Category Archives: Evolution

Rev. David Rives — All about Light

The world’s cutest rev has once again triggered the Drool-o-tron™. Its sirens and flashing lights, alerted us to the latest video from the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries, posted at the website of WorldNetDaily (WND).

Our computer was locked onto this headline: Light: More than just what you see with your eyes, but the rev’s video has a shorter title: “The Wonder of Light.”

The rev tells us all about the electromagnetic spectrum. Did you know that there’s more to light than the colors you can see in a rainbow? Hey, that’s what he says. The rev also says we can use light to know what distant planets are made of. That’s amazing!

We can study the universe this way because it’s orderly and God has given us the tools. But the universe wouldn’t be orderly if everything was the result of random chance. An orderly universe is what we expect if God created it — and if God created us to study it.

Just like the last video we posted about, the rev is dressed in a black blazer with no necktie, and he’s got the edge of a handkerchief showing in his coat pocket. Very classy. There’s no doubt about it — he’s the cutest rev you’ve ever seen! The video is about two and a half minutes long (before the commercial at the end). Go ahead, click over to WND and watch it. You might learn something.

As we always do with the rev’s videos, we dedicate the comments section for your use as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. You know the rules. Okay, the comments are open. Go for it!

Copyright © 2018. 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

Ken Ham Says Evolutionists Are Cannibals

It doesn’t take much to excite Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. Look what he just posted at Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Richard Dawkins: “Could We Overcome Our Taboo Against Cannibalism?”

You know who Richard Dawkins is. Hambo has ranted about him before — see, for example, Ken Ham Criticizes Richard Dawkins. Here are some excerpts from Hambo’s new post, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Atheist Richard Dawkins is well-known for stirring the pot over at Twitter with his inflammatory tweets. He usually gets a largely negative reaction, with people alarmed or disgusted by what he says. But what they fail to realize is that Dawkins is usually being consistent with his atheistic worldview. And that’s the case yet again with his latest tweet, “Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism?”

We don’t have access to Twitter, but according to Hambo, Dawkins tweeted this:

Tissue culture “clean meat” already in 2018? I’ve long been looking forward to this. [better link later]
What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism? An interesting test case for consequentialist morality versus “yuck reaction” absolutism.

What’s that all about? It looks like a jocular reaction to something reported three months ago by PhysOrg: Lab-grown meat could let humanity ignore a serious moral failing, which says:

Lab-grown meat is being hailed as the solution to the factory farming of animals. The downside of factory farming for the cows, chickens and pigs themselves is obvious enough. But it is also bad for human health, given the amount of antibiotics pumped into the animals, as well as for the environment, given the resources required to provide us with industrial quantities of meat. By contrast, lab-grown meat need have none of these costs. Once the technology is perfected it will be indistinguishable in taste and texture from real meat, and will be cheaper to produce and purchase.

There is, however, a major problem with lab-grown meat: a moral problem. Factory farming causes billions of animals to live and die in great pain each year. Our response has been almost total indifference and inaction and, despite the rise of vegetarianism and veganism in some quarters, more animals are killed today for food than ever before. This does not reflect well on us, morally speaking, and history will not remember us kindly. The moral problem stems from the fact that we will likely switch over to lab-grown meat because it is cheap, or thanks to its benefits for human health or the environment. That is, we will do it for our own sake and not for the sake of animals.

They go on and on about that “moral problem,” but doesn’t impress us much, and it’s not what Hambo is ranting about. He says:

Dawkins was responding to a news article [It’s the link in his tweet: Lab-grown ‘clean’ meat could be on sale by end of 2018, says producer] about meat grown in a laboratory, referred to as “clean meat.” This meat is grown from stem cells harvested via biopsy from living livestock. But Dawkins took this idea in a whole new direction when he suggested we could grow and consume human meat. In their comments, many people dismissed Dawkins’ statements as disgusting, though a surprising number agreed with him (some people even suggested eating young-earth creationists over their cat). Others tried to explain away his thoughts by appealing to health or cultural reasons.

Okay, so Dawkins made a joke about lab-grown human meat — which wasn’t mentioned in that article. So what? Hambo tells us:

But Dawkins is being utterly consistent with his beliefs. He believes we’re all products of millions of years of evolution. He believes we’re just animals, really no different from cows, sheep, or pigs. So if we eat those creatures, why not eat human “meat” too? Especially if you don’t actually have to kill a human in order to harvest the “meat.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! According to Hambo, Dawkins is serious because all evolutionists are cannibals, doncha know? He continues:

But, really, in his worldview, why should we care if we kill human “animals”? From an atheistic worldview, ultimately there’s no purpose or meaning in life.

Hambo, on the other hand, is a creationist, which means his beliefs are The Truth. The bible tells him that cannibalism is wrong. Without that guidance, like Dawkins, he wouldn’t have a clue. He continues:

Now such an idea is repugnant to most people — and for good reason! We intuitively know humans are different from animals. And that’s because we are. We were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). We’re not animals — we’re unique and hold a special value simply because we’re made in the image of God. No animals were made in God’s image; therefore we aren’t “meat,” and our muscle was not created to be eaten.

Actually, we are meat. There are plenty of predator species out there that traditionally hunted and devoured humans — and still do when they get the chance. Where does Hambo think they came from? Anyway, he righteously concludes:

Secularists really don’t have a good moral argument against Dawkins’ disgusting statements. But when we start with God’s Word, we are able to authoritatively declare that his idea is morally wrong.

Well, dear reader, you have a problem. When the evolutionists start marketing lab-grown human beef, whatcha gonna do?

Copyright © 2018. 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

13 March: Creationism and Uranus

While we’re waiting for some news about The Controversy between evolution and creationism, we thought it would be good to remind you that today’s date, 13 March, is of immense importance to creationists. On this date, two profoundly important events occurred.

In 1781, the celestial orb which we tactfully refer to as the Seventh Planet, the one that dare not speak its name, was discovered by William Herschel.

That discovery has inspired several Curmudgeonly posts, for example: William Herschel, George III, and Uranus, and also Noah’s Ark Found! On Uranus!, and no one could forget Uranus Park Will Compete with Ark Encounter.

Not only that, but also on this the same date, in 1925, the Tennessee General Assembly approved a bill which became the Butler Act, prohibiting the teaching of the theory of evolution in state-funded schools. It was signed by the Governor a week later and resulted in the world-famous Scopes Trial.

Think about it, dear reader. Everyone knows that creationism and Uranus naturally go together, but what are the odds of two such amazingly important creationist events happening on the same date? Verily, the odds against it are astronomical! There is only one possible explanation — these things were coordinated by the intelligent designer — blessed be he! Our logic is undeniable.

Copyright © 2018. 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

Ken Ham and Cheddar Man

A few weeks ago this story appeared at PhysOrg: DNA shows first modern Briton had dark skin, blue eyes. They said, with our bold font:

The first modern Briton had dark skin and blue eyes, London scientists said on Wednesday, following groundbreaking DNA analysis of the remains of a man who lived 10,000 years ago. Known as “Cheddar Man” after the area in southwest England where his skeleton was discovered in a cave in 1903, the ancient man has been brought to life through the first ever full DNA analysis of his remains.

In a joint project between Britain’s Natural History Museum and University College London, scientists drilled a 2mm hole into the skull and extracted bone powder for analysis. Their findings transformed the way they had previously seen Cheddar Man, who had been portrayed as having brown eyes and light skin in an earlier model.

“It is very surprising that a Brit 10,000 years ago could have that combination of very blue eyes but really dark skin,” said the museum’s Chris Stringer, who for the past decade has analysed the bones of people found in the cave. The findings suggest that lighter pigmentation being a feature of populations of northern Europe is more recent than previously thought.

PhysOrg doesn’t cite any published paper. Instead, they say that the information will be reported “in a documentary to be aired on February 18.”

And that brings us to the website of 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. Ol’ Hambo just posted this at his blog: Oldest Brit, “Cheddar Man” Was Dark-Skinned . . . or Was He? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

A few weeks ago, news headlines around the world proclaimed that the oldest known “Briton” (by secular dating methods) was dark-skinned, according to genetic analysis (which was done for a TV documentary). But now new headlines are calling this pronouncement into question.

These new reports are more tentative, stating that the results weren’t absolutely conclusive and that new research has shown even more genes than we thought are responsible for skin shade. It goes on to say that, even with current technology, we really can’t tell the shade of an ancient person’s skin yet, especially considering how much DNA degrades over time.

That must be a relief to ol’ Hambo. As we all know, he ain’t no kin to no monkey, and now he doesn’t need to worry about being related to a dark skinned Cheddar Man. He says:

This story [in New Scientist: Does Cheddar Man show there is such a thing as bad publicity?] shows that “whenever science is done by press release, it is science that usually comes off worst.” You will rarely hear all the details in a press release or a lay science article, and often these articles are spun — or have tantalizing, misleading headlines — because publishers want people to read their articles.

That article in New Scientist tells us:

The whole episode smacks of a publicity stunt to hype up the show. There is some truth in that, but dismissing it outright does a disservice to the scientists. According to the state of knowledge at the time, the genetic analysis did suggest that Cheddar Man’s skin was dark. But science progresses, and since the analysis was done last year, many more genes affecting skin colour have been discovered. Understandably, the new science did not make it into the documentary.

Okay, maybe Cheddar Man was dark skinned, or maybe he wasn’t. We still don’t know. But Hambo knows. His post, before the promotional links, concludes with this:

[I]t’s a reminder that we need to be careful about believing what we read, especially if it contradicts God’s Word (such as the 10,000-year age assigned to “Cheddar Man” — sadly much of the media has been brainwashing the public in many false ideas about origins, especially when it comes to the dates!). We can be confident that research, when done right and interpreted correctly, will always confirm God’s Word.

Ah yes — the research has to be done right. Then it’ll always support Hambo’s beliefs.

Copyright © 2018. 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