Piltdown Superman

There are several reasons to fake things, including replicas. Money, prestige, grant money, pranks, pushing the fish-to-fool evolution narrative, and more. Replicas and souvenirs are fine as long as they are not marketed as the real thing, which makes them forgeries. When it comes to fossils and paleontology, fraudulent fossils are a serious problem. A famous fraud is Piltdown Man , which fooled evolutionists for over forty years. More recently, Archaeoraptor  was put forward. Those and others should have been scrutinized without Darwin worldview glasses that contaminate perceptions — and rejected. Tridentinosaurus antiquus , WikiComm / Ghedoghedo ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ), modified at PhotoFunia Some forgeries are not just a bit of fun, but are intended to push the evolution story. Why, if evolution were a fact with "mountains of evidence," is there so much fraud? Keep the pressure on !  Earlier, I mentioned Darwin worldview glasses. Some bad science creeps into the narrative becaus

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  When Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ try to hornswoggle people by asserting "evolution has been proven", there is a wagon train-load of baggage attached. First,  science does not prove anything   People familiar with its workings should know it, and that science disproves  things. Another problem is that such a sentence uses subtle appeals to authority and popularity. Do you want people to think you are a science denier? Scientists accept the fact of evolution, and so does everyone else . Never mind the manipulation, there are other problems with the claim. One of the main problems is the word evolution . You may have noticed that I often use terms like microbes-to-misotheist evolution , Darwinism, and so on because there are several definitions. Some definitions are vague (such as "change") and worthless without context. Some of the baggage that comes along with the false claim that "evolution has been proven" are from a sneaky falla

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

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  In anticipation of the tenth annual Question Evolution Day on February 12 , we should mount up and head for yonder hill to get a bigger perspective. Misotheists and other evolutionists say that biblical creationists believe "myths" and "fairy tales" despite  scientific evidence. This raises some important questions. Image Credit: US Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Actually, the questions that are raised fit under an umbrella question: Why don't biblical creationists fear science? People who have something to hide or know that their belief systems won't withstand scrutiny seem to shun science, logic, and good theology. But we embrace such things. If natural sciences like geology truly support deep time, why are there organized tours by creationists? There are many, with people and organizations such as: Russ Miller of  Creation, Evolution & Science Ministries Eric Hovind of Creation Today Gra

The secular peer-review process is enounced as if it were a guarantee of truth and objectivity, but these folks do not understand what is involved. Academia requires publishing, and many researchers want to promote the next big thing in science. There are serious problems in this elite club. Credit: FreeDigital I mages / Renjith Krishnan The secular science industry is beset with problems. There is a reproducibility crisis , which means that papers are submitted, reviewed, and published — but the results have not been reproduced. How valid is that paper? Researchers cite papers that are dubious, and some are even fraudulent. It was discovered that retracted papers are also used to support research. Mockers reject peer-reviewed papers by biblical creationists, but they have very different motivations by secularists and are apparently not dealing with such issues. Don't be disunderstanding me. I'm not gilding the lily and pretending there are no sidewinders pretending to be crea

We often see the hands at the Darwin Ranch getting all excited about the latest evolutionary discovery, then the sensationalistic press makes a monolith out of it. But those monoliths disappear and become footnotes in the history of evolutionary fake news. This is happening with "Toumai man". Credit: Flickr / Tim Evanson  ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) "We didn't evolve from apes", but our "ancestors" sure looked like them! At least the modeler did not give the critter whites in the eyes. When secularists conduct incomplete research or even suppress important information, their alleged evidence for evolution, the Big Bang, and other things fade away upon further examination. Sometimes it happens rather quickly (like the "proof" of the Big Bang inflation and gravitational waves ), and other instances take a few years — even when there is reasonable doubt at the onset. Something I advise in many cases is to take a "wait and see" approach. After all

Many times over the years, we have seen that the vaunted secular peer review process is not as helpful as people think. While the process was made with good intentions, there is a large amount of fraud, bad research, favoritism, honest mistakes, and more. A fake spider fossil passed peer review. Credit: Flickr / Magnus Hagdorn ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) If it had been real, this would have been an interesting find because fossils of fragile creatures are much rarer than all those billions of marine creatures and such. It was "found" in the wretched hive of villainy known as the Liaoning Province in China. Many fake fossils have been procured there by people wanting to have a few yuan in their pockets. Or it could be the result of global warming. Apparently some people are good at faking fossils, mayhaps they could market unique crafts instead of being dishonest? While this fugazi fossil may have been purchased, it may have been faked from the get-go. At a first glance it lo

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

On the plus side, Darwin bots can get away with bad science, dishonesty, and outright fraud for decades. However, the down side is that the embarrassing truth is often discovered. Those of us who appreciate truth in science (and science reporting) do not cotton to being deceived for the sake of getting us to believe in evolution. Light and dark varieties of peppered moths Credit: both from Wikimedia Commons / Olaf Leillinger ( link to top is here , link to bottom is here ) One of the oldest "proofs" of evolution is the peppered moth. Essentially, the dark version supposedly alighted on soot-covered trees in England and were left alone while the light version was victuals for birds. The population of the lighter critters decreased. "Aha! Evolution! Hail Darwin, blessed be!" No. Most of the story was fake news. Actually, it may have been an example of natural selection (a concept that creationists also accept), but they were still moths. Nothing changed

One of the strangest Just-So Stories told by Darwin's true believers is that of whale evolution. It was bad enough telling us that rain washed minerals from primordial rocks, life originated, then evolved in the sea, moved to land, and here we are. It becomes more absurd when some critter took the notion that life on land isn't such fun after all and went back to evolving for sea life. That is where whales and their relatives came from. Not hardly! You get tales of whale evolution , but they have no actual scientific or logical basis. Credit: Freeimages / Kym Parry I'll allow that I oversimplified the evolution story, but we've got things to do, and you get their version of it easily enough. For example, you can go to the museum of Darwinist indoctrination — I mean, natural history — and see the exhibits. Of course, they won't tell you about fraudulent exhibits (see " Faking the Fossil Whales "), nor the duplicity of atheopaths in protecting evolution

Regular readers know that I keep emphasizing that scientists are not the dispassionate automatons that many people think. They are not running around, gathering facts, then following where the evidence leads. Rather, they are human, having their preconceptions as well as good and bad character traits. It's been more obvious lately (or has the trend increased?) that the secular science industry has a definite leftist penchant (see references 7,8,9 at this link ). It gets worse. Image credit: Pixabay /  Gerd Altmann The scientific establishment also has some intrinsic moral problems, and needs to borrow a moral compass . Moral concerns of scientists would definitely be improved by biblical Christianity , especially since left-learning science institutions are increasingly activistic for the murder of unborn humans in the womb. If you study on it a spell, you'll see it's not all that surprising, since they deny God the Creator (therefore, denying that we are created in

I wasn't going to post about "Lucy" again so soon, but more information has come in and this will be a link-loaded resource, including articles and a new video. The hands at the Darwin Ranch have been mighty glum lately. News about the alleged transitional form known as Lucy have been going from bad to worse, and it's not only because of biblical creationists. That's right, even evolutionists are admitting that Lucy's status upright-walking link is poor. Some of Darwin's Cheerleaders will deny the evidence (preferring outdated material and uninformed opinions to credible evidence). Do they know that one of the bones assigned to the creature was actually from a baboon ? Modified from a public domain image at Wikimedia Commons First, an article. Further studies show that this extinct ape was swinging from the trees, but they still cling to their story and say that maybe perhaps somehow she spent part of the time on the ground. Pretty desperate to p

A proponent of Darwinian evolution was Ernst Haeckel, and he was so het up about proving evolution, he made some drawings about it. Ever heard of "ontology recapitulates phylogeny"? That's the fantasy that an embryo goes through the various stages of evolutionary history, and Ernie illustrated it. With fake drawings. The concept has been lassoed and hog-tied for a mighty long time. But "science" must prevail, even if dishonesty is necessary! So, even though government school indoctrinators and textbook writers know that Haeckel's material was proved to be fake, they use them anyway! Some people have tried to redeem him. I've even had people comment that it doesn't matter if they drawings are fake, what they show is true. Sure, Poindexter. I bet you believe in square circles, too. Can't let people know there's a Creator God, now, can we? Mayhaps they keep bringing this nonsense back is because they use it to support abortion. There ar

Proponents of particles-to-poultry evolution have an unpleasant habit of seeing things that they want  to see — even though there's nothing there to see. We keep seeing announcements about some or other"discovery" supporting evolution, only to find out that evolutionists saddled up the wrong horse again. Funny how the retractions don't get nearly as much press as the original objects of excitement, isn't it? Modified Piltdown Gang  by John Cooke (1915) with image from openclipart The most notorious example of seeing what isn't there is probably the Piltdown Man fraud. That sidewinder fooled much of the scientific establishment for over forty years! Somewhat less famous was another fraud, Archaeoraptor . When this one was discovered, it was dubbed the "Piltdown Chicken". Something they have in common is that materialists were so intent on making the Creator irrelevant that they believed lies. (Perhaps they rush into believing nonsense because

Creationists frequently encounter atheopaths and other Darwinistas who make inane demands resembling, "Show me just one peer-reviewed creationist paper!" You can tell up front that they don't want answers, otherwise, they'd be doing their own research and finding out that yes, creationists are indeed published in noted journals. (I recently gave one tinhorn a link to " Creationist Scientists and Journal Publication ", but he preferred to make childish attacks and refused to click on it. I reckon some people don't want answers.) Many folks expect that peer review is a guarantee of accuracy, and that something is established science if it undergoes peer review. Not hardly! Modified from an image at Clker clipart Creationary scientists have their own peer review systems and seek to honor God as well as strive for excellence in the process. Although all scientists are human after all, secularists seem more prone to plagiarism, misconduct, fraud, bias,