Category Archives: Intelligent Design

Ken Ham: The Cause and Cure of Racism

You don’t want to miss the latest from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. His new post is titled What “Black and White” Twins Teach Us About Supposed “Race”. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Several years ago I wrote an article for our Answers magazine titled “It’s Not Just Black & White.” This article looked at several examples of what are referred to as “black and white” twins — fraternal twins where one is dark skinned with black hair and the other is light skinned with fair hair.


The Biggs twins, Millie and Marcia, are in the news again because they are entering middle school in Birmingham, England. Their mother, who is light skinned (their father is dark skinned), had to explain to school staff that the girls are indeed twins. Reportedly, “some of their teachers were shocked, and strangers are often baffled when they find out the girls are related, much less twins.”

Okay, but what does that have to do with evolution and creationism? Hambo says:

Why are people so shocked by these twins? Because they’ve been indoctrinated with the idea of supposed “races,” an idea fueled today by evolutionary thinking.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Right. Before Darwin and his abominable theory, no one ever even thought about race. All humans, everywhere, lived in perfect harmony. Then he says:

Because all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, we’re all one race, or “one blood” as the Apostle Paul puts it in [scripture reference]. This is confirmed by observational science — humans are one species, Homo sapiens sapiens, and the supposed “racial” differences only account for .012% of the differences between humans.

Back in the days when everyone believed in the bible, no one even noticed racial differences. Hambo tells us:

The reason for the slight differences, such as skin tone and eye shape, between people groups is primarily because of the event at the Tower of Babel [scripture reference]. This division of languages broke up the human gene pool and isolated groups from one another. Certain genetic variations became prominent in different groups. … There’s just one race — the human race. We look different because of what happened at the Tower of Babel.

It would probably shock ol’ Hambo to learn that (except for the Tower of Babel stuff), that was also Darwin’s view. In Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin, we quoted his book The Descent of Man, Chapter 21 – General Summary and Conclusion, where he says:

Through the means just specified, aided perhaps by others as yet undiscovered, man has been raised to his present state. But since he attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as good and true species. Nevertheless all the races agree in so many unimportant details of structure and in so many mental peculiarities that these can be accounted for only by inheritance from a common progenitor; and a progenitor thus characterised would probably deserve to rank as man.

Hambo continues:

There’s only one solution to racism — a change of heart so people will build their thinking on God’s Word and believe the true history of the world. Racism, as well as other social issues such as gay “marriage,” transgenderism, and abortion, are all moral issues that are symptoms of a foundational issue — rejection of God’s Word. America’s racism issues will not be solved until hearts and minds are committed to the true history in God’s Word and the salvation message.

There can be no doubt, dear reader. Hambo has the answers. You must turn away from Darwin and all the evil that he has brought into the world.

Copyright © 2017. 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

ICR: Ancient Algae Disproves Evolution

Today we have an excellent article from the creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s titled Dinosaur Algae Alive and Well Today, written by Brian Thomas. He’s described at the end of his articles as “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Botanists recently discovered Lychnothamnus barbatus, a large form of green algae known from European and Asian freshwater lakes, in North America. Before this discovery, the only hints of this particular water plant in the Americas came from their fossils mixed with dinosaurs in Argentina.

PhysOrg mentioned that about six weeks ago — see Dinosaur-era plant found alive in North America for first time. They quote its discoverer, Richard McCourt, PhD:

Lychnothamnus barbatus’ survival isn’t, per se, ecologically earth-shaking, but it changes our view of what the algal flora of North America is composed of and inspires us to keep hunting for more new finds.

But ICR thinks it is earth-shaking. Brian says:

If this type of algae’s fossils were deposited tens of millions of years ago, then how has it avoided evolutionary tinkering ever since? How could it remain unchanged for over “65 million years?”

Gasp — what a profound question! As all creationists know, evolution is supposed to be an irresistible force that transforms everything, so no allegedly ancestral species should survive. That bedrock principle underlies the familiar creationist taunt to evolutionists: If we evolved from monkeys, then Why Are There Still Monkeys?

We have three quickie responses to the monkey question: If America was founded by England, why are there still Englishmen? If dogs evolved from wolves, why are there still wolves? If the emergence of a new species demands the disappearance of its ancestral stock, then why is there anything on Earth other than humans?

After dropping his bombshell on the evolutionists, Brian tells us:

First, the [algae] gets buried and fossilized with dinosaurs in Argentina. Much later, botanists begin formally describing the same exact algae in Europe in the 1800s. It also grows in freshwater spots across Asia and toward Australia. Last, the same algae pop up in North America in the 21st century — with no hints of evolutionary alterations.

Gasp! How is that possible? Brian continues:

Secular botanists [Hee hee!] might offer the standard argument that once Lychnothamnus evolved, it never experienced an environment that challenged it enough to force its form to change. But how could the dramatic extinction event strong enough to morph dinosaurs into birds and rats into monkeys make no changes whatsoever to a gentle freshwater algae species?

Great question! Brian is relentless. He knows he’s got us on the ropes. Let’s read on:

The total lack of evolutionary change from Cretaceous to modern Lychnothamnus requires that either evolution never happened, the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event never happened, or neither happened.

Golly, he’s right! Our professors lied to us!

Finally, at the end of his article, Brian explains how to understand the continued existence of this allegedly ancient algae:

A recent deposition of dinosaur (and modern-looking stonewort) layers from Noah’s Flood plus the Genesis 1 declaration of God creating plants and animals according to distinct, interbreeding kinds perfectly accounts for the persistence of this same stonewort kind from fossils to today’s fresh waters.

Yes. Oh yes! That’s the answer! Darwinism is doomed!

Copyright © 2017. 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

AIG: Ancient Megaliths and the Bible

For your weekend enjoyment, we bring you another splendid example of creation science from Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia.

AIG’s article is titled Uncovering Assumptions at Newgrange, written by Danny Faulkner. Here’s AIG’s biographical information about him. They say he taught physics and astronomy until he joined AIG. His undergraduate degree is from Bob Jones University. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

The winter solstice has a special effect at Ireland’s most famous megalith. An astronomer believes we can use this to recalibrate early dates to match biblical history.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] This is exciting! By the way, according to Wikipedia, Newgrange:

… is a prehistoric monument in County Meath, Ireland, located 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) west of Drogheda on the north side of the River Boyne It was built during the Neolithic period, around 3200 BC, making it older than Stonehenge and the Egyptian pyramids.

Lets see what Danny boy says about these ancient monuments:

Stonehenge is one of literally thousands of the massive stone monuments, called megaliths, that dot the landscape of Europe and other lands. They inspire endless fascination, as we wonder why early people devoted so much labor to these structures. Since their builders left no written records, we must piece together answers based on limited clues. Bible-believing Christians are also interested to fill in these gaps about the spread of human civilization after Noah’s Flood.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Then he reveals a mystery:

One mystery, in particular, puzzles believers. Secular archaeologists assign dates to most of these stone structures of 2500–3000 BC. Solid dates based on multiple lines of evidence are extremely scant prior to the time of Abraham, yet dating radiocarbon in wood or charcoal, when available, sometimes seems to confirm these older dates. That would put these artifacts before the Flood, even though human civilization didn’t spread until well after the Flood (2350 BC, according to the chronological information given in our Bibles). How can Christians reconcile these early dates with the Bible?

Egad! What’s to be done about this problem? Danny tells us:

Clearly something is wrong with radiocarbon dates, but what? As an astronomer who analyzes how humans mark time by the regular movement of celestial bodies, I have long wondered whether different branches of science could work together to solve these questions.

Yes, this mystery must be solved! Danny continues:

If we could somehow find a reliable, independent astronomical way to date stone structures, perhaps we could show how older radiocarbon “dates” must be revised to match these more accurate astronomical dates, which are certain to line up with the Bible’s timeline.

How exciting that would be! We could then begin to revise the radiometric dates in archaeology to match biblical dates. Instead of dates going back tens of thousands of years, we could begin nailing down precisely when people built things between the time of the Tower of Babel and Abraham.

Sounds great, but what’s Danny boy’s plan? Let’s read on:

The problem is that most of these sites have been reworked and disturbed over the centuries, so we can’t be sure the stones line up correctly . . . with one possible exception, Newgrange, in County Meath, Ireland.

Danny goes on and on discussing the details of Newgrange. We know nothing about that megalith, so we’re going to skip his discussion. Moving on to near the end, we’re told:

When reports say that astronomical dates appear to corroborate radiocarbon dates, we need to be cautious. [Hee hee!] The interpretation depends upon many assumptions. If the dates contradict Scripture, we need to reexamine the assumptions. This takes patience and further research of the possibilities. That’s the nature of science and archaeology. Sometimes we have to wait for the development of new high-tech research tools.

Yes, we always have to be sure that those scientists are in agreement with the bible. They haven’t got it right yet, but eventually they will. And now we come to the end:

Christians should continue to take an active interest in uncovering our past and think creatively about ways to overcome the limits of human knowledge. We want to paint a clearer picture of world history and show that it truly aligns with the Bible and glorifies God. We should never fear what we discover. We know that we have much more to learn. By starting with the key eyewitness to world history, the Bible, we take a crucial step in the right direction that others ignore.

So there you are. Danny boy isn’t discouraged by the fact that those secular scientists keep coming up with the wrong conclusions. He knows The Truth, and he’s confident that science will prove he’s right.

Copyright © 2017. 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

AIG: Not Enough Time for Evolution

The creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — are once again reprinting something from 1994, because their stuff is timeless. Its title is The Dating Game.

The author is David Menton — that’s a link to AIG’s bio page about him. And this is his write-up at the Encyclopedia of American Loons: David Menton. Okay, here are some excerpts from his oldie-goldie essay, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Much of the controversy between evolutionists and creationists concerns the age of the earth and its fossils. Evolution, depending as it does on pure chance [Hee hee!], requires an immense amount of time to stumble upon anything remotely approaching the integrated complexity we see in even the simplest living things. For over 100 years, geologists have attempted to devise methods for determining the age of the earth that would be consistent with evolutionary dogma.

Creationists have escaped the burden of devising such methods, because the bible tells them the age of the world. Their creationist dogma is secure. David says:

At the time Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published, the earth was “scientifically” determined to be 100 million years old. By 1932, it was found to be 1.6 billion years old. In 1947, geologists firmly established that the earth was 3.4 billion years old. Finally in 1976, they discovered that the earth is “really” 4.6 billion years old. These dates indicate that for 100 years, the age of the earth doubled every 20 years. If this trend were to continue, the earth would be 700 thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion years old by the year 4000 AD.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Isn’t this great? After that he tells us:

As we will see, selected data and unprovable assumptions are a problem with all methods for determining the age of the earth, as well as for dating its fossils and rocks. It has all become something of a “dating game” in which only the evolutionarily correct are allowed to play.

The most widely used method for determining the age of fossils is to date them by the “known age” of the rock strata in which they are found. On the other hand, the most widely used method for determining the age of the rock strata is to date them by the “known age” of the fossils they contain. … In this “circular dating” method, all ages are influenced by evolutionary assumptions about the date and order in which fossilized plants and animals are believed to have evolved.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We debunked that ancient clunker in The Lessons of Tiktaalik, where we said:

That fossil wasn’t an accidental discovery. It was found by predicting that a transition occurred approximately 360 to 380 million years ago, before which, according to the fossil record, there were no four-legged vertebrates living on land. Relying on geology, an appropriately aged and conveniently exposed rock stratum was located in the Canadian Arctic that had once been an ancient shoreline. That’s where the search commenced.


[A]s the discovery of Tiktaalik so strikingly demonstrates, the fossil find isn’t what caused the rock stratum to be arbitrarily declared of the proper age, merely to suit the theory of evolution. The geological information was separately developed by geologists, using their own methods, and that information was relied upon as a guide to the proper location for the fossil hunt.

Also, The TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims has a few things to say about this alleged circularity issue — see Fossils are dated from strata; strata are dated from fossils.

David continues:

Most people are surprised to learn that there is, in fact, no way to directly determine the age of any fossil or rock. The so-called “absolute” methods of dating (radiometric methods) actually only measure the present ratios of radioactive isotopes and their decay products in suitable specimens — not their age. These measured ratios are then extrapolated to an “age” determination. This extrapolation is based on the fact that an unstable (radioactive) chemical element, called the parent isotope, breaks down at a presently known rate to form a more stable daughter isotope.

Yeah. Who knows how rapidly those isotopes may have decayed in the past? The Darwinists are just guessing! Let’s read on:

As far as the plausibility of evolution is concerned, it really doesn’t make any difference if the earth is 10 billion years old or 10 thousand years old. Indeed, if the whole of evolution were reduced to nothing more than the chance production of a single copy of any one biologically useful protein, there would be insufficient time and material in the known universe to make this even remotely likely.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Ah yes, the “odds” are against evolution. But the odds against everything are enormous — see Creationism’s Fallacy of Retrospective Astonishment. The TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims also discusses that clunker — see The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10113, and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life..

We’re getting near the end now. Here’s another excerpt:

Time by itself simply does not make the hopeless evolutionary scenario of chance and natural selection more reasonable. Imagine if a child were to claim that he alone could build a Boeing 747 airplane from raw material in 10 seconds, and another were to claim he could do it in 10 days. Would we consider the latter less foolish than the former, simply because he proposed spending nearly a million times more time at the task?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That appears to be an early version of the old creationist standby, Fred Hoyle’s Junkyard tornado. David finishes his essay with an irrefutable scripture quote:

Our Creator tells that “the fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”

So there you are, dear reader. Once again, the creation scientists at AIG have shown you that evolution is impossible. Isn’t it time you came to your senses and stopped clinging to Darwinism?

Copyright © 2017. 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