Logic dictates that if Peking Man were an intermediate sub-human species, one of man’s evolutionary ancestors, that lived for even a few hundred generations, there should be abundant fossil remains available today.
Pin ItTag: Darwinists
Finally, in 1953 and after nearly 40 years, Joseph Weiner and Kenneth Oakley applied the recently developed fluorine test to the bones—and found that Piltdown Man was a complete hoax. Someone had intentionally taken an ape jaw and combined it with a fragment of human skull bone, filed the teeth somewhat, and then carefully stained the entire “specimen” so that the bones looked both ancient and appeared to be a matching set.
Pin ItA recent comment made it clear to me that I had not covered my reasons for calling Darwinism a religion in enough detail. I will recap those reasons here, for the record, and then continue the series of “Pious Frauds” committed by the Darwinian faithful.
Pin ItCiting Neanderthal as a transitional form between ape and man? The fact is that so called “Neanderthals” were 100% human beings, as human as you or I, who happened to have various perfectly explainable health conditions. Painting them as half-man/half-apes, or a “separately evolved” race of hominids is simply unsubstantiated, misleading, and fraudulent.
Pin ItFar from being indisputable, both the validity and the relevance of Java Man remains in serious and continuous dispute and, like Nebraska man, shares a heritage rich in fraud.
Pin ItBefore I wade into the morass of macro-evolution, I felt it was important to reflect upon the basic formal argument for Darwinism as a religious belief.
Pin ItWhile not being very scientific, panspermia is a great example of a “god of the gaps” fallacy and a great example of the religious foolishness Darwinists preach and teach in the name of the secular humanist religion. Perhaps textbooks should come with the following warning, “Abandon all logic ye who enter into Darwinism.”
As I said last Sunday, vast amounts of time don’t prove Darwinism. However, short amounts of time, young ages, directly refute Darwinism. Today, I will continue to present some facts about the age of the earth and the universe in which we exist. While opinions can vary pretty vastly, the fact is that there are numerous factual evidences that our world is quite young.
Pin ItVast amounts of time don’t prove Darwinism. However, the converse does not follow. Short amounts of time, young ages, directly refute Darwinism. This is why Darwinists have worked so hard over the last half century to make anyone who believes earth and the universe to be, in fact, rather young look like a quack, a nut, or someone with an agenda.
Pin ItBefore I step into the primordial soup that is Chemical Evolution, which slips nicely down the logical slope into the quagmire of Abiogenesis, I must preface those future posts with some foundational data. This data is important for context. The foundational data we must examine has to do with the fallacy of Darwinist reification and the age of the earth. In this post, I will focus on reification.
Pin It