Archive for the ‘creation science’ Category

New Ceres Data Defies Big Bang and Evolution Theories, Supports Genesjs Creationism

The Blind Atheist, David A. Schwartz vs. the All Seeing Watchmaker, God

I just read a stupid attempt at refuting the watchmaker argument, getting past all the rambling irrelevant glitter the author, David R Schwartz filled his attempt at a rebuttal with, he said,

“If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison?”

His argument is illogical because it’s a non sequitur, in other words, it makes zero sense. Imagine if a teacher presented a story to a student and the student, refusing to learn or accept the authority of the teacher, said to him, “How do I know this group of words you put together and call ‘A story’ was really arranged and not just randomly put together? I have nothing to compare it to, therefore it’s just a bunch of words.” Do you understand what the student is missing? The teacher has made two baseless propositions:

1. The student has assumed you can’t compare a story (an arrangement of words designed to convey understandable information) to anything that would indicate it’s a story. Wrong. You simply need a definition, an explanation, of what a story is. You don’t need to hold up to a child that doesn’t know what a story is an ANTI-STORY to help him understand what a story is, you simply explain what a story is and it would help of course to tell him one. You can also demonstrate what don’t count as stories, for example to read a nonsensical grouping of words. That could be said to be “random”, although there is no such thing as true randomness

2. He’s assumed there needs to be something random, something that is the complete opposite of disorder in order to recognize order.

3. There is no such thing is random, complete disorder, everything happens for a reason, the universe goes by physical laws that God made possible in some way. Even in the Bible, where God tells the story of the beginning of the universe, though he says that earth at first had no form, he doesn’t say, “It was moving around for no logical reason”, he is simply indicating it had no stable shape, not that there were no laws governing it’s movement.

4. The student’s argument is self-refuting. Using her logic, if you need complete disorder, randomness, to recognize order, the student could reply, “I have nothing to compare your words to or anything else, therefore I don’t recognize you, your authority, or anything you say as making sense.” Imagine if the student had two sons, and said to them, “Get your room in order, clean it up, organize.” Imagine if his kids replied, “As opposed to what? What’s the opposite of complete disorder? Therefore it’s ordered and there’s nothing to organize.” In other words the teacher’s argument is self-refuting. It contradicts, it makes no sense. The student is admitting there is design to the student by acknowledging that there is something to compare his story to by citing complete disorder: how, unless the teacher recognized order, would she know there was disorder, the opposite of it? So then he’s admitting she has the ability to measure the teacher’s story, to see if it’s designed, and not just designed, but understandable, and that there doesn’t need to be some example of complete disorder. This is what David A. Schwartz and other atheists like him do. They propose that you can’t recognize if there was a God who designed anything because there’s no OPPOSITE of design to compare to, when by their very words and every day actions, RECOGNIZING DESIGNS ALL AROUND THEM MADE BY THEMSELVES AND OTHERS OTHER THAN GOD, pretend they can’t recognize design IN NATURE, in other words, things not made by man or things other than God. That is a clear bias. Is David too stupid to recognize when he sees an idol, a statue, a clear picture of some common creature, or even some fanciful drawing of a cliche alien? Of course not. Ironically, in the Bible, God says not to make idols and points out that they can’t help you because they aren’t alive, have no functioning body parts. How much more than can we recognize that a living creature, like a human, is designed? That is how spiritually blind and arrogant people like David and other deliberate atheists are: they, in the face of the absolute obvious, endless obvious evidence, deny it, and smugly so, as if they were wiser than God himself, and that is a clear absurdity. But that is how blind people like David are, how deluded.

5. The student is also assuming THAT THERE IS something that isn’t designed. Who said there was? Why would there be an undesigned thing? There’s no reason to believe anything exists in such a state.

6. The student is also assuming that no one has an instinctive ability to recognize design, not even herself, or is suppressing her ability to do so by deluding himself (convincing herself something is true that isn’t).

7. The opposite of non-design is obvious: nothing, empty space. That is super obvious. What it comes down to is the basis for the atheists rejection of truth: “If I can’t see it, it must not exist.” So if the short sighted blind atheists can’t imagine what the opposite of design is, is too stupid to figure it out, if it’s not handed to him on a plate and singing to him, there must not be such a thing. This is truly the ultimate anti-scientific attitude, and why atheists make awful and unreliable scientists and philosophers. And you’ll fine few who claim to be a theologian because of the heavily illogical mindset. They may give a shallow appearance of being logical, but it’s smoke and mirrors, shallow imitation based on mere claims using somewhat to very fancy words, boasting and insults as the smoke and mirrors.

David went on to say, “All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed.”

Here David has made a nonsensical assumption, why would “we still have to say all non-life isn’t designed”? I don’t have to say it, David is merely making the claim I have to say it. If David sees a cloud, a beautiful cloud, if he’s saying “It’s a beautiful day,” what is forcing him to conclude the day wasn’t designed? And further, how can he recognize beauty, beautiful as opposed to what? What makes a thing, “beautiful”? Design.

Then he said, “But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed,”

Here David has committed another non sequitur, meaning, a completely nonsensical statement. He’s said that because we have no universes to compare ours to, we can’t say it’s designed. And why is that? As I explained above with the teacher and her student example, there is no reason to make that conclusion. David is proposing a nonsensical method to determine design. He might as well have said, “Unless I have a non-statue to compare this statue to, we can’t recognize statues” or, “Unless I have a non-planet to compare this planet to, we can’t recognize planets,” or even, “Unless there’s a flying banana with thirty eyes in it, I can’t recognize design.” Absurd, stupid, illogical, nonsense.

Then he goes on to say, “nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place.” Here you who are in your right mind can see David simply denying the endless evidence for creation, and “speaking for all”, speaking for intelligent design scientists and creationists and everyone else on the planet who doesn’t give in to his will and beliefs. That is a strong indicator of not just his extreme blindness, or arrogance, but that he’s delusional. He’s the type who pretends he can’t type into a search engine, “Bible, evidence” or pick up a book showing evidence for design in a book store or library or that none have any without bothering to read them. In other words, he’s am arrogant moron and a bitter liar. He has such a deep hatred for God and authority, his mind doesn’t even come up with the thought to do an honest study, to look around with sincerity, to do tough research without assumption, but rather to search only for, if at all, “Evidence against the Bible”, or “Proof there’s no design,” in other words, to start out biased and look only to confirm his bias and assumptions.

And in the end, David and other atheists ALWAYS fail the morality test: If there is no God, what is truly moral and why would lying be wrong if there’s no God to say, “This is wrong, it’s not good”? No atheist can say, “I am right as to what is right or wrong, listen to me, I am the one from whom all truth can be known.” Or “Believe my atheist friend here, or Buddha, he’s the right one that never lies and only says what is true,” or “It’s whatever you feel like is right.” Problem: everyone in their right mind recognizes no one person can be counted on as determining good from evil, no one, everyone is flawed. So then, if we are all morally untrustworthy FOR TRUTH, how can David or other atheists be believed about the nature of the universe or anything in it when they resort to making a clearly wrong claim about how ultimate knowledge of goodness can be discovered through someone other than God? In other words: If atheists are morally confused about what is GOOD to do or deny there is good or evil/moral right from wrong, like whether or not it’s good to lie or not, how can they be trusted with basic truths like who made if anyone, the universe? The simple and logical answer is: They can’t be trusted. That is why David in his arguments against things like the Watchmaker argument doesn’t make logical sense. And in my opinion, that is why the mentally ill narcissist Richard Dawkins resorts to making a conniving attack against God by subversively referring to him as a blind watchmaker, knowing that God or his children refer to atheists as blind themselves. Some may argue that wasn’t Dawkins’ intent by making a book title with that name, but believe he was insulting God by referring to him as an imperfect designer (atheists don’t believe anything in this universe was designed perfectly or excellently, and when they do, will find fault with something about the design or claim it could be better somehow). At the very least, Dawkins was calling God’s designs imperfect by attributing nature to coming up with imperfect designs.

Update: At 2:32 AM, about to check out some camera advertised on the net, I accidentally saw David’s profile again, and I noticed this time how he described himself. The first word in his description is, “bitter”. The second to last is, “worried”. I hope he doesn’t want to die that way, risking feeling worse for all eternity.

Evolutionist Fantasies – Logical Fallacies Made by Evolutionists

June 19, 2011 4 comments

Post link:

Yesterday, on Coast to Coast AM, “Ian Punnett was joined by psychology professor Douglas Kenrick for a discussion on how the primitive, animalistic underside of human nature, with its sexual fantasies and homicidal tendencies, has actually given rise to the most positive features of our race.” I listened to this show and found it interesting that this professor said that those who were exclusively homosexual were “a puzzle” to evolutionists, because it didn’t help to spread their genes. He made a one or two other nonsensical statements like this, which evolutionists often repeat, which is that “genes want to spread” / “copy themselves”. They do this so often without explaining further what they mean, that such insane-talk can be taken literally. Evolutionists literally believe that animals “desire to spread their genes”, as if that that is what they are thinking when they are “in heat” or trying to mate, and are literally “looking for a mate with good genes” or “the best genes”. It’s absolutely stupid to say such things. Animals obviously are not intelligent to think such things, and how much less would genes have thoughts and desires? And back to the homosexuality “puzzle” which he seemed to imply must have some usefulness; says who? Why would it have usefulness in evolution? Why can’t something be a non-useful trait in evolution? Douglas said himself that exclusive homosexuality is an irrational choice, and yet he insisted that it must have some usefulness that couldn’t be seen (a clear contradiction). Is he biased? Is he double-minded because he is pandering to the homosexuals “community” and the liberals that determine his pay or whether he gets paid or not? Why doesn’t he just say, “It’s an aberration that repeatedly gets eliminated like evolution, like a harmful genetic mutation”. He also said that, “It’s not like homosexuality is a choice”, which was evidence of his bias. Who says it’s not a choice and where is the evidence? There are homosexuals who have said that it is a choice. There are also former homosexuals. Sexual attraction is also something that develops over time; people’s tastes change. And who would argue that babies are born being sexually attracted to anything? Are babies also born in the act of theft? This claim that babies can be born gay and is why they are gay or bisexual seems to be tied in to the illogical belief and excuse that God made sinners. For example, it’s common for ignorant and confused people to blame God for themselves being corrupt, asking, “Why did God make people sinful?” or “Why did God make me gay?” That’s as nonsensical as asking, “Why did God ecreat me in the act of stealing a car?”; no one is created in the act of stealing, lying, murdering, having sexual thoughts or committing adultery, married to anyone, or born a “Jew” (“Jew” and “Jewish” are racial words which are often incorrectly used in place of “Judaism”) or Christian. And a side note: The “Free Will” Christians who often make these claims of God making them the way they are (in the act of doing something including lusting to do certain evil things) are contradicting their claim that they have a completely free will which God isn’t allowed to and doesn’t “mess with”.

Also, does evolution also have desires and want to perpetuate itself? Yet so called “scientists” like Professor Douglas and others who believe in evolution, especially evolution-scientists, keep making the clear logical fallacy of giving emotions to dna and genes, and another fallacy, which is giving animals (and they consider humans to also be animals) false motives. It’s also bizarre that they give animals and their “genes” and dna the same motives, as if the dna and genes that exist in the animal they are in have separate minds of their own and are not apart of one being (creature). Even if they are speaking figuratively, it is a bad form of teaching to repeatedly do this (as bad as the nonsensical cliches “science tells us” and “science says”) and not explain what you mean, and to keep doing that leads to the ones you saying it to, believing such fallacies and to their own hurt, leading them to Hell because of believing such stupid and illogical things. It may be that certain evolution-scientists used this stupid talk to make it easier for kids and “stupid people” to understand, and got into the bad habit of repeatedly explaining things this way, and/or that certain ones with bad intent, noticed that by saying “dna is programmed to replicate”, which some evolutionists will admit, gives the correct implication that it was intelligently programmed (because mindless things like evolution and so called “nature” do not program things, and obviously dna didn’t create or program itself), and in their hatred of God and the Bible, didn’t and don’t want anyone to know or believe the truth, which is that we were created by God and that the laws of universe, including our biology, were made by him.

Categories: creation science, creationism, evolution propaganda, Evolutionist Education, evolutionist morality, Intelligent Design vs Darwinian Evolution Theory Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lying About Loch Fossils: Mainstream Science Cult Lies Again

April 14, 2011 1 comment

Post link:

More sickening propaganda and greed come from the Mainstream Science Cult news source Sciencedaily:

Loch Fossils Show Life Harnessed Sun and Sex Early on [because the greedy cultists said so]

ScienceDaily (Apr. 14, 2011) — Remote lochs along the west coast of Scotland are turning up new evidence about the origins of life on land [because the greedy cultists said so].

A team of scientists from the University of Sheffield, the University of Oxford and Boston College [grant money grubbers], who are exploring rocks around Loch Torridon, have discovered the remarkably preserved remains [evidence of a 6,500 Earth, not “billions and billions of years old”] of organisms that once lived on the bottom of ancient lake beds as long as a billion (1,000 million) years ago [because the greedy cultists said so].

These fossils illuminate a key moment in the history of evolution when life made the —-> leap <—- [weasel word] from tiny, simple bacterial [because the greedy cultists said so, show the evidence, liars] (prokaryote) [oh look they used a “science” word kids and morons, so they must be smart n’ wise n trustworthy, they must know what they’re talking about!, not those dummy wummy fundie Kwistins] cells towards larger, more complex (eukaryotic) [more complex means it must have evolved from less because the greedy cultists said so: it’s logical fallacy to make such a claim] cells which would make photosynthesis and sexual reproduction possible [because the greedy cultists said so]. The findings are reported in the journal Nature.

Some of these ancient fossils are so finely ornamented, and so large and complex, that they are evidence for a surprisingly early start for the emergence of complex eukaryote cells on land [HUH?! SO THE EARLIER YOU FIND A COMPLEX ORGANISM THE “MORE RIGHTER WE ARE YOU FUNDIES!” HUUUUUUUUUUUUH!!!!???????????!?!?!?!!? NO SUPER MORON LIARS: THAT’S MORE EVIDENCE THAT BIBLE, GOD’S WORD IS RIGHT, NO YOUR LIE THAT EARLIER = MORE SIMPLE.] The researchers believe that it was from complex cells such as these that green algae and green land plants — everything from lettuce to larch trees — were able to evolve and colonise the land [Sure the cultists do. Just like Mormons don’t doubt their religion when their leaders have them shun learning anything outside of their religion that shows it to be false]. – Source

Well, so much for the “skeptics'” claims that ancient bacteria can’t survive after millions of years, let alone a million. This article didn’t even mention how “skeptics” can’t believe or are “skeptical” that it’s possible for life or even DNA to last that long (yes: it is really unlikely if Earth was billions of years old, let alone a million or millions, right, Mainstream Science Cult and supporters?) I wonder why it’s not mentioned? Could it be because it would make Mainstreamers and their Skeptic sect look anti-scientific, because it would kill the excitement of the story, because it would make it look like Skeptics, which many Mainstreamers claim to be, like hinderers of science, or because it might provoke thought outside of the tiny mental box they try to trap everyone in? Because it might get the thoughtless to lift up their blinders and peek at the things in the light, and try to make out what they are seeing clearly? Can’t have that can we cultists? Thinking for yourself is a sin to cultists.

So, let’s get this lesson clear kids and morons: According to the Mainstreamers, the “earlier” a life form existed, the more simple, but if it’s complex [contradiction], the Darwin Cult of Mainstreamers are still right, cuz its just means like got complex suddenly, and the “earlier” a complex form of life is found, the more sudden it happened, and the later a simpler life form is found, it must not have evolved, or come from something simpler, because complex things only get more complex, never simpler, just like this circular reasoning.”

Anti-Christians and Mainstream Science Cult: Please stop teaching kids and morons bad logic, please stop wasting time and money by promoting lies with your time and the money God allows you to have and use. Please, it’s sickening, and inviting pain and death when you keep stealing, provoking, lying and hiding the truth and wrecking lives and wasting everyone’s time.

Categories: creation science, creationism, Mainstream Science Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evidence that some Neanderthals were Homo sapiens deformed by disease

November 20, 2010 Leave a comment

Bone Disease Simulating Ancient Age in “Pre-Human” Fossils
by Rush K. Acton, M.D.

The presence of bone disease of one kind or another as an explanation for so-called “pre-human” fossils is not a common finding but it has been a recurring theme in the scientific world literature. In 1871, Charles Robert Darwin published his second book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Here Darwin presented an ages-old theory that man is merely the highest product of evolution to date, beginning with the lower animals, and thus postulated the presence of “pre-human fossils” on their way up the evolutionary ladder from ape to man. Even before this time, specimens of bones began turning up in excavations around the world. Until a few bones and teeth began to appear, even such a staunch evolutionist as T.H. Huxley had expressed doubt that any of man’s ancestors would ever be found in the earth’s strata. Since that time evolutionary scientists have accumulated a scattered series of skeletons and parts thereof with various features of man or apes. In spite of considerable disagreement on these various finds, a sort of imaginary family tree of man’s ancestors has been developed from these bones and pieces of bones. There is no universal agreement among evolutionists on these findings and their significance or exact place in the hypothetical family tree. Most examples of the “fossil men” can best be explained as variant forms of man or ape with an occasional example of outright fraud. Frank Cousins in his book, Fossil Man, mentions the matter of indecent haste in reporting and withholding of information. Dr. Duane Gish gives an excellent summary of the entire field in his book, Evolution, the Fossils Say No! He discusses the theoretical evolutionary sequence from early primates to modern man. He quotes a number of well known evolutionary paleontologists who make vague statements about the place of each fossil in the history of man. Dr. Gish goes on to develop the thesis that some of these are fossil remains of apes or ape-like creatures while other fossils meet all the requirements of Homo sapiens or modern man. He concludes that there is a consistent lack of transitional forms between the lower primates and man and that there is no evidence whatsoever in the fossil record for evolution.
It is common practice to assign a specific time period to a fossil in a rather dogmatic way, implying that there is good hard evidence to support the assigned date. Relative dating is based on the theoretical geologic time table which does not occur in its entirety anywhere on earth and in fact is based on a form of circular reasoning that assumes evolution. Absolute dating is commonly based on radioactive decay of certain elements. These elements undergo a spontaneous transition from a parent element to a daughter element at a given rate of decay. The proportions of parent to daughter elements in a given sample are put into a formula to determine the age of the material. False assumptions of purity of parent and of daughter elements in the sample and the known inconstancy of decay rates allow for enormous errors in the direction of falsely older dating. Dating methods become more unreliable the further one goes into the distant past. In addition, a great body of scientific evidence is beginning to accumulate that actually limits the age of the universe. This limitation is far short of the time absolutely required by the evolutionary theory. Thus, when evolutionists admit in the literature that disease processes leave their imprint on bone and teeth, producing a false impression of their concept of fossil man, it bears investigating.

Sir Marc Arman Ruffer coined the term “paleopathology” in 1913 in order to describe the study of disease processes and their effects on fossilized remains. Roy Moodie, Ph.D., an associate professor of anatomy, published a thorough review of the field in 1923. Being an evolutionist, Dr. Moodie believed that the history of disease begins with the early Paleozoic (judged to be about 100,000,000 years old then, now estimated to be 600,000,000 years ago). In a chapter in Diseases in Antiquity (Brothwell and Sandison) published in 1967, Dr. Moodie further states that organisms of disease have followed the same general evolutionary processes as have other living things. Fossil animals have shown evidence of various diseases including abscesses in teeth and jaw bones, arthritis, osteomyelitis, benign and malignant tumors, rickets, syphilis and tuberculosis.

Let us examine Neanderthal Man, a supposed forerunner of modern man in the light of paleopathology. In 1856 workers blasted a cave in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. They discovered limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. These bones were examined by scientists in various parts of the world. An ardent evolutionist, T.H. Huxley, ruled this specimen out as an ape-to-man link. A German anatomist, Rudolph Virchow, said in essence that the fossil was the remains of modern man (Homo sapiens) afflicted with rickets and arthritis. In 1886, two more skulls of the same general configuration were found at Spy, Belgium. In the early 1900’s, a number of similar specimens were found in Southern France and by now were lumped together as Neanderthal Man. There are now over one hundred specimens of Neanderthal Man. A paleontologist named Boule reconstructed a set of Neanderthal bones into a very ape-like creature but was severely criticized for this by other evolutionists who noted that the fossil represented Homo sapiens, or modern man, deformed by arthritis.

The very fact that there is such an abundance and variety of forms of the so-called Neanderthal Man is in itself a problem. The appearance of these specimens ranges from the classical Neanderthal of Western Europe to the more modern type which shades into Homo sapiens. The more primitive classic type has a large cranium about the size of modern man’s but with a tendency to be flattened on the top side and to bulge more at the back and the sides. A bony prominence at the back of the skull marks the attachment of the spinal muscles and is referred to as the “Neanderthal bun.” The forehead is marked by a massive supraorbital ridge.

Ivanhoe, writing in the scientific journal, Nature, in 1970, titled his article as follows: “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” Virchow had reported that the Neanderthal Man’s apelike appearance was due to a disease called rickets. He notes that every Neanderthal child’s skull studied so far was apparently affected by severe rickets. When rickets occurs in children it produces a large head due to late closure of the epiphyses and fontanels. The forehead is high and bulbous, the “Olympian front.” The skull bulges at the four corners giving the “caput quadratum” appearance and the teeth are characteristically bad. These features approach those of the classic Neanderthal skull. Large orbits (eye sockets), elliptical in the vertical dimension, are another feature of rickets seen in the Neanderthal children’s skulls and are taught as a simian (ape) characteristic of fossil skulls. Ivanhoe goes on to make a very good case for the correctness of Virchow’s assumption that Neanderthal was merely modern man with rickets. Being a staunch evolutionist, however, he doesn’t perceive this amazing thesis as any support of creation vs. evolution. He further notes the wide distribution of Neanderthal finds in various parts of the world and different climates. He feels that the more classic types of Neanderthal bones merely reflected the increased degree of bone changes from rickets in areas where sunshine is less available. Rickets is related to a relative shortage of Vitamin D which is manufactured in the skin upon exposure to light. Vitamin D is also found in certain fatty fishes and in eggs, among other things. Ivanhoe felt that Neanderthal had little exposure to the sun because of the cold weather, increased atmospheric turbulence, and rain in some of the areas where specimens were found. Mousterian sites of Neanderthal showed little evidence of fish consumption and eggs were thought to be rare. The corresponding condition which occurs in adults from lack of Vitamin D is osteomalacia or softening of the bone. Softening leads to bowing of long bones, and bowing of these bones is seen in both adults and children among the Neanderthal fossils. Both rickets and osteomalacia represent the lack of mineral salts in the protein matrix of bone, causing this relative lack of sturdiness of bone with resultant deformities. There are many causes of these conditions, including defects of nutrition in babies, and certain types of kidney disease. Vitamin D deficiency can also be associated with dimpling and formation of furrows in the enamel of permanent teeth. This feature alone can blur the identification of fossil teeth, which are often found alone or with a minimum of bony structures. Molar or cheek teeth of the old world monkeys, for example, have four cusps or little mounds and those of apes and man have five. Deficiencies in Vitamins A and C can also produce deformities of the permanent tooth structure.

It is possible that some of the changes that occur in fossil bones are attributable to a condition called Paget’s Disease or Osteitis Deformans. This occurs most often between fifty and seventy years of age and can involve one or many bones. Hereditary and familial factors are known to play a role in Paget’s Disease in some cases. It is not known exactly what causes Paget’s, but it has been clearly shown that there is a greatly increased blood flow. This blood flow in pagetoid bones may be twenty times that of the normal rate. Common sites include long bones of the lower extremity and the spine and less often the bones of the upper extremity. The bones become thickened, softer and often curved. Thomas Fairbanks reported on Paget’s Disease in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery in May, 1950. He noted that when advanced cases involve many bones, the individual may assume a crouching “simian” posture. Even the hips assume a more ape-like angle of the femoral neck to the shaft as in the non-upright walkers. The larger skull is thrust forward and held low as in the apes. A loss of as much as thirteen inches in height has been reported. More commonly in Paget’s, the skull is enlarged without enlargement of the facial bones causing the face to look unusually small.

An excellent report by a pathologist from the Hospital for Joint Disease in New York, Dr. Goldenberg, describes the overall appearance of the disease in this way. “In advanced cases of polyostotic Paget’s Disease, the deformities of the spine, femora, and tibiae may result in considerable loss of height. The enlarged head, apparent lengthening of the upper extremities, waddling gait and bow legs suggest a simian appearance.”

Congenital syphilis occurs when the mother affected with this venereal disease transmits it by way of her own blood stream to the yet unborn baby. The fetus within the mother’s womb is usually protected from this disease until the sixteenth week of pregnancy, and most infections occur in the last weeks before delivery of the baby. Fiumara and Lessell, writing in the Archives of Dermatology, describe a number of common findings in this condition. The most frequent sign occurring in eighty-seven percent of their series is called frontal bossing of Parrot. This is due to local areas of frontal bone periostitis (inflammation) caused by the microorganism that produces syphilis. When it involves the forehead above the orbits, it produces the so-called Olympian brow similar to the classic features of western European Neanderthal skulls. Deformities of the long bones of the limbs can occur with syphilis and may produce bowing and curvature of these bones. A condition called Moon’s “mulberry molars” was found in about two out of three of this group of patients. The molar teeth are deformed with many poorly developed cusps (grinding surfaces) instead of the usual pattern of five cusps. Syphilitic incisor teeth can be deformed, barrel-shaped and thicker than normal. A specialist in venereal diseases in London named D.J.M. Wright examined the collection of Neanderthal bones in the British Museum of Natural History and reported that these bones could be merely modern man affected by congenital syphilis.

Neanderthal Man is now taught in evolutionary circles as being Homo sapiens, a sub-species of modern man that lived about 40,000 to 100,000 years ago as a predecessor to modern man.

There remains considerable disagreement among evolutionists as to whether some or all of the Neanderthals evolved into modern man or whether they just vanished into extinction. One author of a 1977 edition of a textbook used in a large university today has an entire chapter on the Neanderthal problem. There are several problems, the most striking one being the sudden disappearance of Neanderthals. The author believes that this suggests catastrophism and even mentions the Genesis flood.

Putting aside preconceived notions of evolution or creation, one can clearly see that the evolutionary scientists have provided good evidence to suggest that Neanderthal Man might well represent some of Noah’s descendants ravaged by various diseases. How blind man can be to scientific evidence when it conflicts with a compelling need to demonstrate that God does not exist and that the creation did not take place.Bibliography1 Brothwell, Don and Sandison, A.T.: Diseases in Antiquity, Springfield, Illinois, Charles C. Thomas, 1967. 2 Cousins, Frank W.: Fossil Man, A.E. Norris & Sons Ltd., 1971. 3 Fairbank, H.A. Thomas, “Paget’s Disease Syndrome—Osteitis Deformans,” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol. 32B, pp. 253-365, May, 1950. 4 Fiumara, N.J. and Lessell, Simmons: “Manifestations of Late Congenital Syphilis,” Archives of Dermatology, Vol. 102, pp. 68-83, July, 1970. 5 Gish, Duane: Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, San Diego, California, Creation-Life Publishers, 1973. 6 Ivanhoe, Francis: “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” Nature, Vol. 227, pp. 577-579, August 8, 1970. 7 Moodie, Roy L.: Paleopathology, Urbana, Illinois, University of Illinois Press, 1923. 8 Parrot, M.: “The Osseous Lesions of Hereditary Syphilis,” The Lancet, Vol. 1, pp. 703-705, May 17, 1879. 9 Wright, D.J.M.: “Syphilis and Neanderthal Man,” Nature, Vol. 229, p. 409, February 5, 1971.*

Dr. Rush K. Acton: In addition to his practice as an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Acton is Clinical Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, and Clinical Associate Professor of Anatomy at the University of Miami. He is a Diplomate of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgeons and a Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.Click here to see the original article

Related Information:

Neandertal Genome Confirms Creation Science Predictions

Sleep with Neanderthals? Apparently we (homo Sapiens) did

Spinning a DNA Tale: Evolutionists Lie About Neanderthals Again

“Neanderthals are no longer considered a separate species”

Lemmiwinks2’S ”Where did the universe come from” refuted

Lemmiwink2’s comments, in the order they came, minus one minor sentence, are in bold, with my replies:

“Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies are under the misunderstanding that the universe had a beginning,”

And they are mistaken because you said so.

“Even as they are saying this, they acknowledge that there could be no reaction which could take place in a complete void,”

If they think it was simply a void then they are wrong. According to Genesis, which is accurate as can be shown indirectly by various evidences, including archaeology, prophecy and science, there was some formless mass from which God created the universe, or rather a formless universe from which he made an ordered one.

“and so there must have been something likions predicted an expanding universe until somebody told him.”

What is “likions”? And why did you refer to a him when you referred to two people before: Hawking and Davies? Something wrong with your thought process?

“Also, science until recently has been tied up with religion,”

No: the scientific method is programmed into humans. Everyone trying something new or trying to confirm what they are instinctively programmed to know how to do (like move their mouth and tongue to speak) has an emotional or mental thought to do something, and who wants to accomplish that thing, and finds the time and resources to, will try. And if they don’t succeed, they will try again unless past attempts from other things let them know it won’t work. But if they succeed, then they confirm that their desire or idea was possible. Everyone does that. Also, it’s vague to say, “tied up with”. What exactly does that mean? Do you mean hindered by religion? Did you know that Einstein said, “science without religion is lame”? And just how is it “tied up” with religion? Are you saying that when a Christian performs an experiment, he’s praising and worshiping God? And what is your point? That you personally don’t like God being praised while experiments are done, and…? So what?! Are you a stupid brat? So what if you hate God? Lame.

In the book of Judges, Gideon carries out the modern version of the scientific method: more than one try to confirm a hypothesis. Also, as you know, Christians have been using science to try and conform their beliefs since the concept became clear to them, and that was occurring since before Darwin was born, a man whom anti-Christians and ignoramuses act like is the father of science, forgetting about Christians like the great genius mathematician Euler.

“and religious beliefs played a part in scientists trying to prove what they already believed.”

And that isn’t recent.

“Early in Einstein’s career he believed in an eternal universe, with two equations: energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, and mass equals energy de a singularity of infinite density that the universe came out of, which would actually be the universe in a different form. They ask us to believe that this singularity existed for all eternity, unchanging, because there was no time, and then all of a sudden decided to explode. This is a ridiculous idea, because any reaction which possibly could take place would have already happened over eternity.”

More evidence that Genesis is true: that a thing or things without a will of their own, disordered, could not order itself/themselves without someone to order it.

“They are following the teachings of some respected scientist like Einstein who was in fact wrong in that particular case.”

Seems to be true from my study of Michio Kaku which I reported on in my journal here.

“Einstein was known to be wrong many times in his mathematical calculations, and didn’t see that his equativided by the speed of light squared seeming to back this up.”

That is a grammatically nonsensical sentence it seems to me: what is an “equativided”?

“The universe is eternal,”

And whatever you say is true because you said so? That’s not true for God, to simply speak and be right “juz cuz”, so then how can you be greater than God?

“and any theory which says that it can’t be needs to be reexamined.”

Just not yours, juz cuz. Contradictory arrogance.

“Anything which can possibly happen has happened before”

Sounds circular reasoning to me.

“and will continue to happen for all eternity.”

In the renewed universe, God teaches that sin will no longer exist, it will only exist in Hell, and people building homes with their own hands (or whatever) will cease. They will no longer feel pain. And God is always right.

“Big bang, big crunch.”

That’s not a sentence and makes no point.

“Please read my articles on the subject by googling rowan casey, and looking for my associated content profile.”

After reading your broken logic: no. And associated content is anti-Christian, or at least anti-[[Calvinist]], so double no.

“This is the second most popular theory, I don’t need to site my sources.”

Of course: because you’re God and whatever the false God says is true is true, juz cuz he said it’s the second most popular theory.

Richard Dawkins: A Narcissist Who Requires Christians to Have “Credentials”

April 25, 2010 4 comments

Post link: or

Some stalker-atheists today who’s pride couldn’t take to-the-point criticism decided to pull the very type of tactics I told them they always use, and added some arguments in their harassment that I don’t remember having written arguments against before, but here they are.

Today, an atheist asked me what my professional credentials were for calling him mentally ill (a psychopath and narcissist. Though this person didn’t say I needed them, nor can I say that he implied it either, other anti-theists have implied that such credentials are needed. I gave him my arguments, but here I’ve made it easier to read for everyone, and I’ve given more arguments (refutations/rebuttals), and I’ll include arguments against the “peer review” nonsense tactic which anti-Christians love to use against creationists and Christians:

Sometimes, an anti-theist or a so called agnostic will try and escape examining evidence for God from a Christian, or that the Bible is true from a Christian, or that the universe was created from a creationist, by saying something like, “You’re not a scientist”; “What are your professional credentials (as in degrees from prestigious universities, most likely the top 100 or top 100 in what you got your degree in)”; “You don’t have any credentials”; “You work wasn’t peer reviewed (by real scientists)”; “You need the agreement of liberal scientists for the thing you say is true”.

And for those of you who think I’m making that up, you can find such comments on Yahoo Answers I’m sure, where floods of atheists and agnostics use such arguments against theists and creationists in the Religion and Spirituality section (but I advise you not to participate as the moderators of Y.A. deliberately allow atheists and agnostics to drive theists out by trolling). Here is one example I found in at about 9 AM, April 26 (I bolded the user names and dates of their posts, and the most relevant parts to my article to keep your focus on the main subject here):

Sun May 15, 2005 4:21 am
Lance Kennedy:

I was talking of the Dr. Richard Lindzen who was discussed in Scientific American and described as one of America’s most respected climate scientists.  Since the editor of Scientific American is an advocate of the human caused global warming theories, I doubt he would allow such a description go to a man in the pay of energy concerns. […]

If we allow our estimate to include all Ph.D. scientists (not just climate specialists) you might be interested to know that the past president of the USAAS began asking scientists to sign a request for President Bush to reject Kyoto on the grounds that the science was so uncertain.  Last time I looked, over 18,000 had signed. […]

If we allow our estimate to include all Ph.D. scientists (not just climate specialists) you might be interested to know that the past president of the USAAS began asking scientists to sign a request for President Bush to reject Kyoto on the grounds that the science was so uncertain. Last time I looked, over 18,000 had signed.”

Sun May 15, 2005 6:19 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:

I was talking of the Dr. Richard Lindzen who was discussed in Scientific American and described as one of America’s most respected climate scientists.”

Linkage please.   The SciAm articles I can find that mention him call him “credentialed” and “prominent” and “vocal”.  That is not the same as “most respected”.

If we allow our estimate to include all Ph.D. scientists (not just climate specialists) you might be interested to know that the past president of the USAAS began asking scientists to sign a request for President Bush to reject Kyoto on the grounds that the science was so uncertain. Last time I looked, over 18,000 had signed.”

Linkage?  I can’t even find the “USAAS”.  The Seitz petition (that would be “past president of NAS”, NOT “USAAS” includes everything from bachelors up, not just PhDs.

“Of the 15,000 signers of the petition, … about 2,100 were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists and meteorologists, “and of those the greatest number are physicists.”

That’s from the physicist that helped write the article associated with the petition.. which is the infamous Soon/Baliumas crud.

Sun May 15, 2005 8:59 pm
Lance Kennedy:

Sorry.  Should have been AAAS (not USAAS)  I’m not an American and don’t know any better.

You are correct in that non climate scientists are not to be taken as seriously. I just mentioned it to show that global warming skepticism is common.

Sun May 15, 2005 10:06 pm

No, it’s NAS, and I’m not American either.  :)

“You are correct in that non climate scientists are not to be taken as seriously. I just mentioned it to show that global warming skepticism is common.”

So is creationism.  :shrug:  Last time I checked, argument from popularity was a logical fallacy.

Mon May 16, 2005 1:04 am
Lance Kennedy:

The difference global warming skepticism has to creationism is that creationists are not professional biologists (or any other kind of scientist, with very few exceptions).  Global warming skepticism is alive and well in the climate science community and in the wider scientific community.  While popularity is not ‘proof’ of anything, lack of scientific consensus should be enough to make anyone pause and think.

And a little background about those two:

skepticforum Profile data for Lance Kennedy:
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:20 pm
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

skepticforum Profile data for Graculus:
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Ontario

Incredibly, I found this by searching for +”creationists are not professional” on Google, the incredible part being that I found this phrase combined with the “credentialed” reference, taken from Scientific American magazine, which is a liberal atheist magazine.

Other related examples:

“… there is no such thing as a christian scientist” – homestarr2, 2009, about 124 days ago (8 months), Yahoo Answers

Question: “Christians, why do monkeys have the same blood type as us? The only process we could have blood types is through genetics, which is passed through evolution. There’s no such thing as a Christian scientist.” – Taylor (apparently a banned member), April 5, 2010, Yahoo Answers

The winning answer by way, by one vote, was “Because God created both them and us. Evolution as a religion has far more holes than Christianity.” – atomzer0

There is no such thing as a Christian scientist. Thats a contradiction of terms. Science is not based on “observation,” it based on hypothesis, and theories. Which would classify it as a “superstition.”

Science: experimentation, The observation[…] – “These have the power to shut heaven” (a theist who likes quoting the Bible, but won’t call himself a Christian, and who was banned from the site he made that comment on, and for other ridiculous comments like that Galileo wasn’t a Christian and that Isaac Newton wasn’t a scientist), Sodahead

And on a “Creationists Exposed” rant at, I discovered on 4/26/2010/12:00 PM, that Richard Dawkins made an absurd (and unprofessional) excuse as to why he would not to reply to a question concerning the evolutionary process, and here it is in this quote:

On September 16, 1997, Keziah Video Productions, in the persons of Gillian Brown and Geoffrey Smith, came to my house in Oxford to film an interview with me. I had agreed to see them, on the misapprehension (as it later turned out) that they were from a respectable Australian broadcasting company. I had no idea they were a creationist front and I would not have granted them an interview had I known this, because of my policy as mentioned above.

The interview began. I have considerable experience of television work, and I was initially surprised at the amateurishness of their filming technique, but I carried on without voicing my surprise. As the interview proceeded, I became increasingly puzzled at the tone of the questions. Puzzlement gave way to suspicion that Keziah was, in fact, a creationist front which had gained admittance to my house under false pretences.

The suspicion increased sharply when I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask. A real biologist finds it an easy question to answer (the answer is that natural selection increases the information content of the genome all the time – that is precisely what natural selection means), but, from an evolutionary point of view, it is not an interesting way to put it. It would only be phrased that way by somebody who doubts that evolution happened.

Now I was faced with a dilemma. I was almost certain that these people had gained admittance to my house under false pretences – in other words, I had been set up. On the other hand, I am a naturally courteous person, especially in my own house, and these were guests from overseas. What should I do? I paused for a long time, trying to decide whether to throw them out, and, I have to admit, struggling not to lose my temper. Finally, I decided that I would ask them to leave, but I would do it in a polite way, explaining to them why. I then asked them to stop the tape, which they did. […]

On this website in which this excuse is quoted, it says below it,

“[…] they [the alleged creationists] are not engaged in scientific research, and thus cannot hope to succeed on the scientific level, they resort to ad hominem attacks on the genuine scientists who have exposed their myths.

[Me: But calling people “creationists” and equating with “people who waste time” and equating them to flat-earthers over a harmless question and deciding to kick them out of your house for it and calling them unprofessional a isn’t anything close to an “ad hominem” attack? What a hypocrite.]

What are the effects?

What effects will the dissemination of this particularly egregious example of that tactic have in the real world? What effect would it have, for example, on Richard Dawkins’ professional reputation among his scientific peers? We would suspect practically none, because no professional biologist, nor any other competent scientist, would be hoodwinked for a moment into thinking that Prof Dawkins had been baffled by such a crudely easy question.”

On a side note, note this ratbag’s pretentious word “egregious” in the context of this “that question was just too crudely simple for Master Dawkins, no professional scientists would believe Master Dawkins was fooled” (a sign of a narcissist). And what is “crudely easy“? That doesn’t even make sense. And how was calling alleged creationsts unprofessional for no logical reason other than asking a question that was too low for the his royal highness King William Dawkins the III, Imperial Lord of the Scientists, who may not be bothered with so called “not complex enough” questions? Just imagine if Dawkins had said, “You dare ask me such a simple question! You must be creationists you unprofessional fools!” And speaking of “unprofessional”, what kind of name for a website is “ratbags”? Ridiculous. Narcissists should be put away in mental institutions.

Basically, anti-theists and liberals are saying,

“You must have professional credentials and have your claims in favor of God, the Bible or Intelligent Design peer reviewed and judged by us to for them to be acceptable to us true scientists and for us to decree to the world that they are either right or worth giving their attention to.”

My counter-arguments:

1) Says who? Who made anti-Christians God? Is this a universal commandment from God? Obviously not. If that point isn’t obvious to an adult who can easily use a search engine to do research, or easily go to a bookstore or library to research, than it says a lot about their mental health.

2) Of course, “professional credentials” to an anti-Christian isn’t something you can truly get from another Christian, not a fundamentalist one, especially not one who believes, oh how stupid: that the first things and elements weren’t mindlessly created, but designed, being that they have a design and that there is no such thing as literal “randomness” or “chaos”. It’s similar to when some anti-Christians, when they say, “scientists” or “biologists” say those words and pretend or claim that only non-Christians or non-theists or liberals can be scientists. So when an anti-Christian says, “You must have professional credentials to be correct” and “You must have your work peer reviewed for it to be right”, what they mean is, “You must have professional credentials from anti-Christians or liberals, to be correct” and “You must have your work peer reviewed and approved as as right by anti-Christians or liberals, to be correct.”

3) Did the first humans need professional credentials and peer review of their claims or beliefs? Imagine how little progress would have been made if the first human and humans refrained from believing what they did or making any claims because they had no “professionals” to approve award their beliefs and claims or “peer reviewers” to decree, “Thou mayest believest what you do and claim what you doest because I’m a professional and peer reviewer, Ramen.” Imagine, a Christian decides to imitate the scientific experiment Gideon did to verify whether or not he was talking to God (yes: the Bible does teach science), and concludes God exists, but some atheist comes up to him and says, “Do you have professional credentials to believe what you do or tell me God exists? Was your so called science experiment peer reviewed? I’ll show you what real science is you primitive Christian!” Imagine again, how little progress we would have made if we had to obey the anti-Christian commandments to not believe or claim anything unless it’s approved of by them, and only professionals among the anti-Christian crowd. We’d all be standing out in the rain waiting to eat till some atheist came around to give everyone professional credentials and to peer review their idea to use a tree for shelter or eat a berry for food, and since that would never happen, the human race would have gone extinct, while our unprofessional animal peers continued to devolve into little weak animals, till viruses, harsh weather, starvation and old age finished them all off.

4) It’s really pretentious I think for these haters to say, “peer reviewed” rather than speaking plainly and saying instead, “you work must be judged by and approved of by us”. Instead they use a fancy phrase “peer reviewed” to make sound like they are scientists themselves, and wise.

5) Hypocritical: How convenient that Christians must submit all their claims, scientific or not, for “peer review” to anti-Christians, when these so called “peers” often won’t even bother to look at the claim carefully at the hint that it has something to do with showing evidence for Christianity. It’s like a bully pretending to be honest, by saying to the ones he bullies, “Unless I approve of your beliefs you’re wrong, now give me your work and tell you if you’re wrong or not.” As if  the bully isn’t going to be biased and waste more time.

6) Hypocritical circular reasoning: How convenient that these anti-Christians don’t believe that they need to have their beliefs “peer reviewed” by Christians or that no Christian is a scientist, juz bcuz “Christians believe in God”, and of course God doesn’t exist, juz bcuz the atheist or liberal said so. If anti-Christians really cared about the truth, they wouldn’t hide behind the credentials and peer review lines.

7) It’s circular reasoning to claim that only claims and beliefs by people with professional credentials given by liberals, in what they claim or believe and who’ve had their claims and beliefs peer reviewed by liberals, may make those claims and believe what they do, because, how could the first humans become professionals, let alone “professional peer reviewers” if there was no professionals to begin with? There would be no “professionals” of any kind if there needed to be a human one already in existence. So according to anti-Christians and anti-theist logic, there’s an infinite amount of Professional, University-Degreed, Peer Reviewer Liberal gods whom each got their professional credentials from a previous professional, university-degreed, liberal god. Obviously, you don’t need another human to become wise and trustworthy, you can learn from God, and learn on  your own, with God’s supervision. You don’t need a liberal holding your hand and telling you, “That’s wrong, that’s right” every step of the way.

How convenient and dishonest to dismiss the truth, research and to fob off responsibility to look into the truth yourself, by simply saying to a person, “You need professional credentials”, “You work needs to be peer reviewed”.

There’s nothing evil with learning “on your own”, meaning learning without someone standing somewhere nearby dictating things to you or telling you when you’ve done right or wrong, nothing sinful about it. People learn on their own all the time, out of necessity and to surpass others. There’s even a name for people who gain a large amount of knowledge and understanding of a subject: autodidact.

“an autodidact is someone who is self-taught. It comes from the Greek autodidaktos and entered the English language in 1748.

Many of our most prolific inventors and scientist, men like Thomas Alvin Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Samuel Morse, Wilbur and Orville Wright, etc were autodidactists. Today most lifelong learners are autodidactists because they are self-directed learners who master many subjects without the benefits of a formal classroom and instructor. My wife, the schoolteacher, loves to tell people that I’m the exemplary autodidactist. I quit school to enlist in the United States Air Force at seventeen where I mastered the art of jet engine mechanic. My excuse was that the only classes that interest me were math, science and shop classes and I was already doing 12th grade work when I was in the 7thgrade. I later received my GED and took some junior college courses. In later years I enrolled in some online college courses but never sought a degree. Over the years I mastered many things as a self directed learner, believe-it-or-not; I actually taught myself electronics and had a successful radio and TV repair business when I was sixteen years old. My only reason for telling you all this personal stuff is to show you that anyone can become an autodactist if they have the desire to learn as a self-directed learner.

Back in those pre World Wide Web days when I undertook the task of educating myself, I was limited to books that I borrowed from the library or purchased from a local bookstore or from some book catalog. Today the self-directed learner has the knowledge of the whole world available at his or her fingertips.” – Jerry Walch, Staff Writer,

Here is a large list of famous autodidactics: Autodidactic Hall of Fame: Self-educated People Who’ve Made a Difference.

So, once again, it’s clear:

if atheists, anti-theists and anti-Christians had their way, if they were in charge of the entire world, if we “imagined no religion”, “imagined no God”, or imagined no Christians, so to speak, in other words God rid of belief in God and stop practicing any religion, there would be no more “science” or human system of any kind, let alone any humans left at all, because eventually, we’d all die out from serevely illogical reasoning.

It’s ironic, but not surprising to me, how the circular anti-Christian argument that, “You must have professional credentials and must have your work peer reviewed by professionals for your claims and beliefs to be worthy of attention and legitimate” requires the existence of God to have made the first professional in order to break the circular reasoning of that argument.

The first teacher, was God, and he continues to teach with the universe he made, and especially with his word.

Related articles:

Circular Reasoning

Begging the Question

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Guilt by Association Fallacy

Fallacy: Circular Reasoning

What Is Circular Reasoning? (a PDF)

Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology