Piltdown Superman

Sometimes when creationists bring up Charles Darwin's racism, it puts  burrs under the saddles of his followers. They claim it is an ad homiem  and a distraction, but the fact remains despite their protestations. It has also been extensively documented. His racism is extremely relevant, as it is entrenched in his evolutionary conjectures. We saw how a couple of his biographers falsely tried to say that his theory had a noble motive , the abolition of slavery. Professor Joseph L. Graves, Jr. is up to something similar. Celebration of Abolition of Slavery...in 1866 via NYPL , colorized at Palette , then modified at PhotoFunia The professor is celebrated as the first black man to get a doctorate in evolutionary biology, and my response is, "Big deal." Evolutionary biology is self-serving and has little value to real science. Also, how many black people are attracted to studying something this area? (Asking for a friend.) Seems strange to prop up a field where your "rac

Although they keep it under wraps, the hands at the Darwin Ranch have worship services. Sebastian the latrine digger was talking about new prayer candles on order and select writings from Charles Darwin would be printed up in smaller volumes as gospels. Study on it a spell. Everyone has a worldview. Evolution is religious in nature, with not only the origins mythology, but also salvation and the coming glorious future. They presuppose atheistic naturalism in a way similar to Christians presupposing the truth of the Bible. Evangelism photo Library of Congress , 1939, colorized at Palette , monkey photobomb added  As stated in previous posts and articles, people have their worldviews that use presuppositions. We all interpret things through those lenses. Professing atheists often lean toward Postmodernism , saying there is no absolute truth or moral standard. When atheists assert things are right or wrong, or want to use evolutionary thinking for good in the world, they are inadvertently

Think of Them! , the 1954 movie where atomic blasts caused ants to mutate into giants that ate people. Excellent science documentary. Well, except for the fact that mutations do not work that way at all, and it is impossible for ants to get that big . Relatively speaking, ancient ants and other creatures were giants in comparison to those living today. There were ants called  Titanomyrma by paleontologists, comparable in size to a small wren. Secular scientists saw their fossils in various places, but their arrival in Canada did not fit their paradigm. Titanomyrma gigantea , Wikimedia Commons / Ghedoghedo ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) A Titanomyrma  fossil was found in Canada caused no small difficulty to secular scientists, such as how they crossed continents during cold times. Some weird speculations were proposed, but no go. If scientists would tear down the Darwin Wall and consider creation science Genesis Flood models, they would not need to evosplain things with nonsense. Evolutionary scie

Michigan is called the wolverine state, and unofficially the wolverine is the state animal. Strange because they never had a large population of the critters. Now they are found way up yonder in the Northern Hemisphere, including Alaska, Canada, Northern Europe, Russia, and so on. They are endangered because of the usual problems like trapping and habitat reduction. When wolverines have the land, they are big-time travelers. If you happen to be in their area, it is best to just leave these strong and fierce animals well alone, Logan. Wolverine at Glacier National Park, NPS  (Public Domain, usage still does not imply endorsement) Wolverines are in the same group as badgers (another fighter) and weasels...I rather doubt that there have been talking animal movies made where a wolverine was the hero. They are because they will fight a wolf or a bear for a kill.  No known attacks on humans , though. These fierce overgrown gorgeous weasels are very intelligent as well. There are many things

It may seem counterintuitive, but the Big Bang and all those studies of the vast universe involve the tiniest particles. The Big Bang has been Frankensteined over the years and has little resemblance to the original, but all those rescuing devices do not hold up — and even work against it. Indeed, several years ago some physicists were experiencing cognitive dissonance when they said that the universe should not even exist . In addition, there are different kinds of particles comprising parts of an atom, including opposite antimatter versions . Big Bang abstract, Pixabay / Geralt (Gerd Altmann), modified at PhotoFunia Good science in particle physics works against Big Bang cosmogony. Like a relationship status on some social(ist) media: "It's complicated." If the Big Bang were true, there are certain asymmetries that should be detected way down at the subatomic level. Electrons are too perfectly round. Science supports creation (which secular scientists will not admit),

As discussed here several times, believers in descent with modifications evolution often conduct inefficient science. Many use the principle of Making Things Up™ and telling Just-So Stories that deceive people into thinking that they were in the presence of real science. One wonders if sloppy science is in an effort to avoid the facts, such as the presence of soft tissues in dinosaur fossils . Those should not exist after an alleged 65 million years. Research was conducted using dead sea bass in an attempt to determine why some soft parts fossilize but not others. Fossil sponge, Flickr / James St. John ( CC BY 2.0 ) Once again, secularists use bad logic by presuming evolution and deep time, then basing their research on those things. These wonder what kind of environment could cause fossilization. Biblical creationists argue that the global Genesis Flood provides those conditions, and this may be why they don't cowboy up and seriously deal with soft tissues and creation science Fl

Although Riekert Darkens was away from the Darwin Ranch doing his part-time carnival work, he managed to send them a telegram about new speculations in cosmic evolution. The ranch hands received it with the same joy that the early church received epistles from the apostles. Russell Watchtower read it to the group. Secular cosmologists have a variety of ideas for the formation of the moon, but all of them have insurmountable problems. Believers in stardust-to-stenographer evolution have to believe something  because the truth of special creation is unthinkable. Moon over Arizona, Unsplash / Ganapathy Kumar Our moon is unlike any other that we know about, even making it possible for life to be sustained through tidal actions. It is the right distance for a total eclipse, and there are other factors that make its creation the logical conclusion of observed facts . Secularists are going to balk at the new idea from their own people, but they are thinking that it formed very quickly. Gettin

President Ronald Reagan said, “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” Similarly, Darwinists believe a lot of things that aren't so — and that they made up themselves. Consider  Cratonavis zhui . No, it is not a menu item. Secular scientists have problems with placing dinosaurs (see " Strange Dinosaur Classification is Strange " for one example). Now we have yet another Archaeopteryx to become a failed transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. Dinosaur bird thing via PxHere I'll allow that they have reasons for their confusion, but they are viewing through their Darwin spectacles instead of being as objective as they should be. Evolutionists often use viciously circular reasoning by assuming evolution to prove evolution, and C. zhui  has features that are similar to dinosaurs. It supposedly has a dinosaur head and a birdlike body There are several reasons to reject this as an example of evolution. In J

People complain about the waste of money spent on the space program or things that are truly insipid done in the name of scientific research, but where is the outcry over constant efforts to prove evolution through vacuous reasoning? Somehow the alleged self-domestication of elephants (we touched on this recently ) is being taken seriously. Part of the problem is the thinking that we are all related, having evolved from a common ancestor. Elephants are wild animals, old son, and thinking we share some personality traits does not make them our relatives. Elephant reading a book, made with  Bing Image Generator * and enhanced This self-domestication of elephants thing is based on natural selection, but where is the evidence? Assertions, presuppositions, and storytelling, sure, but that's it. Then they apply the concept to human behavior and hope it will pan out in the future. But these evolutionists don't understand their hypothesis (and calling it a hypothesis is overreaching).

Dust-to-Darwin evolution requires huge amounts of time, and secular geologists try to provide them. People are assured that Earth is billions of years old. They protect their belief system includes arguing from presuppositions and neglecting alternative explanations for observed data. Landforms that are supposed to be ancient have been collapsing — often dramatically. We recently saw how there have been large collapses of the cliffs of Dorset . Places in the American Southwest that were supposed to be millions of years old, and expected to last millions of years more, have crashed. Metate Arch, Devil's Garden, Flickr / Ken Lund ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) The guiding principle of secular geology is uniformitarianism : slow 'n' gradual processes over long periods. When asked about the causes of erosion, people will mention water and wind. Something that may not come to mind is lightning. I reckon severe weather, with heavy rainfall and lighting, is difficult to factor into secular pr