The Galápagos Vampire Finch and Lying for Darwin

This was originally posted here, but Goolag (Google, the owner of Blogger/Blogspot, in turned owned by Alphabet) took it down along with several others. Then they changed their minds and “reinstated” it. No, they haven’t. Why am I not surprised?

It is indeed unfortunate that my final Question Evolution Day was such a failure (due to apathy of professing creationists), because in addition to supporting freedom of speech, QED articles had material to help people spot fake news like how the “vampire ground finch” proves evolution.

To claim that the misnamed Galápagos vampire finch is proof of evolution. Instead, it is fake news and bad science used to attack the Creator.
Credit: Flickr / Peter Wilton (CC BY 2.0)

Many critters are opportunists when their preferred foot is unavailable. In the wild, the giant panda uses its nasty big pointy teeth to masticate bamboo, but will eat other things, including rodents (they take a greater variety of food in captivity). Indeed, the lorikeet has taken a turn toward carnivory.
How picky are humans? Consider Proverbs 27:7. Nick Yemana had a comment about Japanese eating raw fish at the 2 min. 42 sec. mark here. My Scottish ancestors and distant relatives over yonder eat haggis, but I’m not fond of the idea. I think Americans ignore the ingredients of hot dogs and other sausages. The point is that when you need to eat, you make due with what’s available.

As for that vampire ground finch — the naturalism narrative is once again more important than actual science. It may seem like an ad hominem for me to call them liars, but the lapdog media for the secular science industry as well as the educated professional scientists have no excuse. They know better. This bird does drink blood to some extent. Darwin’s acolytes are calling it evolution, but that is deceptively conflating evolution with slight change.

Have any of those tinhorns ever bothered to see if these wonderful examples of evolution can survive on blood alone? Is there evidence of significant mutations or added genetic information? Do these birds show any interest in blood when their primary food sources are available? Not hardly! Meanwhile, biblical creationists have shown many times that the Master Engineer has equipped creatures to adapt so they can survive. 

These are the kinds of things that other creationists and I are trying to teach: We want people to learn how to think, not tell them what to think. Secularists are lying to us about science and evolution. They are also suppressing the truth about the Creator, which is compounding their wickedness. Yeah, I’m a mite irritated. Those finches stopping off for a quick nip of blood on their way home from work is nothing Darwin could be proud of, and this kind of evoporn is sucked up by atheists and other naturalists to confirm their biases.

The diet of most vertebrates tends to be specialized, but flexible in extreme circumstances. Humans decidedly prefer certain foods, but in extreme circumstances will sometimes consume almost anything, even urine and other humans. Some birds consume primarily seeds, others worms, yet others nectar or sugar water. Robins prefer worms and insects but, if they are unable to find worms, will consume other foods, like fruit, raisins, suet, berries, and seeds. Likewise, some finches favor seeds, others prefer flower nectar, pollen and insects.

Darwinists believe that all food preferences evolved, so why did the discovery that some finches consume blood recently merit headlines? The reason is (it is implied), that, historically, finches did not include blood in their diet but, in extreme circumstances, they recently evolved the ability to eat blood. Thus, evolution is occurring in front of our very eyes! The claim is “Scientists suggest the vampire finch evolved to drink blood to survive the volcanic archipelago’s harsh environment and scarce resources.”

To read the rest of this evolution-refuting article, click on “Why Does This Finch Drink Blood?” Yippie ky yay, secularists!

Definitions are Important in Origins Discussions, Culture, and Politics

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Something I have been emphasizing for years is the importance of definitions (see this 2013 article, “Science, Evolution and the New Golden Rules“). The simplest practical example is to have people to define their terms in a discussion so they will not end up talking past one another because they are working with different definitions of key words in their minds.

A favorite trick from anti-creationists, atheists, leftists and so on is to change definitions. The established definition of atheist, for example, is someone who believes there is no God or gods. They disingenuously redefined it to “lack of belief”. Another example is evolution. People who have read my work before may have noticed that I seldom write “evolution” at the outset, but qualify it (particles-to-paleontologist, dust-to-Dark Knight, universal common descent, etc.; but “the neo-Darwinian synthesis” and similar phrases are cumbersome). This specific word use is because there are sidewinders who conflate change, adaptation, variation, and others with evolution.

I disremember where I came across the article that inspired my own (linked below). It emphasizes the cultural and political aspects of definitions and redefinitions. People are not taught how to think. Instead, they are being told what to think. The danger is that people in positions of power and influence can appeal to emotions instead of reason to more easily control sheeple.

There are words that didn’t even exist a few years ago that are part of everyday speech (especially when leftists use it for propaganda with concentration and repetition). How often do you see or hear racist or related words used? While racism does exist, true racism loses its impact and believability when the claim is bandied around loosely. Also, the word homophobe is nonsense; I don’t phobe any homos, and neither do you. How about fascist? It is horribly overplayed as well — people don’t even know what it actually means, and is practically redefined as, “Someone I don’t like and want to have silenced”. These tinhorns may shout the loudest, but that doesn’t make them right.

Leftists use loaded terminology to color stories and people’s perceptions, and they also ignore or underplay news that is contrary to their agendas. A black man is killed by police, everyone in the media loses their minds. Black people beat and kill white people? Nobody bats an eye. A new discovery to support evolution is promoted, big excitement. When it is proven false, obedient lapdogs of the secular science industry are asleep.

The article I mentioned earlier also mentioned how social jargon is used for social signaling. That brought dog whistle to mind. It wasn’t that long ago that a dog whistle meant a dog whistle. Now, it’s a political and social way of sending signals to certain people. This child believes hashtags are dog whistles. Sometimes it is difficult to read a post because there are so man of them, and in different colors because they are also hyperlinks of sorts. (For #God so #loved the world, #salvation #Jesus #Bible #Reformed. Oh, please!) In one of my early experiences on Twitter, I was warned by an atheist that if I used the word atheist, I was risking “calling down the thunder”. It turns out that they would call for help by tagging #atheist in their comments and I would get swarmed. It’s happened many times.

Secular education systems are essentially extensions of the Ministry of Truth (if you don’t know what that is, look it up, I’ll wait here). Using emotional tactics, there is increasing ridicule of homeschoolers from the left. They also use boilerplate terms of disrespect such as lack of socialization skills. (Yes, poor kids are missing out on school shootings, rape, drug abuse, and all those fun things learned in socializing.) When children are taught about God, creation, the Bible, and other truths at home, secularists scream that we are “indoctrinating” them. In reality, children are not being indoctrinated as well when they are not at schools for much of their lives, and the left is incensed by that.

At this point, I’d be much obliged if y’all would do two things. First, read “On the Road to Newspeak” (why it’s Protestant Post, I have no idea, because the principles apply to more than just Protestants). When you read it, see how this applies to not only biblical creationists, but also to Christians in general.

The other thing I’m asking is for you to watch this video. (There’s a bit of profanity, but you’ll get past it.) Notice how reality is subverted for the sake of personal preferences, appeals to emotion, loaded terminology, and other things. The satire is not far from the truth.

Burn the Witches — I Mean, Global Warming Deniers!


It is interesting that proponents of global warming (or “global climate change”) tell us that (a) there is a consensus, which is false, and (b) that it is not a political movement, which is also false. Those of us who believe in the free speech of “global warming deniers” are bullied along with the scientists who do say that humans are not the cause of global warming, which is inconsequential or even nonexistent.

In December 2006, Heidi Cullen, the “climate expert” at The Weather Channel, said:

Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It’s like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It’s not a political statement…it’s just an incorrect statement.

I agree with every meteorologist who says the topic of global warming has gotten too political. But that’s why talking about the science is so important!

It appears that global warming is not a consensus among meteorologists because she felt the need to speak up on this. It is also political because she wanted to have a kind of purge against those meteorologists who dared to go against the favored view!

More recently, free speech has been blatantly threatened with stronger measures: Jail. Politicians (who often should be jailed for tangible crimes) should be imprisoned for denying global warming. Using “science” as a tool for bullying is another sign of the rising neo-fascism. Say what those in control want to hear or suffer the consequences. David Suzuki, who referred to humans as “maggots”, is active in the war on humans.

Left-wing extremism has a home at PBS – and that home, to be specific, is the set of Moyers & Company. Host Bill Moyers kicked off Sunday’s episode with a flashback to the previous week’s broadcast, in which scientist and environmental activist David Suzuki had announced that he believes society should literally punish politicians who don’t believe in global warming. 

This is what Suzuki told Moyers:

No, you can watch the video clip and read the article at “Lefty Scientist: Jail Pols Who Deny Global Warming; PBS Host Worries There’s Lack of Prison Space“.

%d bloggers like this: