Evolutionists: Political Correctness is not the Missing Link

by / on February 23, 2015 at 3:48 am /
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on TumblrDigg ThisDigg ThisShare via emailShare via email Share

FreedomPoet_LincolnDay

DarwinBy Michael Bresciani
American Prophet

Media hounds are ripping into statements made by Governor Scott Walker about his stand for creationism or Darwinism, much to no one’s surprise. But was it a stand or only a punt as Walker declared it to be? The Wisconsin governor thinks the question of whether he is a Darwinist has nothing to do with politics.

Most Americans may agree with him but MSM is bating and looking for the lowest common denominator to ink their rags and blast one of the best GOP candidates to come along in a very long time.

If you can’t prove you came from an ape or a baboon (primate), you are still free to make a monkey of yourself. This may be the war cry or the dictum of the evolutionist, but the science is not settled and proof is sparse even today.

When making sweeping and detailed assertions of what happened billions of years ago, you are not practicing science, you are speculating. Without empirical proof, repeatable observable phenomena or even a missing link or two – quite simply you are shooting blanks even though you may sound like a munitions expert.

Although I say it all too often, any description of events made billions of years ago is only ‘prior philosophic postulation’ or glorified guesswork.

We don’t have to feel dumb for not believing in evolution because with the best in creation science burgeoning with new material daily, it is becoming quite clear that believing in the Darwin fable, may be the dumbest lie, the cruelest hoax, and the most un-provable scientific theory ever laid on a generation.

We have a plethora of hoaxes to draw from like: Piltdown, Nebraska, Java and Orce man are just a few but let’s not forget the arthritis plagued and most loved of all Neanderthal man who initially was put forth as a missing link. Lucy and Ida are the latest rage for the speculators, but already have fallen into disrepute.

It is estimated that after accounting for disasters, asteroid strikes and deadly pandemics, the lowest number of homos sapiens or pre-humans that could be born in the billions of years used in the evolutionist narrative, there should be enough skeletal remains to reach to the moon and back, Odd that only a dozen or so have been put forth as proof and over three quarters of those have been revealed as hoaxes.

And evolutionists are trying to make Scott Walker look dumb!

Pulling a couple of familiar phrases and familiar sayings from the 70’s and 80’s should wrap up this article like – ‘where’s the beef’ or ‘get a life.’

In fact, there is one real live, real-time missing link left in the Darwinist arsenal and it is being used today more than ever before. The link is called ‘political correctness’ and it is the peer pressure punch guaranteed to make any Bible believer break sweat and run away.

But the day when college freshmen went to class in abject silence and fear that teachers and classmates may laugh them out of class is long over.

The questions that Darwinists are stumbling over today, come from science not the bible.

But evolution is entrenched in modern secularism and academia. It is the status quo and the only narrative allowed in the halls of higher learning.

Walker is right about one thing: the evolution narrative has absolutely no bearing on the political views or the character of any presidential candidate.

To be fair, considering what Darwinists’ call proof, it is obvious that the theory of evolution has no bearing on anything.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Michael Bresciani is the publisher of American Prophet.org since 2005. The website features the articles and reports of Rev Bresciani along with some of America’s best writers and journalists, news and reviews that have earned the site the title of – The Website for Insight. Millions have read his timelyreports and articles in online journals and print publications across the nation and the globe. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook
Michael Bresciani
View all articles by Michael Bresciani
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly
  • Richard Forrest

    Perhaps the author might benefit from educating himself on evolutionary biology. This article reveals nothing except that he has swallowed uncritically anything read in creationist sources without bothering to find out if such sources are reliable.
    They are not. They are riddled with distortion, misrepresentation and outright falsehoods, as is clear if you compare what it written there with the scientific sources they claim to reference.
    The simple fact is that creation “science” is not science, and that it has made no contribution to any field of science. It is religious dogma dishonestly misrepresenting itself as science.
    To most of the world’s Christians there is no conflict between their faith and the findings of science in respect of the age of the earth, human biological origins or the rich pattern of evolutionary change we find in the fossil record.
    That creationists need to resort to dishonesty to promote their agenda casts more doubt on their claims to be Christians than it does on the science they so ignorantly and arrogantly attack.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Perhaps the author of this comment might benefit from educating himself on evolution in general, because the commenter reveals he has swallowed uncritically anything he has read in pro-evolution sources as if they are reliable. They are not. They are riddled with distortion, misrepresentation, outright falsehoods, as well as, at best, assumption masquerading as fact as if the two are the same-they are not.

      The simple fact is that the hypothesis of evolution is not science, and has made no contribution to any field of science. It is a religious dogma, primarily fueled by anti-Christian bigotry, misrepresenting itself as science.

      It is true that there is no conflict between the teachings of the Bible with regards to the origin of the universe, and in the actual findings of science with regard to the age of the earth, human biology, or the fossil record. Of course, we’re talking actual science (where there is no conflict) versus the fakery of evolution (which isn’t science) where there is a huge conflict between the claims of the Bible and the unsubstantiated claims of the hypothesis of evolution.

      Sadly, it is evolutionists who must resort to dishonesty, propaganda, scientific censorship, and outright lies to promote their agenda.

      Were that not the case, they would realize and acknowledge how patently unscientific is the hypothesis of evolution and all its associated dogmas (materialism, naturalism, etc).

      After all, science reveals a number of things that make these dogmas scientifically untenable: science demonstrates that matter does not come into existence spontaneously from nothing, matter does not spontaneously organize itself into higher functional forms, life does not spring into existence spontaneously from lifeless materials, one type of organism does not spontaneously change into a new type of organism, and so on.

      In other words, the hypothesis of evolution is contradicted by science and breaks down at several key junctures.

      How sad that so many people cling to such a silly idea that is so resoundingly contradicted by science, all because they fear accountability to their Creator.

      • diogeneslamp0

        Hey Bob, why is it you accuse us of “religion” but we never accuse you of science? Sorry Bob, we have the fossils, you have the frauds. We have the genomic comparisons, you have the hoaxes. Macroevolution and universal common descent are testable theories; they’ve been tested and confirmed by the fossil record.

        Meanwhile, you creationists shout “Speculation!” at theories that are testable, have been tested, and have been confirmed. Shrieking “Speculation!” at testable theories is just propaganda and scientists don’t care a whit.

        You creationsts shout “Assumption!” at theories that are testable, as if we’re going to believe you. No, a theory that makes testable predictions that have been compared against data is not an “Assumption!” and no amount of creationist propaganda will change that.

        We know what the worlds “Speculation!” and “Assumption!” mean, Bob, which and we know that data and evidence are not speculations nor assumptions. Which is why we know words like “Speculation!” and “Assumption!” mean nothing coming from creationist hoaxers. They’re empty propaganda in the mouths of creationists. We know what the evidence is; you don’t.

        We have the fossils; you have the frauds. We have the genomic comparisons; you have the haoxes. We have the evidence; you have religious presuppositions. We win.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          Actually, as I just pointed out, it is YOU evolutionists who have (and are) the frauds, trying to pass off (at best) assumption as fact.

          And no, I know of no creationist (certainly not me) who cries “speculation” at testable theories. Of course, “testable” doesn’t equate to “proven” any more than assumption equates to fact.

          If you truly know the difference between assumption and fact, cite one-just one example of life spontaneously springing into existence from lifeless materials, or one type of organism changing into another type of organism.

          (And I’ll remind you yet again: don’t waste my and everyone’s time with assumptions)

      • Maezeppa

        There is no scientific theory in existence with more and better evidence than evolutionary theory. “Pro evolution sources” are the only sources that can be trusted because 100% of all evidence confirms evolution. I’ll give $1,000 to your favorite charity if you can find one legitimate professional science organization, professional or academic, on the planet that repudiates evolution. Hell, make it $10,000.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          Except…pretty much any other hypothesis. The key assumptions necessary for evolution to be viable, as I have pointed out repeatedly now, are flatly contradicted by actual hard science.

          OF course, when one is predisposed to believe a fantasy, no amount of evidence or logic will dissuade them, so I won’t spend any more time trying to convince you than is already present on this pate.

          • Maezeppa

            100% of all
            evidence comports 100% with evolution. Only fringe religious extremists, conspiracy theorists and reality-denialists dispute evolution and they don’t count.

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              Sure, because evolutionists say so, it must be true. Doesn’t matter if actual science contradicts it. What counts is thinking happy thoughts about evolution, and that’ll make it so.

              • Maezeppa

                Wrong-o. Evolution is true simply because it is. Scientific facts are not produced to make you or me happy. Good scientists have to be willing to permit the data to drive their conclusions. This is quite different from the religious who must torture the data to fit dogma.

              • WXRGina

                HAHAHAHAHA!!! “Evolution is true simply because it is.” Boy, there’s some POWERFUL “logic.” Bless your heart.

              • Maezeppa

                That isn’t logic and this isn’t a debate. It is simply a fact not in dispute.

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                Yes, just through the magic of being, evolution is true.

                It’s a good thing scientific facts don’t exist to make you happy, because, being a blind devotee to evolutionism, they sure get in the way of a fun idea.

    • DCM7

      This particular author may not be giving the strongest anti-evolutionism arguments around (anyone who calls evolutionism a “theory” rather than a “hypothesis” probably needs to do a little more homework), but that’s beside the point. You’re just reciting the usual, tired litany of unsubstantiated claims that we’ve all heard time and time again.
      Possibly the most bogus of your bogus claims is that a proper understanding of “evolutionary biology” would turn someone from a creationist to an evolutionist. In fact, ignorance about evolutionism vs. creation science generally results in acceptance, not rejection, of evolutionism. It is those who have honestly learned the most about evolutionism — especially about the realities behind its façade of being “scientific” — who most emphatically reject it.

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        Indeed, DCM7. I used to believe in evolution…until I started to learn more about it. The more I learned about it, the less I believed in it. Back then, I had no idea that it was so resoundingly contradicted by so much science, nor did I realize that most of what was being passed off as “science” was, at best, nothing but assumption about what science does reveal about our origins.

        I also had no idea that creationists had many theories that harmonize extremely well with both the available evidence and the claims made by the Bible.

        Creation science is consistent with the foundational assumptions of its framework; evolution and its associated dogmas are contradicted by what science reveals concerning the foundational assumptions of its framework.

      • Capt Stormfield

        How entirely typical. Two know-nothings lecturing a PhD about his own field.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          If a PhD is promoting assumption and dogma over science-indeed, claiming that assumption and dogma are science-then the PhD deserves to be lectured…and ignored if he insists on continuing his deception.

        • DCM7

          If we were really know-nothings, we’d just be listening to him instead of questioning him.
          (Ah, but what’s an evolution debate without some nice little appeal-to-authority fallacies from the evolutionists’ side?)

          • Richard Forrest

            I have made no such appeal.
            Perhaps you need to educate yourself in the nature of logical fallacies as well as evolutionary biology?

        • diogeneslamp0

          The problem isn’t that they know nothing. The problem is that they “know” things that are demonstrably false, that they copied directly from creationists like Ken Ham and Jaibird Kent “tax cheat” Hovind.

          Any bleat such as “Evolutionary theory is only based on assumptions” is a creationist falsehood and cliche, and is itself an assumption, by creationists, that should be dismissed as such. We have the fossils; we have the genomic comparisons; we win.

      • Richard Forrest

        What complete and utter bunkum.
        Firstly, there is no such thing as “evolutionism”: it is an invention of creationists intended to give the false impression that there is some sort of religion of “evolutionism”.

        This is simply not the case. Evolution is a phenomenon of nature we can observe in action in the natural world and replicate in the laboratory. This is using the term “evolution” in the sense for which it was coined by the people who coined it. That creationist seek to redefine it to suit their agenda shows only that they are dishonest, not that evolution does not occur. Evolutionary biologists are the scientists who study this phenomenon of nature.

        Accepting that evolution occurs has nothing to do with religious belief or lack of it. There are evolutionary biologists who are devout Christians - some of them personal friends of mine - and as the “Clergy Letter Project” so clearly shows, it is not incompatible with faith or a rejection of the Creator. It is accepting the reality of the universe you believe your God created.

        To reject such scientific findings as the great age of the earth, the vastness of the universe or that evolution is the theory which gives structure to the science of biology is casting your God as a liar who has set out to deceive those who honestly investigate his creation by planting false evidence.

        To accept that evolution occurs requires only a knowledge and understanding of the evidence from which scientists have formed their conclusions. If you chose to remain ignorant of this evidence, that does not change the the fact such evidence exists, only that your religious dogma demands ignorance of its adherents.

        • DCM7

          Time to play Name That Fallacy!

          “Evolution is a phenomenon of nature we can observe in action in the natural world and replicate in the laboratory.”
          Equivocation fallacy. What can be observed has literally nothing to do with the kind of imaginary “evolution” that would change molecules to men or reptiles into birds.
          “There are evolutionary biologists who are devout Christians - some of them personal friends of mine”
          I don’t know the name of this fallacy, but it’s a fallacy nonetheless. You can’t prove anything about any belief by making a statement about who does or does not accept it. I guess it’s a variant of the “appeal to authority” fallacy.
          “To accept that evolution occurs requires only a knowledge and understanding of the evidence from which scientists have formed their conclusions.”
          Definite “appeal to authority” fallacy. No surprise there.
          “If you chose to remain ignorant of this evidence, that does not change the the fact such evidence exists, only that your religious dogma demands ignorance of its adherents.”
          Unfortunately for you, I am not ignorant of the supposed evidence for evolutionism. In fact, that is the very reason I don’t accept it: it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
          Frankly, you sound like you’re trying to convince yourself of what you say more than anyone else. You’re certainly not going to convince any of us who are way beyond the level you’re trying to argue at.

      • Maezeppa

        Evolution isn’t an ‘ism’. It is science. Creationism is garbage.

  • Edward MacGuire

    It should be pointed out that, while frauds occur in every field of human endeavour, in science they are always uncovered . . . and always by other scientists. Science is not a belief system, it is a methodology, and it’s development and enhancement is one of the crowning achievements of humanity. Evolution is not a theory in crisis, in fact every discovery in the past 150 years has cemented it’s position as the best established theory in any of the sciences. To date there is no observation contradicting natural selection or evolution in general, nor is there any other theory in opposition to it.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Indeed, science is a methodology, a way of studying the universe and learning about it.

      Unfortunately, the hypothesis of evolution isn’t science, but rather a theological dogma intended to undermine belief in the one belief system which actually does line up with the scientific evidence: Christianity.

      And no, no discoveries in the past 150 years have done anything to link it with science, much less “cement” it with science. The only thing which can be said to “link” evolution to science is a host of assumptions about science which, as I have already pointed out, are contradicted by foundational discoveries about science.

      It’s really simple: if an idea is contradicted by science, that idea cannot rationally be said to be scientific. Evolution is contradicted by science at several key junctures.

      • Richard Forrest

        I read the journal ‘Nature’ each week (well, the editorial and summary articles. Most of the technical articles are way outside my field, and I only read those relevant to palaeontology and evolutionary theory). Most editions have one of more papers dealing with various aspect of evolutionary biology.

        ‘Nature’ is generally regarded as the most prestigious journal in science, and evidently its editors regard evolutionary biology as valid science.

        This is not an appeal to authority: I’m not saying that you must accept evolutionary theory because the editors of ‘Nature’ do. I’m asking you why anyone should accept your blanket rejection of a couple of centuries of research findings in whole field of what is regarded as science by the editors of the most prestigious journal in science?

        Perhaps you can articulate an argument as to why we should?

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          I do not reject a couple of centuries of genuine scientific research; I reject a couple of centuries of unsubstantiated assumptions that are flatly contradicted by actual hard science.

          Why do you reject the actual verified and observable science which demonstrates (a) matter does not spontaneously come into existence from nothing, (b) matter does not spontaneously organize itself into more organized and functional forms, (c) life does not spontaneously come into existence from lifeless materials, (d) one type of organism does not spontaneously change into a different type or organism-something we know because it has never been observed a single time either in the field or in the laboratory?

          Why do you so arrogantly reject science in favor of an idea that is flatly contradicted by observable science?

          • Richard Forrest

            I note that you have ignored my question, so I’ll repeat it:

            I’m asking you why anyone should accept your blanket rejection of a couple of centuries of research findings in whole field of what is regarded as science by the editors of the most prestigious journal in science?

            Perhaps you can articulate an argument as to why we should?

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              There is no logical burden of acceptance of an idea that is contradicted by hard science.

              There IS, however, a burden of proof for an idea that purports to be scientific. There should be some actual proof of such an assertion (and remember, assumption is not the same thing as fact), and in order to be accepted as scientific, such an assertion must not be contradicted by science.

              So now you should answer my question: Why do you reject the actual verified and observable science which demonstrates (a) matter does not spontaneously come into existence from nothing, (b) matter does not spontaneously organize itself into more organized and functional forms, (c) life does not spontaneously come into existence from lifeless materials, (d) one type of organism does not spontaneously change into a different type or organism-something we know because it has never been observed a single time either in the field or in the laboratory?

              Why do you so arrogantly reject science in favor of an idea that is flatly contradicted by observable science?

          • Mark Germano

            Modern evolutionary theory doesn’t say any of those things.

          • Maezeppa

            I agree creationism is flatly rejected by observable science. I’m afraid the only theory supported by 100% of the data is Darwinian evolution as it is understood today.

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              Creationism isn’t observable science isn’t observable science any more than evolutionism is observable science.

              Why are you so afraid of just admitting the truth about your belief system? (Does it have something to do with those pesky and proven scientific principles which contradict it?)

      • Edward MacGuire

        Tell that to the 70,000 or so professional biologists in the U.S. i.e. those with Masters or Phd degrees working in some area of biology, who will overwhelmingly disagree. The ones who have actually studied and understand the subject.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          So these so-called “professional biologists” disagree that “if an idea is contradicted by science, that idea cannot rationally be said to be scientific”?

          Or do they disagree that matter does not spontaneously come into existence from nothing?

          Or do they disagree that matter does not spontaneously organize itself into higher functional forms?

          Or do they disagree that life does not spontaneously come into existence from lifeless materials?

          Or do they disagree that there has not been a single observed instance where one type of organism has spontaneously given birth to a completely different type of organism?

          If they disagree with one or more of these scientific truths, maybe they could cite one-even one documented instance of these things happening.

          Because ALL of them must happen for evolutionism to be scientifically tenable.

          • Edward MacGuire

            Actually, they and pretty much any university undergraduate in any discipline, would disagree with ALL of the statements you’ve made as they are working in the science of the 21st century and these ideas are from the 19th century.

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              Really? I’m waiting for one documented example of any of these things happening. (And remember, an assumption is not a fact.) Just one.

              Bueller? Bueller?

    • DCM7

      “Evolution is not a theory in crisis, in fact every discovery in the past 150 years has cemented it’s position as the best established theory in any of the sciences. To date there is no observation contradicting natural selection or evolution in general, nor is there any other theory in opposition to it.”
      Ah, what’s an evolution debate without a nice load of bold and utterly false claims from the evolutionists’ side?
      Such claims as yours (“every discovery… has cemented it’s [sic] position as the best established theory in any of the sciences”) would require such monumental ignorance to be accepted that it’s downright humorous to hear someone making them. You can’t even admit that evolution has some difficulties or uncertainties; no, it has to be “the best established theory.” Talk about insecurity and overcompensation.
      And by the way, natural selection is a genuinely scientific concept. It was first proposed by a creationist, and fits creation science as well (if not better) than it does evolutionism.

      • Edward MacGuire

        Creation science is an oxymoron.

        Even the courts in the U.S., hardly a bastion of liberal thought, have found that intelligent design and creationism are religious constructs, are not science, and cannot be taught as science in public schools. By the way, astrology, phrenology and alchemy are not science either.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          You mean the Koolaid-drinking pro-evolution courts that have a preconceived bias against anything that reveals their emperor has no clothes? The same pro-evolution courts that either lack the intellectual capacity to realize that evolutionism is a religious construct (designed to attack the hated religion of Christianity), or realize it and are too afraid that if creation science is allowed to compete in the arena of ideas, too many people will realize their evolution emperor has no clothes?

          Yes, that’s the one.

      • Edward MacGuire

        My apologies for the incorrect apostrophe.

  • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

    I agree: actual science is not the farrago of misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehoods.

    So why are you promoting misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehoods about evolution as if they were science?

    I’m sorry, but hundreds of thousands of papers promoting assumption as it it were fact do not equate to actual science.

    Evolution has not been observed a single time, either in the field or in the laboratory.

    I see that you’ve come here to promote your anti-science dogma, but no amount of blather about your insecurities will erase the fact that you are clinging to assumption like a drowning man in the hopes it will, like the emperor’s clothes, hide the fact that evolution is not only not substantiated by science, but is flatly contradicted by it.

    I highly suggest you learn the difference between assumption and fact if you want to continue any engagement here. I am not in the business of facilitating deception, and will not further condone such efforts by you here.

    • Richard Forrest

      So why are you promoting misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehoods about evolution as if they were science?

      I’m not. Nothing I have written contains any falsehoods. This is in rather stark contrast to creationist sources - as I have demonstrated in the analysis which you so studiously ignore.

      I’m sorry, but hundreds of thousands of papers promoting assumption as it it were fact do not equate to actual science.

      How can you know this when you have read none of those papers and clearly don’t have a clue about the nature of science? You don’t get to redefine the nature of science or the scientific method just because you don’t like the findings.

      Evolution has not been observed a single time, either in the field or in the laboratory.

      It has according to the numerous scientists who have studied the subject, and who have published their research findings in the scientific literature.
      What do you know about the nature of science that they don’t?

      • DCM7

        “I have demonstrated in the analysis which you so studiously ignore.”
        Unfortunately, you have demonstrated nothing except a willingness to make bold claims that you can’t substantiate.
        “It has according to the numerous scientists who have studied the subject, and who have published their research findings in the scientific literature.”
        You just can’t stay away from that “appeal to authority” fallacy, can you?
        Some kinds of genetic change can be observed, but none of them have anything to do with what real “evolution” would require. Do you know what “equivocation” means? Or “bait and switch”?

        • Richard Forrest

          Unfortunately, you have demonstrated nothing except a willingness to make bold claims that you can’t substantiate.

          Oh? Perhaps you can go through my analysis and demonstrate this

          You just can’t stay away from that “appeal to authority” fallacy, can you?

          It isn’t an appeal to authority. it is suggesting that the people best placed to comment on a field of science are those who have devoted their working lives to its study rather than those who don’t have any understanding of it. This is why I go to a medical doctor when I am ill rather than to a baker or a car mechanic.

          Some kinds of genetic change can be observed, but none of them have anything to do with what real “evolution” would require.

          …and we should allow you to redefine the meaning of the term because….?

          Do you know what “equivocation” means? Or “bait and switch”?

          Well, yes. There’s a very clear example going on here in your attempts to redefine the meaning of an accepted scientific term to suit your agenda.

        • diogeneslamp0

          It’s a daring statement for anti-evolutionist to claim “equivocation” or “bait and switch” when all of anti-evolution is based on equivocation! Just ask creationists to define “kind” or “information”. They flip-flop between definitions as necessary to exclude observed increases in information and observed changes in kind.

          “Some kinds of genetic change can be observed, but none of them have anything to do with what real “evolution” would require.”

          Oh nonsense, we’ve observed evolution producing increases in information and increases in complexity by every biologically and anatomically relevant measure. We’ve seen the evolution of new genes and new enzymes and new functions and new protein binding sites, new anatomical complexity, multicellularity from unicellularity, etc.

          You creationists think you can evade falsification by equivocating, flipping between dozens of definitions of “information”, “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity”, etc. We studied your ideas as you originally defined them; as you originally defined them, all your claims, every single claim, was experimentally FALSIFIED. The anti-evolution, ID, creationist response is always to flip to definition #322-J to evade falsification.

          The equivocation is all of your own and none of ours. Enough creationist word games! Word games don’t cure cancer! Meanwhile, evolutionary analysis has led to identifying new medical uses for drugs. You got word games, we got cures.

        • Maezeppa

          Evolution is a fact and evolution occurs regardless of whether God or nature was the proximate cause.

          The question of evolution or creationism has been resolved.
          Evolution wins. There is not one legitimate science organization or association on the planet, be it professional or academic, that repudiates evolution. Not a one. This is not “appeal to authority” as scientists are a highly skeptical, contentious group whose professional training demands and requires rigorous scrutiny and testing.

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        You are portraying evolutionism as if it were actually a viable scientific theory-and I’ve already demonstrated that science contradicts it.

        I have read many of those papers. In fact, I used to believe in evolution…until I started to learn more about it. Until I learned that it’s assumptions are actually contradicted by hard science.

        You can claim evolution has been observed, but I must once again disappoint you: assumption is not fact. Evolution has been assumed countless times. It has never been observed even once.

        Please, come up with a real verified case where evolution has been observed (even once), before I have to shut down your vein of propaganda. That, or admit that you have no proof, and then we can have a meaningful dialog.

        • Richard Forrest

          You are portraying evolutionism as if it were actually a viable scientific theory-

          Evidently you don’t read what I have read. I have specifically rejected your use of the term “evolutionism” on the grounds that it a creationist invention intended to give the false impression that accepting evolution is tanatmount to religious belief.

          I have read many of those papers. In fact, I used to believe in evolution…until I started to learn more about it. Until I learned that it’s assumptions are actually contradicted by hard science

          So give us an example of a scientific paper you have read and explain why you reject the conclusions of the authors.

          And where is this “hard science” which contradicts it?

          Please, come up with a real verified case where evolution has been observed

          Sure. The development of anti-biotic resistance in pathogens is changes to the genetic makeup of populations of organisms over successive generations, and is therefore evolution - using the term in the sense for which it was coined by the people who coined it. That creationists attempt to redefine the term demonstrates only their dishonesty, not that evolution does not occur.

        • Steven Bower

          “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way
          through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion
          that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” Isaac Asimov

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Well said, Mr. Asimov!

            What a pity that so many people in this day and age take the anti-intellectual position that assumption is just as good as fact, and call an idea which science contradicts “science.”

            • diogeneslamp0

              Bob, stop unthinkingly copying creationist talking points, or I should say, assumptions.

              Your claim that evolutionary theory is built on assumptions and has no proof IS ITSELF AN ASSUMPTION, MADE BY CREATIONISTS. Religious people read anti-science websites by Ken Ham and Jailbird Kent Hovind and the ASSUME that creationist jailbirds and criminals are reliable authorities on science, making accurate statements. That is an ASSUMPTION made by too many religious people.

              Again, your claim that evolutionary theory is not based on proof, but on “assumptions”, is itself an ASSUMPTION- your own- and not even original to you, but unthinkingly copied and pasted from Ken Ham and Jailbird and tax cheat Kent Hovind. Your assumptions must be dismissed as such.

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                When evolution (and its companion dogmas of materialism and naturalism) depend on possibilities that are flatly contradicted by science, the best that can be said of evolutionism is that it is supported only by assumption. And the last I checked, real science has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that one type of organism has never been observed to change into another type of organism, lifeless materials have never given rise to life, disorganized matter has never spontaneously organized itself into higher functional forms, and matter has never spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing.

                No talking points necessary to refute evolutionism. Just simple science and logic.

        • diogeneslamp0

          Bob: “You are portraying evolutionism as if it were actually a viable scientific theory-and I’ve already demonstrated that science contradicts it.”

          You have done no such thing! What have you “demonstrated”? You simply copy and paste creationist claims without double-checking them or thinking about them! A robot could do that.

          Presenting your hypothesis as evidence for the truth of your hypothesis is called begging the quesiton. Stop it. You’re totally unfamiliar with the scientific literature.

          Real scientists can tell when someone is a poser. You’re posing. We can tell you learned all your science from creationist websites and you did NOT read the scientific literature. You can’t fool us.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Really? So you have witnessed-or at least know of documented cases of either (a) matter spontaneously coming into existence from lifeless materials, (b) matter spontaneously organizing itself into higher functional forms, (c) life spontaneously coming into existence from lifeless materials, or (d) one type of organism spontaneously giving birth to a different type of organism?

            Wow. You’d better contact some scientific journals immediately! I bet they’d pay top dollar for documentation of something never witnessed before!

            • Guy Markey

              Excuse me diogene in interrupting your chat.
              “(d) one type of organism spontaneously giving birth to a different type of organism?”

              No organism has ever given birth to an organism of a different “type” (I assume you actually mean species). All offspring of a particular species are always members of that species. Evolution makes no claim otherwise. For some bizarre reason creationists seem to think that evolution states that, for instance, a dog evolved by the process of a rabbit giving birth to it?

              I hear creationists make this statement all the time and it only serves, to me at least, to demonstrate that you don’t understand what evolution is or how it works.

        • diogeneslamp0

          Bob: “I have read many of those papers.” This is obviously false. Nothing you have written demonstrates ANY familiarity with the scientific literature. We don’t believe you have ever read ANY scientific papers AT ALL.

          Almost certainly, you learned all your science from creationist webistes- and those creationist websites claimed to have read the scientific literature- and no doubt you think you have “inherited” some knowledge about the science papers (from who? Ken Ham? Jailbird Kent Hovind? Who?) or you believe you have “vicariously” read the scientific papers, THROUGH the dishonest creationist authorities that you trust absolutely. We can tell.

          You’re just trying to invoke “Appeal to Authority” which is a fallacy, but real scientists can tell when someone is just a poser. We can tell when someone learned all their science from creationist websites. We know the creationist propaganda talking points.

          Every single thing you write is a propaganda talking point copied n pasted from creationist websites. We can tell. Stop trying to fool us. We know.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            Really? And you know I’ve never read any of these papers how? You’ve looked over my shoulder my whole life? Or perhaps the same way you “know” evolution is true: assumption and hope.

            I used to believe in evolution…until I learned more about it and found it be a grain of scientific fact wrapped in a blanket of assumption and guesswork.

            And intelligent and honest person will abandon allegiance to an idea once they learn that it is contradicted by the evidence.

            Since there is already more than enough information on just this one page to illustrate that to you, I guess that shows us what kind of person you aren’t.

    • Maezeppa

      Now here is where you are wrong: scientific
      theories are accepted as true. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent
      with modification, one may also speak of the fact of
      evolution.The NAS (National Academy of Science) defines a fact as “an
      observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes
      is accepted as ‘true.'”

      In short, evolution is
      a fact. 100% of the evidence comports 100% with
      evolution. Evolutionary theory has NO HOLES. Will more be understood
      as time goes on? Certainly. But Evolutionary theory as it is
      understood today, yesterday, sixty years ago, eighty years ago, has NO HOLES.

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        Well, anything the NAS says HAS to be true. Why? Because it HAS to be. Gotta love that logic.They’re right about what a “fact” is; too bad evolution hasn’t even been observed once, much less observed repeatedly.

        Evolution and its associated dogmas of materialism and naturalism are fact…except where they are contradicted by actual science (i.e. that one type of organism giving rise to another type of organism has never been observed a single time, life has never been observed to come from lifeless materials, matter has never been observed to spontaneously organize itself into higher functional forms, and matter has never been observed to spontaneously come into existence from nothing.

        Yeah, no holes. Proven without a doubt. (If you live in fantasyland).

  • AC700

    “One out of 10^77. Those odds are impossible in any real world.

    I’m not being arbitrary here. Those are the odds of finding a protein capable of carrying out a particular function by chance alone.

    Can natural selection beat the odds? Remember, natural selection can only move toward the place of highest fitness. It is blind with respect to distant goals. It also tends to remove individual organisms with low fitness, even if they are on a path leading to a major innovation.”…… Mr. Forrest you are walking and talking by faith….. you must consider the probability of your assumptions….. and absolute statements, be your own critic.

    http://www.biologicinstitute.org/

  • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

    You mean the Piltdown fraud-involving a fossil comprised of altered human and orangutan parts-is just an “old wive’s tale” and that Piltdown was really a legitimate fossil?

    You mean the “Nebraska man” that was really a pig is just an “old wive’s tale” and this pig’s tooth really was from a man?

    You mean the “Java man”, comprised of at least two different organisms that may have been human or gibbon and passed off as the same organism as comprising a “missing link” between apes and man is just an “old wives” tale and there really was no intent to deceive people into accepting evolution as if it were true?

    You mean the skull fragment that may have just been a donkey that was “extrapolated” into being human is just an “old wives tale” and not an attempt to deceive?

    You mean the Neanderthals who were supposedly unintelligent missing links…that we now know were very similar to modern humans, and made music, sewed clothing (saw this one last week), created tools, buried their dead and other things that unintelligent animals just don’t do…that this was not an attempt to deceive, or at the very least, comprises an excellent example of the typical evolutionist predilection for taking a grain of fact, throwing in a few pounds of assumption, and calling it “science”?

    I’ve long found it so interesting how evolutionists either puff up their assumptions into supposed facts (if not outright attempt to deceive), this kind of unfounded garbage gets taught as “science” to generations, then when the falsehood is found out, they try to claim “We never said that.”

    Uh huh.

    Still waiting for a single-a single-documented instance of one type of organism changing into another one (I’d even be happy to have cited a single-a single-instance of life coming into existence from lifeless materials)…

    • diogeneslamp0

      Bob, you repeat a number of factually false assertions from creationists and you repeat them unthinkingly, apparently not noticing that I’m more familiar with creationist accusations than you are, and I already linked to information debunking the creationist claims.

      Bob says: “You mean the “Java man”, comprised of at least two different organisms that may have been human or gibbon and passed off as the same organism as comprising a “missing link” between apes and man”?

      This is patently false, a falsehood which shows how unreliable creationist accusations are. Java Man had nothing to do with gibbons; no part of it was from a gibbon; this is creationist hoax. Java Man was Homo erectus, with a brain size about ten times than any gibbon’s brain. We have several fossils of Homo Erectus from Africa and Asia and they match up, so there is no possibility of fraud.

      The creationist accusation of “just a gibbon” was based on an ignorant misrepresentation of Dubois’ words. Dubois said (in French) that he believed Java Man was “allied” with gibbons. That does not mean it’s a gibbon or part gibbon, but that he believed Java Man and gibbons shared a common ancestor.

      Given that its brain is 10 times bigger than a gibbon’s, it can’t be a gibbon, right? So creationists lied, right? They lied.

    • diogeneslamp0

      Bob seems not to have read my comment at all, and he better not, because he has no come-back. Bob says: “You mean the “Nebraska man” that was really a pig is just an “old wive’s tale” and this pig’s tooth really was from a man?” I already addressed that; as I said before, the discoverer of Hesperopithecus admitted he was wrong about the tooth and retracted within 5 years. He never claimed Hesperopithecus was an ancestor of man.

      By contrast, creationist Carl Baugh and co-workers found a prehistoric fish’s tooth and said it was from a pre-Flood human. That was a major creationist blunder. Why do you not feel that this, unretracted blunder, doesn’t expose anti-evolution as a big hoax?

      Bob, I know more about creationism than you do. Much more. I’ve read more creationist books than you have. Many more. I know all the arguments against evolution and I know how each one is based on haoxes or falsehoods.

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        Sorry, you don’t get off that easy. “Retracting” once you’ve been proven a liar isn’t “science.”

        This kind of crap has been taught for decades as “science” when it was little more than assumption to begin with, and often for years after it has been debunked.

        I’m not familiar with your claims about Carl Baugh and this tooth. Why don’t you provide me with a link to what he said (not what evolutionists say she said, but what he actually said), as well as some documentation that proves otherwise. Given the track record of overwhelming assumption-as-fact and outright lies by evolutionists, I think it’s more than fair to ask for that.

        “I know all the arguments against evolution and I know how each one is based on haoxes or falsehoods.” So the scientific fact that not a single type of organism has ever been observed changing into another type of organism is a “hoax” or “falsehood”? The scientific fact that life has never arisen spontaneously from lifeless material is a “hoax” or “falsehood”? The scientific fact that disorganized matter does not spontaneously organize itself into higher and functional forms is a “hoax” or “falsehood”? The scientific fact that matter does not spontaneously come into existence from nothing is a “hoax” or “falsehood”?

        Wow. Okay…

        • diogeneslamp0

          Bob, since I showed that creationists made factually false claims about fossils, why doesn’t that invalidate anti-evolution? Why not? You have presupposed that if scientists made factually false claims about fossils, that invalidated evolution. Why is not the reverse possible?

          Bob replies by substituting a new falsehood for his old ones: “This kind of crap has been taught for decades as “science” when it was little more than assumption to begin with, and often for years after it has been debunked.” Yes Bob, that is an accurate description of ANTI-Evolution. This kind of ANTI-evolution crap has been taught for decades as “science” when it was little more than assumption to begin with, and often for years after it has been debunked. You got it. That’s why there are no weaknesses of evolution.

          But if you meant evolution, not ANTI-evolution, then what “crap” are you referring to? “Orce Man”? Your creationist donkey skull? What crap are you referring to? You have not pointed out ANY false claims of scientists that in fact have “been taught for decades as “science” when it was little more than assumption to begin with.” This belief is YOUR ASSUMPTION, Bob. Your creationist ASSUMPTION. Creationists ASSUME this is true but have no evidence for it! Why should creationist ASSUMPTIONS be taught as fact?

          You have just been taught that the discoverer of Hesperopithecus retracted within 5 years, and that in the entire scientific community at the time, only ONE scientist (not the discoverer) thought it might be in the line to humans.

    • diogeneslamp0

      Like many creationists, Bob seems to be fond of sheer invention and fabrication of facts. Much as creaitonists invented all kinds of frauds, like “Paluxy River Man”, “Calaveras Man”, “Moab Man”, “Malachite Man”, “Humanus Bauanthropus”, “Humanus Davidii”, the “Black Skull of Freiberg” and “New Guinea Man” and “Orce Man”, Bob presents us with a donkey skull.

      Bob says: “You mean the skull fragment that may have just been a donkey that was “extrapolated” into being human is just an “old wives tale” and not an attempt to deceive?”

      Of course that story was an attempt to deceive- by creationists. Creationists fabricated your “donkey skull” story, and you believed them! It never happened. Creationists just lie. That’s why there are no “weaknesses” of evolution.

      Why did you believe creationist lies like your “donkey skull”, Bob? Why did you believe creationist frauds? Oh, we know why. Because creationists made you feel like you’re smarter than the world’s scientists, and it assuaged you insecurity. Very sad, Bob, very sad.

      Kent Hovind’s in jail for tax fraud, and you learned all your science from that jailbird!

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        I can’t speak for any other creationist, but I don’t believe I’ve cited a single one of these cases as evidence for creation, or evidence against evolution. There is a wealth of information beyond any such examples-whether real, fake, or distorted-which points to a designed, created universe over one that just happened.

        My understanding of the Paluxy River prints is that they are inconclusive due to erosion of the exposed features; creationists can’t prove they ARE human footprints, and evolutionists can’t prove they aren’t.

        Without wasting my time providing more information about your supposed “gotcha” examples (designed to obfuscate the demonstrated frauds and fallacies of evolutionists), I’ll just say that until you provide documented proof of what the creationist said and documented proof that it was false, it’s pretty safe to assume that that these claims are not really different than your claims that some types of animals magically transform into other types of animals, life magically transforms into being from lifeless materials, and matter magically appears from nothing.

        Still waiting for that one example of documented evolution. Bueller, Bueller…

    • diogeneslamp0

      Next Bob tells us: “You mean the Neanderthals who were supposedly unintelligent missing links…that we now know were very similar to modern humans, and made music, sewed clothing…” No Bob, no scientist for 60 years has presented Neanderthals as “missing links”, and no scientist ever presented them as “unintelligent” animals. It’s true that their technology was way below that of Homo sapiens sapiens, and that’s still true today.

      No Bob, it was CREATIONISTS who claimed Neanderthal man was an “unintelligent animal”! Yes Bob, there are many CREATIONISTS who say Neanderthals were dumb apes unrelated to us. Like Hugh Ross, for one, who sayd Neanderthals were dumb apes with nothing human about them. When DNA analysis showed that Europeans have a small amount of Neanderthal DNA, Hugh Ross said that Europeans are a product of mixing between humans and animals!

      Bob, why don’ t the bizarre, counterfactual emissions of creationists bother you at all? Don’t these bizarre claims invalidate all of anti-evolution?

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        There you go again with the revisionism. Evolutionists make bold claims based on a grain of fact and a mountain of assumption, then when caught with their pants down, claim “We never said THAT!”

        You know, I’ve seen some pretty strong-smelling BS from evolutionists in my time, but yours may just take the cake.

        If you can’t provide me with one-just one documented example of one type of organism spontaneously producing a different type of organism (maybe I’ll let you off the hook on providing a documented example of life spontaneously springing into existence from lifeless materials, or matter spontaneously springing into existence from nothing), I’m going to have to cut off your steam of propaganda and blather. As I told another evolutionist earlier today, this website doesn’t exist to provide evolutionists a platform to further attempt to deceive people. It’s here to explore the truth, and if you can’t do that, then you don’t have anything to offer that we’re interested in here.

        • Guy Markey

          Bob states,

          “just one documented example of one type of organism spontaneously producing a different type of organism”

          I commented on this above but you don’t seem to have seen it because you repeat it several times. I’ll reproduce my comment here for you.

          Excuse me diogene in interrupting your chat.
          “(d) one type of organism spontaneously giving birth to a different type of organism?”

          No organism has ever given birth to an organism of a different “type” (I assume you actually mean species). All offspring of a particular species are always members of that species. Evolution makes no claim otherwise.

          For some bizarre reason creationists seem to think that evolution states that, for instance, a dog evolved by the process of a rabbit giving birth to it?

          I hear creationists make this statement all the time and it only serves, to me at least, to demonstrate that you don’t understand what evolution is or how it works.

          • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

            No, I don’t mean “species,” because contrary to the common misconception, a species is not the same thing as a different type of organism. There are many species of dogs, cats, birds, etc; they are usually reproductively compatible and continue to give rise to more dogs, cats, birds within their type of organism.

            For evolution to be demonstrated, you would need to see a dog giving rise to a cat, or to cite a favorite fantasy of evolutionists, a reptile giving rise to a bird.

            Due to the genetic diversity within a specific type of organism (e.g. a dog), you can have a variety of dog species, but in the end, a dog is only ever going to produce a dog. Just as countless generations of quickly-reproducing bacteria observed for decades has only given rise to one thing: more bacteria.

            A type of organism comes loaded with a lot of genetic information for producing a large number of variations within that type of organisms, and those variations are what we often call “species.” They are not new and different types or organisms; they are variations of the same type of organism. A reptile has never been observed giving rise to a bird, as evolutionist claim…and desperately need to happen.

            Evolutionists want to have their cake and eat it, too. In order for evolution to be true, one type of organism must give rise to a different type of organism. That doesn’t happen. It has never been observed to happen. There are not even any transitional forms to lend credence to evolutionism (beyond the assumption and fantasy of evolutionists). If evolution were true, we should see a rather extensive breadth and/or chain of such transitions. The reality is: none.

            Sorry, can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

            Are you up for an example of abiogenesis next?

            • Guy Markey

              I think you are a bit confused.
              “There are many species of dogs, cats, birds, etc; they are
              usually reproductively compatible and continue to give rise to more
              dogs, cats, birds within their type of organism.”

              Besides the fact that “type” is a nebulous description with no definition, the fact that you state that they are reproductively compatible means they are members of the same species. For dogs I think you are thinking of different breeds, not species.

              Your original comment stated.

              “-just one documented example of one type of organism spontaneously producing a different type of organism”

              It is the word “spontaneously” that tweaked my interest. As I stated, there is no instance of one “type” (whatever “type” may mean) of organism giving birth to another “type” of organism. Evolution makes no such claim, that is not how evolution works.

              However, it is certainly true that some offspring of a specific species may contain novel characteristics, this is a prediction of evolutionary theory and is observed in the wild and in the lab.

              In the comment above you state

              “There are not even any transitional forms to lend credence to evolutionism”

              I’ll ignore the “evolutionism” part, the word it self doesn’t make sense just like gravityism doesn’t.
              So what is it, should there be transitional forms or should one “type” spontaneously give rise to another?
              On the topic of transitional forms, what do you think would constitute a transitional form of say a land dwelling mammal to an ocean going whale?

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                “Species”, “order”, “family”, etc are also linguistic terms adopted to describe certain groupings of organisms.

                Probably “family” would be the best commonly accepted level at which to describe a “type” or kind.”

                And yes, evolutionism does claim that one type of organism can give rise to another. Otherwise, “evolution” would be impossible (as if it were really possible in the fist place, since there is not a single documented instance of it ever occurring in the field or in the lab) and you would only have variation within a type of organism…like we see today. In order for evolution to be tenable, simpler organisms must give rise to new and more complex types of organisms, or the whole house of cards falls apart (which it does when examined closely).

                To help you a little on “evolutionism”, I used the term because evolution, like most “isms” is a belief system akin to a philosophy or ideology. As I’ve demonstrated repeatedly, it isn’t science and it isn’t fact; “science” isn’t contradicted by demonstrated science.

                What would a “transitional form” look like? That’s a good question, since no one has ever seen a living transitional form, and to speculate about dead ones could lead one into the same kind of scientific contradictions seen elsewhere in evolutionism. One might mistakenly conclude that an organism which had some characteristics in common with two distinct types of organism was a “transitional form” just as one might conclude that a Buick was a transitional form evolved from a Chevy to a Cadillac, simply because the Buick had some of the basic features of the Chevy as well as some of the more advanced features of the Cadillac.

                You know what they say about assumptions…(they make something of you and me).

              • Guy Markey

                ok, I’ll assume that “type” means family, or something close.

                “And yes, evolutionism does claim that one type of organism can give rise to another.”

                Evolution claims that one family of organisms can evolve into another, but over many generations not spontaneously like you seem to think. I’ll repeat my statement, every organism born from a specific species is a member of that species. It is NEVER a different species from its parents, let alone another family. Evolution does not claim that members of one species can bear offspring of another species. If you believe otherwise, you do not understand the evolutionary process.

                “To help you a little on “evolutionism”, I used the term because
                evolution, like most “isms” is a belief system akin to a philosophy or ideology. As I’ve demonstrated repeatedly, it isn’t science and it isn’t fact; “science” isn’t contradicted by demonstrated science.”

                This is just total bunkum. Evolution is not a “belief system”. I’ve read your posts and fail to see anywhere where you have demonstrated that it is not science. I am sure that in your mind you have, but I fail to see it.

                ” no one has ever seen a living transitional form”

                Not sure that this makes sense. Why would you expect transitional forms to be extant? For instance, I certainly would not expect the transitional forms from the land dwelling mammal to the whale to be alive today. Transitional forms of the evolution of the whale would be found in the fossil record, which they are.

                The rest of that paragraph is an attempt to dismiss any transitional forms before they are presented.

                You are honestly going to tell me that if you find fossil A in layers that are 100 mil years old, fossil B in layers that are 90 mil years old and fossil C in layers that are 80 mil years old. Also that fossil A is not found in the layers younger than 100 mil years, that B is not found in the layers older than A and younger than C and that C is not found earlier than 80 mil years. Also that B, although not the same as either A or C never the less shares several features with both, that it is an “assumption” to say that it is transitional?

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                Actually, it depends on which evolutionist you talk to (maybe the day of the week has something to do with it, too; I’m not sure). Some say evolution comes through tiny changes over a long period of time (though we’ve never seen this happen), and some say it happens though quick jumps (and we’ve never seen that happen either).

                I’m sorry, but evolutionism is thoroughly a belief system, and a completely faith-based one at that. It is faith-based because hard scientific evidence, as I’ve pointed out numerous times now, contradicts it at several key points. It takes a LOT of faith to believe in something that is flatly contradicted on numerous critical points.

                You see, even your statement about fossil layers are built on assumptions. Ironically, the so-called fossil layers aren’t even consisent in their order, and in any case, the ages of those layers are based on pure assumption since no one was around when they were laid down and there is no written record to tell us about when and how they were laid down (except the one given to us by the Creator of the universe, but of course, despite never having been revealed to contain a single error, most evolutionists refuse to believe this eyewitness account, favoring instead their own fanciful account which changes from week to week about what we “know” and what is supposedly “fact”). And so-called dating methods used to allegedly date rock layers (which usually aren’t even subjected to these flawed dating methods, but are rather just guessed at based on their position in the strata) don’t even provide consistent readings, with the same sample often giving wildly different dates spanning more than a million years. That isn’t science either; that’s assumption.

                And no, a Buick isn’t a transitional form evolving from a Chevy into a Cadillac. Just because they share some features doesn’t mean one evolved from the other. More assumption being passed off as fact.

  • AC700

    “Evolution is defined by evolutionary biologists in terms of changes to the genetic makeup of populations over successive generations. It is a phenomenon of nature we can observe in action in the natural world and replicate in the laboratory. It is a fact that it occurs”

    See the link above I posted - you are actually lying to us or lying to yourself with your just-so, absolutist statements….. You have a bias, which is ok, but bias cannot fill the gaps you claim they do

  • AC700

    evolutionists cannot make a sound and reasonable case for vertical evolution - their application is likened to 1 + 1 = 3 and they will never acknowledge it - which sucks because they are suppose to be evidence-based in their presentation….. but ask them about the historical veracity of Jesus and his disciples and all of a sudden their brains turn to mush…..

  • AC700

    evolutionists are good at trying to present an explanation but not so good at proving the HOW when presenting their case…. Make the case for blind, unguided, progressive evolution ….. there is not a theory or mechanism known to man that does not run counter to the actual laws of science….. a purposeful driver is require to achieve the progressive change required for evolution to be true and man is not able to replicate such a phenomenon let alone blind and purposeless elements of nature that themselves require a source of creation….. The probability screams Designer and the Historical evidence screams JESUS!!!

  • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

    Here are a couple of typical examples of the kind of crap we hear from evolutionists in terms of things that are KNOWN with “scientific” certainty as “facts.” These articles are actually better than most I’ve encountered, because although you have to read into the article a bit before you start to find the “equivocal” language (e.g. “speculate” and “appear to” and “suggests” and the like). A lot of articles, especially in more hard science journals, are notably short on the equivocal language. And interestingly, even if the “scientific” sources of this information might object to a lack of equivocation in the articles, somehow we seldom if ever hear of requests for retractions and corrections of bold assertions that “this happened 1.5 billion years ago” and “dating back 1.5 million years” and other such claims that are nothing but assumption and speculation.

    Of course, once these assertions are disproven (next week or next month or next year, as is usually the case), then the evolutionists will fall back on “Yeah, but we said ‘maybe’ and ‘suggests’ and so on.”

    Funny, it seemed at the time we KNEW it as scientific FACT. How convenient.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2963807/Early-humans-developed-kindness-compassion-3million-years-ago-speak.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2964583/Caveman-sensitive-Early-humans-developed-sense-compassion-long-intelligent.html