Category Archives: Evolution

Hambo Describes a Whole New Category of Sin

There’s a new kind of sin for creationists to fight against, and it’s something your Curmudgeon never heard of before — Emojis. They’re described by Wikipedia as “ideograms and smileys used in electronic messages and web pages. … They are much like emoticons, but emoji are actual pictures instead of typographics.”

Because of your Darwinian ignorance, you’re probably wondering why the things are a problem for anyone, so get ready to learn what’s going on out there. The answer comes from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

He just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: New Emojis (2020): Male Bride, Woman in a Tuxedo, Gender-Neutral Santa. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

With a new year comes a host of new things — including a new set of emojis for your Apple or Android device. The Unicode Consortium is adding over 100 new emojis to the texting dictionary, including 65 brand-new ones and 55 new gender and skin variations. Among the new emojis appears a mustached man in a wedding dress, a woman in a tuxedo, a gender-neutral Santa, and the pink-and-blue transgender flag.

Frightening stuff, huh? Hambo says:

These new emoji designs are just another sign of the times we live in today as our culture moves away from the Judeo-Christian ethic founded in God’s Word. God’s design for gender — male and female — has been abandoned and is even mocked and scorned. [Oh no!] In its place is the new gender revolution that says men can be women, women can be men, or, if they like, men can wear a frilly white wedding dress (intended for a woman) and women can don a man’s tuxedo (intended for a man)!

O the horror! After that shocking revelation he tells us:

But this goes against God’s clear design (Genesis 1:27). He created us male and female — distinct and different. And, because there are only two genders, he says in Deuteronomy, when giving the Law to the Israelites, “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 22:5). God’s command was clear; men are to look like men, and women are to look like women.

And don’t you forget it! Hambo continues:

While we shouldn’t be legalistic about this (and it will look different in different times and different cultures), we should always adhere to the biblical principle that men are to look like men, and women are to look like women. And, of course, the science of genetics confirms there are only two genders, so believing in many genders is both anti-biblical and anti-science.

Once again, the bible and science are in agreement! Let’s read on:

Many of you have children and teenagers with smartphones or social media apps using emojis and will see these new emojis as they are rolled out over the coming weeks. [Gasp!] I encourage you to use it as a teaching point to shine a light on biblical truth.

Good advice! Another excerpt:

There is no “gender-neutral Santa” because [Because there’s no Santa at all?] there’s no such thing as a “gender-neutral” person; we’re either male or female. Men are not to dress as women or women as men.

Even fairy-tale characters must follow the biblical rules. There are no exceptions! Here’s more:

And the transgender flag is a symbol of the sin of pride — arrogance and defiance against the Creator, who made us male and female.

We never saw one, so we googled around and found a pic of the Transgender Flag. And now we come to the end:

We should have compassion for those who struggle with gender dysphoria, but they don’t need us to join in on their rebellion against God’s design. They need us to speak the truth with love and gentleness — we are male and female.

We live in sinful times, dear reader, but there’s one thing you can count on — ol’ Hambo will always keep you on the right path. Any deviation will lead you to the Lake of Fire!

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Creationist Wisdom #1,032: Behe and Galileo

Today’s letter-to-the-editor — like so many lately — appears in the Concord Monitor of Concord, the state capital of New Hampshire. It’s titled Science supports intelligent design, and they don’t have a comments feature.

As with the two letters we wrote about in #1,029: Double Drool, this one is also responding to Evolution Is a Fact.

In fact, it was written by Joseph, who wrote one of those two earlier letters. Because he isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. Excerpts from his new letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

In his Jan. 28 letter, Russell Rowland said that evolution was a fact. Not only was the title of the letter “Evolution is a fact,” he also reiterated that claim in the text of his letter. [That’s discussed in our “Double Drool” post.] In a Feb. 8 letter, Jim Seidel said that not only does a majority of the scientific community reject Michael Behe’s analysis but his own biology department at Lehigh University rejected his analysis.

We often point out and link to the Lehigh rejection of Behe’s “science.” Here it is again: Department Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design”. Joseph isn’t impressed, and he tells us why:

What Seidel did not say was that the biology department did not have an answer to refute Behe. [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!] Are we going to repeat the mistake of the 17th-century at a cost to our student population?

What 17th century mistake is Joseph talking about? He explains:

In 1633, Galileo studied the scientific research of Copernicus. Copernicus, through mathematics, theorized that the Earth revolved around the sun – heliocentric theory. Galileo wrote his research substantiating that theory.

Yes, but Galileo didn’t make a mistake The Inquisition did — see Galileo affair. So what’s Joseph talking about? He continues:

Because the scientific community overwhelming refuted Galileo’s analysis [What?], he was reported to the political power of the day, the pope. Galileo was tried and convicted of heresy. The pope agreed to not have Galileo hanged if he agreed not to publish his analysis.

The scientists were against Galileo, and the Pope was lenient? That’s Joseph’s understanding of what happened? And Behe’s situation is analogous to Galileo’s? This is far more amazing than we expected. Let’s read on:

I can take you up to the top of a hill in my town and prove, with the naked eye, that the sun revolves around the Earth. [He can “prove” it?] But we all know that is not true.

There may be hope for Joseph. He doesn’t think the Sun orbits the Earth. Here’s the end of his letter:

Do justice to our students and teach intelligent design theory alongside of evolution and let them decide for themselves how they got here.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We were wrong. There’s no hope for the guy at all. Great letter for our collection, however.

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

The Mystery of Carnivorous Plants

There’s a thrilling new article from one of the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

The title is Carnivorous Plants, written by Harry F. Sanders, III, about whom we know nothing. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Often overlooked because they cannot move from place to place, plants display some very unique, bizarre traits which are found in no other organisms. Carnivorous plants are one such example. Unlike other members of the plant community, carnivorous plants eat other organisms, usually insects.

Does AIG have a problem with carnivorous plants? Harry says:

This method of life presents an interesting challenge to creationists: how can this be reconciled with the biblical account of Genesis? [Yeah, there was no death before Adam & Eve ate that fruit.] There are a couple of different answers to the question, but we can be certain none of them impinge on the biblical account.

How can we be sure of that? Harry doesn’t give us an answer right away. Instead he tells us:

Darwin himself wrote about carnivorous plants in 1875. Darwin’s contribution to the study of carnivorous plants was indeed useful as he was the first to document carnivory in several genera of plants. Carnivorous plants are classified as several different taxonomic orders, having a variety of trapping mechanisms. There are, however, a few principles that are broadly true across the groupings.

Harry then spends several paragraphs describing various kinds of carnivorous plants. There are better sources of information, so we’ll skip all that to see what comes afterwards. Ah, here we go:

Biblically we know that there was no death prior to Adam’s fall in Genesis. [Yeah, we know that.] Yet carnivorous plants seem well equipped to capture prey. Can this be squared with God calling creation “very good” in Genesis 1?

Good question! It’ll be fun seeing the answer. Actually, Harry has three answers, starting here:

The first possible answer looks at how the Bible defines life. It is possible that insects are not alive according to the Bible’s definition of having the “breath of life.” [Two links to AIG articles omitted.] This would allow for these plants to eat insects in a pre-fall world and not violate God’s “very good” statement by introducing death before sin (Romans 8:19–23). In this view, these plants were designed to eat insects from the beginning and could have been designed to keep pre-fall insect populations from exploding. This view does face the issue that some larger carnivorous plants consume animals that are biblically alive. But God could have designed a way [There’s always a way!] to keep animals from getting trapped by such plants.

Harry continues with the next answer:

An alternative explanation is that carnivorous plants had a different function in a pre-fall world.

Yeah, who knows what the Venus flytraps were doing before the sin of Adam & Eve? Maybe they were playing baseball. Let’s read on:

A third possibility is that God redesigned carnivorous plants to perform their current function as part of the curse. We know that some plants, at least, were redesigned during the pronouncement of the curse since thorns and thistles arose during this time (Genesis 3:18). It is possible that other design changes took place at the same time, though this is not explicitly stated, making it unwise to be dogmatic on this point. All three arguments have merit. Whichever view is correct, carnivorous plants are not a problem for a creationist worldview.

There’s never a problem for the creationist worldview. Yahweh always has a solution. Here’s another excerpt from Harry’s brilliant essay:

Evolutionists must explain the origin of carnivory in plants. [Yeah, it’s not a creationist’s problem.]

That was the start of Harry’s final paragraph. It’s a big one, showing that evolutionists have nothing but problems. We’re left to conclude that the creationists have no problem at all — and of course they don’t. They have the answer to every question: God-did-it! Or, if you like Wikipedia articles, the answer is God of the gaps.

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Creationist Wisdom #1,031: Man’s Greatest Folly

We were alerted to today’s letter-to-the-editor by our clandestine operative with the code name of Gwyllm — a hobbit name. The letter appears in The Laurinburg Exchange of Laurinburg, North Carolina. It’s titled Pointing out the path toward man’s greatest folly, and the newspaper has a comments feature.

Because today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Manuel. This is the sixth time we’ve written about one of his letters. He’s from Oklahoma but his letters get published in newspapers all over the place. For his earlier gems, see #891: The End Is Coming, and that links to the others. Excerpts from his newest letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

Believing in man, instead of God the Creator, is Man’s greatest folly. [Yes!] Man’s failure to learn and teach God’s Word, throughout the world, as He directed, has resulted in the world we live in today. A world gone mad! A world that goes against God and His will for man, whom He created in his image. A world mostly ignorant of God and “The Word of God.”

The world is a mess and Manuel has told us the reason. Next he says:

The beginning history of humanity and the universe, and its creation, was told to Moses by God. Moses wrote the first five books of the Holy Bible, “The Word of God” while almost in constant contact with the Creator himself for over forty years!

Skipping a few paragraphs of signs and wonders used to convince Moses, Manuel says:

The Bible tells of two occasions when Moses climbed up the mountain and spent 40 days and 40 nights with God, during which Moses did not drink water or eat bread. Moses spent more time with God, on Earth, than any other human being.

No wonder Moses believed! Manuel continues:

As witnessed by the apostles, Peter, James, and John, they saw Moses (accompanied by the prophet Elijah) talking to Jesus some 14 centuries later, at what is called the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew Chapter 17).

The apostles saw Moses. That’s amazing — absolutely amazing! Let’s read on:

From the information above, one would think it is enough, for Man to believe in God, and that there is life after death. [How much more evidence could anyone possibly want?] Yet, they say that, “Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a legendary figure and not a historical person, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed.”

What fools those skeptics are! Another excerpt:

Apparently, the miseducated scholars, rather than believe in God, and the Word of God, believe the artistic sequence drawing of an Ape, followed by sequent [sic] drawing changes, and eventually turning into a Human. [That’s absurd!] But an Ape is an Ape, and a Human Being is a Human Being! THANK GOD FOR THE DIFFERENCE!!

What a great letter this is! Here’s more:

It has been said that Charles Darwin thought it was absurd to believe that the human eye “could have been formed by natural selection.” [What?] But it is far more absurd to disbelieve God, the Creator, who created everything, including us, than to believe Darwin, and his ungodly “Theory of Evolution”!

We debunked that ancient clunker about eye evolution ten years ago — see Evolution of the Eye. And now we come to the shocking end:

Man’s unbelief leads to HELL!

Indeed it does! And that was another great letter from Manuel.

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article