unpre

As we are coming up on the tenth annual Question Evolution Day , we can hope that some believers in atoms-to anthropologist evolution may begin to realize that the narrative has problems. Consider the news about older cave art than previously known. Credits: Unsplash / Max Saeling , modified with PhotoFunia Out Indonesia way is the island of Sulawesi. Paintings of animals were found there, and secularists gave kinda-sorta-maybe dates that were older than the famous Chauvet (the Ardeche region of France) cave art. There are many facts to consider , and they should give a thinking evolutionist a passel of reasons to ask questions. According to evolutionary timelines and fact-free speculations, intelligence "emerged" eventually after we were done evolving from some apelike critters. Nobody knows when that allegedly happened , nor do they know about the "emergence" or self-awareness or artistic expression. Those scrawls from the Ice Age didn't help their belief sys

Biblical creationists are accustomed to being called upon to defend their views when challenged by supporters of universal common descent. Unfortunately, some of these are theistic evolutionists. When these and misotheists saddle up to ride for the Darwin brand, they occasionally try to use Bible against us. Something I have learned and then stated many times is that when choosing to slap leather with an opponent, it is important to learn the other side's views (see " Debate Challenges " for more about this). If one misrepresents the other or does not do proper research, that person is beclowning himself. Atheists and evolutionists do this to biblical (young earth) creationists frequently, but humiliate themselves when facing knowledgeable opponents. One owlhoot in particular, Michael Jones, got his ownself a YouTube channel, and people wanted his challenges to creationists answered. Like other deniers of the truthfulness and authority of the Bible, he misrepresents it.

There is a formal logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent . If one condition is shown to be true, then what follows is also true: If it is raining, the grass will be wet. The grass is wet. Therefore, it is raining. Credit:  yodiyim  at FreeDigitalPhotos.net If you noticed in the example, affirming the consequent also leaves out other possibilities such as neighbor kids having a water balloon fight, someone left on the sprinklers, and so on. One more: If it is snowing, it is cold outside. It is cold outside. Therefore, it is snowing. The above error in reasoning was applied in a study of the development of the brains in mice and human babies. Human brains are all wrinkly. Actually, those are folds called convolutions . These give the brain more space in which to perform complex thinking, and critters have less of this folding or none at all. It was discovered that a specific gene that affects this folding is common to both humans and mice. Purveyors of evoporn presupposed evol

Evolutionists have a habit of renaming and redefining things when they realize biblical creationists are using them. We have the old bait 'n' switch where particles-to-palenontologist evolution is conflated with variations, changes in allele frequencies, and so on. Now some want to rename the Cambrian explosion. When owlhoots like this don't like they hand they've been dealt, they try to change the rules, reshuffle, deal from the bottom of the deck, hide cards, and so on. We have seen these tricks many times, which include  citing retracted papers , omitting pertinent data , and making arbitrary assertions that are not supported by facts. These assertions fit the narrative of naturalism, however. Way back many, many moons ago, Papa Darwin lamented the Cambrian explosion. Biblical creationists have used as one of many tools in refuting evolution. Last I knew,  true  science has nothing to do with  protecting their worldview from the truth . Deceptive Darwinists have asse

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Detractors of biblical creation science often refer to us with the epithet "science deniers", which is ironic because they claim to believe in reason as well as science, but are using logical fallacies to make that assertion. Actual  science deniers are now in power. Picture of someone who is probably not anti-science: FreeDigitalPhotos / Toeytoey It is a regrettable to spend time discussing politically-oriented matters on this weblog, but as we have seen several times before, secularists are hijacking science . Nowadays, secular scientists are saddling up and riding with the totalitarian leftist brand . That means things that were originally considered scientific facts are now subject to the whims of political power and moral degeneration. People have been getting gradually prepared for the acceptance of moral degradation, and this has been increasing in the formerly United States — as well as other parts of the world. Those with influence and power