Piltdown Superman

Although it seems less frequent nowadays, cancel culture  is a method of punishing those who dare to go against the prevailing viewpoint. I believe that people want to be "right" or in the "best" movement, whether it is religious (including atheism), a political party, or something else. Those who disagree are shunned and even canceled. A form of this happened when C. Richard Dawkins was "deplatformed" at the University of California, Berkeley. He said something people did not like about Islam. He has said other things that caused people to dislike him. These come about because someone goes against the trend. Image from "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton" by Sidney Paget , Strand Magazine , 1904 (enhanced at iLoveIMG ) Creation science and the Intelligent Design movement are unwanted on social(ist) media, and many times atheists try to have it stamped out. Calls for trolling raids, feculent comments, ridicule, and more are common fare ...

Some of us are not surprised when bad science and malfeasance are found among Darwinoids, but some stuff gets me on the prod . They have a materialistic worldview that requires deep time, so interpreting evidence through those glasses is to be expected. Manipulation of that data is another story. Know that "tangled web we weave" line about practicing to deceive? The so-called earliest bird has been discovered in Antarctica. Purveyors of evoporn are web=tangled indeed, conflicting stories are more fun than a pig in a steel barrel. Ducks and Ducklings , John Frederick Herring, Sr. (1850) Evolution is not a person, except when it makes choices and does experimentation. That's pantheistic, old son. The Chicxulub impact caused dinosaur demise, but that story is unraveling and not all dinosaur scientists accepted it anyway. The discovered bird is just like a modern duck, but gets its own classification — because evolution. Wait'll you get a load of the guy who has faith th...

The morning of the one-year anniversary of my wife's passing, I wanted to commemorate the day. It began by going to the Hudson River in the morning. Those parks open at sunrise, which I looked up online. It happens on a predictable basis. Why should it? Some folks do not like this, but presuppositional apologetics  has its ultimate starting point in the authority of God's Word and character as revealed in the Bible. Science, logic, and other things are not possible in a worldview of atheistic materialism; they only make sense in a biblical worldview. Morning on the Hudson River, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen We all have presuppositions and an ultimate starting point. The sun will rise tomorrow, a lighter will make a candle burn, pictures on the wall will not float upward. Things happened before, so they will again — but that is circular reasoning! God holds the universe together, making logic (inductive and other kinds) possible. From there, science is possible. And mathematic...

From the extremely silly material turned in with straight faces as "research," it is no wonder that the secular science industry does not want financial scrutiny. It does not take a scientist to use logic and coherence to determine a...truly bizarre paper. Evolution is supposed to be without purpose because it is not an entity. Sure, figures of speech can treat something like a person, everyone does that. Then Darwin's votaries really do get into pantheism and treat evolution as a being. Luis Zaman claims evolution itself evolves. Video game console and effects, Pixabay / Vika_Glitter The worshipful description of evolution evolving because evolution is evolution and evolution evolves probably embarrassed even Rusty Swingset and the hands at the Darwin Ranch (up near Deception Pass). What was Zaman's research method? Essentially, a glorified video game that oversimplified their subjects. The software itself is known to be faulty. This tinhorn seems utterly committed t...

Some years ago, I  briefly discussed the genetic fallacy . We need to give it another look. In one way, it is simple: People reject information because they dislike its source. That is a cop out to avoid dealing with subject matter that may be pertinent. Recently, I wrote in  Resistance to Question Evolution Day  that someone posted about QED on Reddit and angry atheists had many illogical comments. The poster was asked if people should pay attention to someone called "Cowboy Bob." The genetic fallacy was weaponized and the content of QED was ignored. Plato and Aristotle dazzle the School of Athens  with basketball displays Regular readers know that I encourage people to know basic informal logical fallacies . It can be quite fun. Christians (especially biblical creationists) need to know these things not only to catch deceit and manipulation from misotheists and Darwin's disciples, but also to keep from doing it ourselves and dishonoring the Lord. One challenge...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Although Reddit is really big on teh interwebs and seems to have evolved from newsgroups , I have little use for it. Interesting because I was involved in newsgroups for a spell. They were like the Wild West; there was no town marshall, so almost anything could be posted. Reddit is a bit moderated, I hear. Someone posted about Question Evolution Day . As expected, atheists and other anti-creationists went ballistic. A cursory glance shows that they still reject rational discourse and logic — yet they claim to be the rational ones. The first thing I noticed (again, cursory glances) is that the substance of QED was not discussed. Instead, they used straw man arguments, prejudicial conjecture, and some fabricated complaints that were decades  old (railing against a book from 1997). One complained that creationists are always lying, which I have pointed out is ludicrous even on the surface: Why would we, who believe in a holy and righteous God who hates lyi...

An exclamation of amazement at absurdity is, "How dumb can you get?" It implies that stupidity cannot get much worse. Someone pointed out that it seems like a challenge, so: "How dumb can you get? Hold my beer!" We have contenders from the nature rights movement. Those addlepated folks at the Nonhuman Rights Project tried to get personhood status for an elephant , but that was overturned. They are still trying. Also, there is no mention if hallucinogenic substances were a factor, but a mountain is legally a person with rights and responsibilities. Elephant reading a book, made with  Bing Image Generator  and enhanced The Nonhuman Rights Project keeps trying to get legislation for critters to be granted personhood. They failed in the People's Republic of New York, so they turned their attention to getting a pachyderm made a person in Colorado. Those people weren't having it . The whole idea is infested with ridiculous ideas and contradictions. In New Zealand,...

When attempting to make a point with rational arguments, misotheists are generally unwilling to "allow" Christians (and especially biblical creationists) to be right about anything of importance. I recently scanned a Page by a bigoted atheist whose material I had used for demonstration purposes a spell back, and he is still at it. That is, he shares Christian material to ridicule and makes comments that display his foolishness. In one share, a valid point was made but he refused to admit it. Monkey in snow, cropped from Unsplash / Shino Nakamura Professing atheists and other defenders of molecules-to-monkey evolution on social(ist) media are often committed to attacking their opponents instead of having any kind of intelligent discussion. It is ironic because they claim to have the upper hand over "theists" regarding reason, yet frequently violate laws of logic. Indeed, many times they clutch their pearls and holler because they do not grasp an argument, nor can the...

As many people know, particles-to-painter evolution is fundamental to atheism. One can have a reasonable dialogue for a short time with a professing atheist on a few subjects, but must not criticize evolution. (Indeed, I remember a discussion where the atheist woman thought the Christian was going to criticize evolution, and began to arch her back and extend her claws. It was  civil before.) Most of the vocal proponents of evolution are atheists, but the quality of supporters has declined over the years. Blur of sun and trees image by Cowboy Bob Sorensen One can often judge the substance of a position by its proponents. (No, a comely face and dulcet tones do not make something correct, nor do wise-sounding words. Intelligent supporters may prompt someone to listen more closely to a claim, yes?) Quality opponents can give someone serious pause. In days of yore, Darwin's disciples were plentiful and famous. They presented what appeared to be valid science according to what was known...

So it is 2025, and my unregistered assault keyboard is still under warranty despite heavy use. Proponents of minerals-to-machinist evolution desperately want to convince other people that they are right, pretending the Creator does not exist (Rom. 1:18-23). We have seen shenanigans and hooey used as propaganda. Definitions of words are changed, speciation and variations are called evolution — but no creature has become something else. Indeed, it appears that many of Darwin's disciples do not understand the basics of evolution themselves, so they blow smoke just like Charlie did! Mostly made at  PhotoFunia Atheists and other secularists tell people what  to think about origins.  Biblical creationists want people to learn how  to think — and why. There was a fellow who seemed to live in fear, so whenever a new assertion was made by evolutionists, he would contact others and me, asking, "This can be refuted, right?" Aside from having faith in ever-changing apparent evid...

A hoary old canard used by Darwin's disciples to make the origin of life, and also evolution itself, seem feasible involves monkeys. There are several versions of the concept and the actual origin seems uncertain, but Thomas Henry Huxley made use of it way back when. The idea is that given an infinite amount of time and a million immortal monkeys, they could eventually type out out the works of William Shakespeare. The concept is actually plausible the way it is written but is not realistic. Researchers tell us what we already know. Bronx Zoo Postcard — Chimpanzee at Work, 1907, Flickr / Jim Griffin (PD) The monkey theorem is a way to get Darwin doubters to admit that something absurd is actually possible, never mind the logic. From there, all sorts of lucky breaks result in evolution bringing all the wonders of life. The Creator is then displaced. However, dealing with the real universe, even secularists see there ain't no way nohow. The “infinite monkey theorem” began in som...

There was some excitement at the Darwin Ranch the other day, and foreman Rusty Swingset rode over to my digs to get me his ownself. Lisa Myworries, the Winkie Guards supervisor, was near emotional collapse. "But why does she need you ?" Rusty asked. I had no answer. Her job is stressful and that was compounded when some of the guards got rebellious. Some of the ranch hands were walking and talking about how they "saw" evolution, and those guards demanded to know where the real evolution was. It did not go well. Wicked Witch Darwin and Monkey "Finding Evolution", main image from Why Outreach Although Rusty, his assistant Cliff Swallows, and some of the other higher-ups at the Darwin Ranch can be decent sorts, Lisa and I have a bit of a rapport. It turns out that she was agreeing with the Winkie Guards who expressed (in their limited vocabulary and speaking abilities) doubt that what is called evolution really is  evolution. That is a subject we have discuss...

Interesting that believers of descent with modifications go ape when someone says that we "evolved from monkeys," yet Charles Darwin himself said that we essentially have monkey brains. He also wondered how trustworthy the human brain can be due to its origins. Naturally, biblical creationists say that our brains are  reliable because they were designed by our Creator who intended for us to use them. It seems that atheists are not using — or even abusing — logic in origins stories (see " Logic Getting Worse in Evolutionism "). Bonobo, Pixabay /  Herbert Aust When materialists try to explain how brains and minds (and logic) came about through evolution, they cannot come up with a consistent story. Invoking natural selection backfires because it assumes too much. Apelike creatures were not the beginning of evolution, but a whole chain of alleged creatures going all the way back to atoms in motion. Some materialists know they have no leg to stand on in this, but they b...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  On another weblog, I wrote about riding to a town with Roland Meadows, the fiancé of my prospector friend Stormie Waters. We made friends with Aaron, an employee of a big box store. I went to his town and we met up at an eatery there and we made chin music about our jobs. The place where he works is quite large and the customer base is not exactly classy folks. Some are, but the majority show disrespect to employees, merchandise, and more. When he discussed retail reshops , I thought of radiometric dating, of all things. Grocery shopping, Pexels /  Hobi industri , modified at  FotoSketcher People assume that radiometric dating proves that the earth is old, but it is based on presuppositions of deep time and molecules-to-manager evolution. Simply put, a radioactive element (let's pick uranium for now) decays into lead. Uranium is the parent and lead is the daughter . The amount of each is compared and the decay rate is factored in, calculations ar...

In the twentieth century, John Dewey was considered a great intellectual. He is credited with developing the modern public school system. Dewey had some odd and contradictory ideas in his worldview. He was an atheist and signer of the atheistic Humanist Manifesto, which openly admitted that it was a religion. Also, he did not believe in absolute truth or knowledge. It is ironic that an educator did not believe in knowledge. Worse, his rejection of God made him blind to the fact that logic comes from God — without God, morality, knowledge, wisdom, logic, and science are impossible ! Those details did not matter to Dewey. While he did some things that helped the school system, he wanted children depending on others to do the thinking for them — reflecting the atheistic, evolutionary, and Marxist trends that were growing in the formerly United States at the time. It can be seen today that many people have no inking about how to do critical thinking. Also, notice how these sheeple tend tow...

As discussed here many times, believers in descent with modifications tend to use horrendous reasoning in their papers. (Lapdog popular science journalists often makes things worse .) Researchers are prone to offering an explanation with insufficient evidence for something observed but excluding other possibilities. Evolution is a given, treated as a fact or even a law . They exclude Intelligent Design and especially biblical creation even though evidence support those explanations. If an organism exists, it must have evolved through atheistic materialism — which strikes this child as begging the question . Not only do materialists get away with using bad logic in their presentations, the problem is getting worse. Nobody cares. Evolution doesn't care (study on those last three words and see what I just did). Consider how the Pauli Exclusion is used as a rescuing device for dinosaur soft tissues , which is...truly bizarre. One recent example of fake science logic involves the coela...

When a knowledgeable creationist catches an atheist or other evolutionist in a logical fallacy like the genetic fallacy, an abusive ad hominem , straw man, or other errors, the culprits frequently use the epithet science denier . Such an accusation reveals that someone is not interested in a rational discussion and is probably wasting your time. Even so, it is worthwhile to examine the science denier accusation. You may want to show that the claim is absurd, and you can be aware of why it stinks on ice. Image of creationist scientist Isaac Newton modified at Pixlr Something misotheists intensely dislike is when they throw down on a biblical creationist, they are challenged to back up their claims. In my case, I have this and other weblogs where I have shown appreciation for science — and my triple-bypass open-heart surgery  to appreciate medical science. No science denier here , Horace. For that matter, ask what "science denier" even means. The accusation often comes when Dar...

When talking about origins, several words and phrases are used but people usually know the topic because of the context. Neo-Darwinian synthesis is cumbersome, some say Neo-Darwinism , descent with modifications , and more. The short form, Darwinism , raises hackles on some folks: "Nobody believes that anymore!" and then  use his version of natural selection, saying, "Natural selection is  evolution." (Or worse, that it is science!) Common descent  is also used. They want to find the last universal common ancestor that supposedly ties all living things together. Swamp near Hudson River, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen (modified at photofunny ) LUCA (not to be confused with the short-lived Roman author Lucan ) is presumed to live billions of years ago, and it has several attributes. The components of LUCA also had to somehow break on through to the other side of the Creation Information Barrier  in chemical evolution. No, old son, only the Creator can make life, not...

In Through the Looking-Glass by Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (writing as Lewis Carroll), the White Queen boasted of having been able to believe six impossible things before breakfast. That book was published in 1871, and Charles Darwin had published On the Origin of Species  in 1859. Believing impossible things seems to have been growing in popularity. Although the idea of dinosaurs evolving into birds is treated as a scientific fact by many of Darwin's disciples, actual scientific facts are ignored or denied. Evidence and dating systems of secularists work against them, but they still believe impossible things. Archaeopteryx by Dr. Thompsons Seifenpulver , ca. 1900 An early attempt to bolster Darwinism was Archaeopteryx . This bad boy should have been left alone, as most secular paleontologists admitted that it was just a bird, not a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. Secular dating methods as showing Archie as being older than dinosaurs. Yet some secular paleontologists ...

Atheists and other unbelievers often attempt to find ways of negating the importance of the Bible. It is extremely common for them to say that the creation account is wrong because it is out of keeping with secular origins stories. Another attempt to negate the Bible by stating, "Your holy book condones slavery!" Restrain your equines, Erika. There is a great deal happening here, not the least of which is conflating slavery in the culture of the ancient Near East with the very different slave trade of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Woman in chains, PxHere Yes, slavery is discussed in the Bible, but manstealing was forbidden. Ancient Israel wanted to be like neighboring nations, so God gave strict guidelines for the treatment of slaves. Those slaves were given better treatment in Israel than elsewhere. Also, conquered people were often taken as slaves by Israel. If you study on it a spell, this is actually merciful because the men were killed in battle — women and ch...