Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

The “Angry Atheist Scientists” Are Actually Scared

Posted by Job on March 9, 2007

See the New York Times’ amazing tolerance shown towards venomous haters of religion here. These folks, who pride themselves on being so “intellectually honest”, are being completely DISHONEST when they claim that now is the time to launch into their jihad against religion because of September 11th and the “wars over religion.” Like the wars over religion that have gone on throughout history are any worse now than they have ever been, or as if the wars and oppression due to, say, political ideologies like communism are somehow better. The real reason, folks, is that Christians have them intimidated. They thought that Christianity was going to go away into the long good night so that their lies would go unchallenged. If it were not for the challenges of Christians, we would not know how thoroughly bogus the works of Freud and Kinsey were. Actually, we still don’t know, because even though their works have been thoroughly discredited, that fact has never been taught in schools or told in the media or entertainment, just as the media/entertainment/education complex still causes us to believe that Christians LOST the Scopes evolution trials. And it is because of Christians that the embarrassing holes in the evolution theory –  such as their “early man fossils” turning out to be other animals, and the scientist who actually proposed at a conference on evolution that the aliens from another planet got the ball rolling on evolution on earth – would not be known. If this were a secular society, all of their errors, mistakes, coverups, etc. would be kept nice and secret; you would have no Christians forcing evolutionary scientists to admit that the “evolution timeline” that is in all our textbooks has long been discredited and abandoned (and so have a great many of the “early man” fossils, they are still in our textbooks too), that date – testing of fossils is rare (or that date – testing itself has been proven to be wildly unreliable; one of those tests run on a hat that found at an excavation site showed that the hat was 40,000 years old), or that the “father of modern geology” whose conjectures made the development of the theory of evolution possible was a LAWYER whose motivation was to disprove the Bible (which is why they understandably do not teach much about him in schools, and the exposure of his true motivation by creationists has caused people to come out with “James Hutton believed in God, just not the Bible!” nonsense that they used to try to rehabilitate the racist misogynist Charles Darwin back when they wanted to bestow upon him credibility – which is why of course they also never teach his racist misogynistic rantings, or mention that the Nazis were big Darwin fans; they are instead teaching that the Nazis were fundamentalist Christians). And now that creationism museums are opening up that confront the lies of the evolutionists before the masses, these people have no choice but to come out swinging (not that they should have called it “Creation Museum or placed it in rural Kentucky, it should have been named after the manner of any other museum and placed in New York City or someplace … if these abortion diversion centers named themselves “pro – life counseling information” or something like that they would not be nearly as effective at saving lives and keeping women from experiencing post abortion syndrome over being murderers, Christians do really need to learn how to stop preaching to the choir, but not to worry because more such museums and efforts are on the way)!

So now you know the REAL reason why these scientists have gotten so militant: they are scared and they want to get the world to rally behind them to silence us for them before their little racket is exposed.

Advertisements

23 Responses to “The “Angry Atheist Scientists” Are Actually Scared”

  1. nosugrefneb said

    That’s quite a conspiracy theory you’ve got there.
    You sound pretty angry yourself.

  2. Well yes, I am quite angry at the lies being taught our kids in school. Even if evolution is fact, that is no excuse that these schools will not remove information concerning evolution from their textbooks that has long been proven demonstrably false merely because “it helps kids understand the general concepts, and that is what is important.” (You aren’t going to catch them teaching that Kinsey and Freud have been discredited in pyschology class either.) And even though we have all had the “prove 1 + 1 is not equal to 2” logic exercise in math class or the “divide by zero” exercise in calculus class, why is evolution alone not allowed to be challenged in the classroom? Why are some of our top universities rejecting students for graduate study in science merely because they are creationists, and there is a move afoot to make that a universal policy (did you catch that in the New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?ex=1173589200&en=6cc3bcae6d080ef7&ei=5070 … gee where did their longstanding policy of OPPOSING DISCRIMINATION go; it honestly seems as if the position of the writer of the article and the paper itself was “keep the creationists out”!)? If I am mongering in conspiracy theories here, you have to admit that they are giving me a lot of fodder with which to do so.

  3. nosugrefneb said

    Well, you’re right in saying that evolution is not necessarily a fact, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a theory which has been extensively tested and has had enormous amounts of evidence to support its rationale. It also doesn’t change the fact that it’s one of the major tenets of all of science, really, and has been for a long, long time. Most areas of modern biology incorporate its principles to at least some extent. For those reasons, among others, I wouldn’t necessarily characterize its instruction as being “lies taught our kids in school.” It’s much, much closer to being fact than, say, religion and/or creationism and/or intelligent design is. I would also point out here that gravity is still more or less a “theory,” albeit one that has clearly been substantiated over and over, and you’d be a fool not to believe in it.

  4. Cameron said

    If evolution is true, then prove it. No, no one has ever been able to prove it. Every time theories of evolution are disproved, scientists simply move their hypothesis outside the range of testable science. Even the man, who won one of those prestigious science awards, admitted that the only reason he won was because the judges had no idea what he was talking about.

    Children aren’t taught the Bible in public school, and it would irresponsible and hypocritical to teach them something like evolution.

  5. nosugrefneb:

    Evolution hasn’t been “a major tenet of science for a long long time.” That is part of the propaganda. The truth is that “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” was first published in 1859, and was not universally adopted among the world’s elite universities until decades later. Yes, many biological principles incorporate evolution, but the notion that one needs to be taught evolution in order to be anything except an evolutionary biologist or paleontologist is another fiction. And hey, who’s against teaching evolution? I never said not to teach evolution. Public schools teach a lot of stuff that A) isn’t true and B) that I oppose. I said that we ought to be able to CHALLENGE evolution just like we were able to challenge 1 + 1 = 2 when during my logic instruction. You are allowed to challenge 1 + 1 = 2 (or gravity, to take your example) precisely because everyone knows that it will stand the challenge. You are NOT allowed to challenge evolution precisely because everyone knows that it WON’T. That is why they try to scare people with nonsense like “you can’t teach kids science unless they learn evolution.” You know, the #1 neurosurgeon in the country, Dr. Benjamin Carson(http://www.neuro.jhmi.edu/profiles/carson.html), is a creationist. I dare say that not believing in evolution did not prevent him from mastering zoology and biochemistry in any least way.

  6. Simen said

    I guess you, defender of such great standards of evidence, wouldn’t mind substantiating some evidence for your own claims?

    You accuse scientists of moving their scientific theories outside the range of science. That makes absolutely zero sense at all. It is in fact creationists who are not doing science. Their theories, right or wrong, pass no tests for what is science. Unfalsifiable guesses are not science.

    Whether the Nazis were fans of evolution or not is irrelevant. Evolution gives absolutely no grounds for treating some humans as subhuman and others as overhuman. Neither nazism nor social darwinism is something that must necessarily come from evolution. The Nazis were cynically exploiting both religion and non-religion. Hitler himself sometimes spoke as if he was a Christian while at other times ruthlessly criticizing Christianity. Either way, bringing Nazis into a discussion between believers and non-believers is in any case totally irrelevant and serves only to obscure the point.

    Now, if you’d like learn something about evolution as opposed to swallowing whatever the creationist-of-the-day says about the theory they so strongly oppose, have a look here: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.

    You’re indeed allowed to question evolution. However, to do so you must do it on scientific grounds. As you can read in the article I linked to above, evolution is regarded as both fact and theory. To disprove the fact of evolution would need evidence of the kind that would be required to prove that the earth is not round – that is, extremely extraorinary evidence. You cannot criticize evolution on non-scientific grounds, just as you can’t criticize a novel for not being a true story.

  7. nosugrefneb said

    Microevolution has been shown to be true over and over again, but apparently that is not good enough. The only way to prove the macroevolution occurs, save for the fossil record and experiments done using that evidence, is to perform experiments lasting hundreds of millions of years. This is not possible, which is largely why evolution must remain a theory. And yes, it has been a major tenet of science for a very long time, especially if you consider the Earth to have been created only 6,000 years ago. If you’re more of a few-billion-years type of person, then no, it’s not such a long time.:) However, 99% of scientific knowledge hasn’t been around for such a long time either, so what’s the difference?

    I’m not trying to imply that evolution is necessary to understand all of science by any means. Ben Carson is both extremely talented and extremely religious.

    But what is the difference between gravity and evolution? Honestly, I’m asking. Both have loads of evidence to substantiate them, and both are visible and experienced on very short time scales.

  8. Cameron said

    There are also “loads” of evidence disproving and discrediting any theories or proof of evolution. I’m no physicist, but I wouldn’t be saying gravity and evolution are similar if I were you…

    Microevolution has nothing to do with macroevolution. You’re trying to bridge a gap between the two that just can’t be built.

    Any God fearing human being believes that God, in some way, created the heavens and the earth. You dare infuse into the public curriculum that the world and human life just “happened”?

  9. nosugrefneb:

    Again, I am not arguing against evolution being taught as fact. I am fully aware that public schools and most colleges are secular institutions that are under no obligation to promote a specific religious viewpoint that not even everyone in that particular religion shares. I will go even further and say that I do not WANT secular institutions teaching my religion, and the “religious right” sorts who do are totally detached from reality, and will very much rue the day that they get what they ask for. I am only arguing against evolution being held immune from challenge in any academic context. I ask of you: what other scientific viewpoints are not allowed to be challenged in any way, even as an exercise? As far as the “6000 years” tease, you are barking up the tree with me on that one. Genesis 1:14 seems to be stating that no one but God has any clue how old the earth is. But you do admit that even on a 6000 year time scale, evolution is a great deal bit younger than the laws of planetary motion.

  10. Simen:

    “I guess you, defender of such great standards of evidence, wouldn’t mind substantiating some evidence for your own claims?
    You accuse scientists of moving their scientific theories outside the range of science.”

    Well, here you go! http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/bias.htm. This is my favorite from the article: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.” Arthur Keith ([22], p.22) “You’re indeed allowed to question evolution.” See here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32444-2005Mar13.html plus where they are even trying to keep creationists out of graduate school here http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?ex=1173589200&en=6cc3bcae6d080ef7&ei=5070.

    And my mentioning the Nazis is indeed relevant. The academic and educational community is more than willing to drag into any debate any information that will discredit an opposing position, straw men, ad hominem, you name it. But they do not tell you the motivations (and actual academic background) of “the father of geology.” They do not tell you how heavily into Darwinism the Nazis were. And they do not even tell you the full title of Darwin’s own book (let alone the even more racist and misogynistic stuff in there). Why? Because no one wants to see evolution discredited in any least way.

  11. Simen said

    Those quotes describe what you call a bias by scientists. It does in no way actually disprove evolution. Even if all scientists in the world believed in evolution solely because they couldn’t bear the alternative, the evidence would still be there. See here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, at talk.origins.

    Your washington post link talks about people who try to teach intelligent design ideas in school. These ideas could indeed be taught, but it must be taught as religion, not as science. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. If it were, and it could explain the things evolution explains, it would be a good alternative.

    You’re twisting the third article, too. The debate has been not on whether he should be able to graduate (clearly he should, just as everyone else) but rather on how ethical it is for him to get a degree doing real science and then use it to promote non-scientific young earth-theology by masquerading as a scientist with his degree. This is dishonest, and must be prevented if possible.

    And my mentioning the Nazis is indeed relevant. The academic and educational community is more than willing to drag into any debate any information that will discredit an opposing position, straw men, ad hominem, you name it.

    Perhaps you have a good example? In any case, that the opposing part uses cheap, wrong tactics doesn’t make your argument any more right when it, too, uses the same tactics.

    But they do not tell you the motivations (and actual academic background) of “the father of geology.” They do not tell you how heavily into Darwinism the Nazis were. And they do not even tell you the full title of Darwin’s own book (let alone the even more racist and misogynistic stuff in there). Why? Because no one wants to see evolution discredited in any least way.

    Perhaps that ought to be told. But that would be history, not biology. Surely you understand that the evidence for evolution must be regarded on its own, without taking into account the motivations of those who put it forth? Surely you understand that Darwin’s motivations or the Nazis’ flirt with evolution in no way disproves evolution? If not, you are the one building straw men and using ad hominem attacks.

  12. nosugrefneb said

    Cameron, to say that microevolution has nothing to macroevolution is simply incorrect. Microevolution on a very short time scale, relatively-speaking, leads to macroevolution eventually on a relatively-longer time scale. I’m not bridging any gaps because there is no gap in the first place.

    If you want to characterize the progressive development of molecules, advanced complexes, organellar stuctures, concerted cells, and progressively complex multicellular organisms over several billion years as life having “just happened,” then sure. Life just happened. I will also mention that this process includes the emergence of plants, bacteria, and viruses, something the Bible fails to mention, to my knowledge.

    Also, don’t put words in my mouth. You know what saying regarding the similarities between evolution and gravity as it concerns their criticisms, so stop being a dick. Now that you mention it though, what is the evidence that disproves evolution? I’ve heard various stories, but apparently none of it really holds up; otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about this right now, as surely your loads of evidence would have made big news.

    Heal (sorry, I don’t know your name!), first of all, I would never say that evolution is immune to criticism. After all, it is a scientific theory and as such is able to be tested repeatedly. It’s most definitely a controversial subject which has had its fair share of criticisms over the years, so I certainly wouldn’t characterize it as immune necessarily. But, as a religious person, I wouldn’t be going around labeling other ideas as being immune to criticism if I were you; look at your own worldview instead.

    You also say that evolution as a science is much younger than the law of planetary motion, but that’s sort of obvious, right? We’re talking about evolution on Earth, a planet, something that wouldn’t be possible without first having the planet itself. So yes, it follows that evolution is fairly young relative to the motions of planets, for example. This is especially true if you take the widely accepted view (in science corners, at least, where people actually study such things rather than do thought experiments about them) that the universe is 15-odd billion years old, which is only slightly longer than 6,000 years. Of course, in such a view, planets themselves came into existence much, much earlier than life as we know it even had a chance to begin evolving.

    However, I’m not sure what you mean when you mention Genesis; are you saying that you don’t support that literal Biblical age of the Earth? If so, why is it that everything else must be true if you’re allowing yourself to pick and choose what you believe and what you don’t?

  13. Cameron said

    Nosugrefneb,

    I can assure you, you’re trying to blow up microevolution which naturally happens and explain a collosal load of theories, it can’t work. If you want I could dig out my physical science textbook from eighth grade, but I think you can agree with me that while there might not be one “evolution killer” of proof, you can also agree that evolution is merely a theory. Yes, there is “loads” of substantial evidence (or in many cases, it’s really just pointing out the flaws, misrepresentations and incongruities of Darwin’s and others’ theories), and you have apparently come across some of that yourself. When I have time to go back and review some of that, I’ll get back to you. 😉

    “Let the land produce vegetation.” “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds” Genesis 1:11,24

    I highly doubt that God would dictate Moses to write things man hadn’t quite had the capacity to understand then. 😉 But that’s a silly tangent.

    Nosugrefneb, when I see a ball drob, I see the ball drop. I do not question that it is the earth’s presence in the great expanse that pulls objects to it’s center – though if you have some other theory, I’d be more than willing to join you in your quest to prove it correct.

  14. nosugrefneb said

    I concede that there is probably evidence which contradicts evolution, but I personally have not seen any. That said, I am not an evolutionary biologist, and so I would not have had much opportunity to have come across it anyway. Do you know of any off the top of your head? I’m just curious to see what about it is being disputed beyond blindly disregarding data as bunk.

    I’m not sure I follow the conclusion you’ve drawn from that quote. The quote itself is so vague that it doesn’t make tangible sense to me, although it is almost 11pm here and I’ve had a long day staring at articles for most of it.:)

    When you see a ball drop, you see a ball drop. When you see it happen enough, you start to wonder what makes it do that. Then, when people actually figure it out experimentally, you take their word for it; after all, they’re the experts, and you’re certainly not doing any experiments to substantiate their claims.

    When you see fossils and organismal genomes change over time, you see them change over time. When you see it happen longitudinally and consistently, and when you start to notice similarities in the context of divergences and minor differences, you start to wonder what is causing these changes. Then, when people actually figure it out experimentally, you don’t take their word for it, but instead you come up with your own explanation in your head based on a single work of folklore, one that has been altered and added to countless times since its inception, despite the fact that they’re the experts, and, after all, you’re certainly not doing any experiments to disprove their claims.

    There is an obvious difference there, and I’m wondering why it’s there in the first place. Both are scientific theories and both have enormous amounts of scientific evidence to substantiate them practically as fact, and yet one is widely accepted while the other is often seen as pseudoscience bunk. Why is this? Would it be different if evolution occurred on the same time scale as dropping a ball so that you could more clearly conceptualize it? Would gravity instead be blindly rejected by non-scientists if it occurred, say, with only a fraction of the acceleration?

  15. nosugrefneb:

    “However, I’m not sure what you mean when you mention Genesis; are you saying that you don’t support that literal Biblical age of the Earth? If so, why is it that everything else must be true if you’re allowing yourself to pick and choose what you believe and what you don’t?”

    You misunderstand me. There is a difference between what men commonly interpret the Bible as meaning and what the Bible actually says. People read Genesis 1 and generally INTERPRET it to mean that God created the world in 7 periods of 24 hours. But Genesis 1:14 seems to ME to indicate that until the 4th day when God created the sun, moon, stars and such, days were not measured in 24 hour increments. Therefore, we have no idea how long the first three (or four) days were. After all, how do we measure days? The rotation of the earth’s axis about the sun. How do we measure years? The length of time that it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun. But prior to the fourth day, there was no sun to revolve around or for any portion of the earth to face while rotating on its axis. Therefore, we have no idea how long the first three “days” were. Saying that the first three days were also 24 hour periods, as do most, is perhaps no big deal; nothing wrong with it I suppose, but IMHO there are tons of little hints in the Bible – some of them VERY IMPORTANT – that a lot of people miss because of the preconceived notions that they bring to the table, wherever they picked them up :-).

  16. nosugrefneb said

    Yes, but when the Bible was written, the concept of a day being one revolution of the Earth was known, and I presume the writers would have been clearer about the duration of creation if the increments were anything other than days, don’t you think? Presumably they also were aware of the lengths of years, tens of years, etc. ad infinitum. They also presumably referred to these days as standard measures of time, such that the first day had the same duration as the second day and so forth.

    Sure, it may have taken longer, but then the Bible would be a giant vat of misinformation according to standard lengths of days at the time of its writing. Either the concept of a day was a great deal longer back then, or it took precisely 7 days. I see what you’re saying and where you’re trying to go, but it doesn’t make sense logically to me.

  17. nosugrefneb:

    “Yes, but when the Bible was written, the concept of a day being one revolution of the Earth was known, and I presume the writers would have been clearer about the duration of creation if the increments were anything other than days, don’t you think?” Jewish tradition holds that the books of the Bible written by Moses were not “written” per se but rather dictated, and not only that but without punctuation. So, Moses wrote what God told him to write.

    “Sure, it may have taken longer, but then the Bible would be a giant vat of misinformation according to standard lengths of days at the time of its writing.”

    Now you are wading into a huge thicket! Now consider that in Revelation, Jesus told John to write to a church that “you will face persecution ‘for ten days’, but do not give up.” You would be thinking, of course, “ten days, what’s the big deal with that; anyone can last ten days!” But it turned out not to refer to ten 24 hour periods, but rather TEN ROMAN KINGS who would persecute Christians before Constantine ended the persecution. So the “ten days” in Revelation 2:10 refers to 10 reigns or political ages. The Bible does that all the time. Sometimes when a day is used, it means one year (especially when the Bible speaks in terms of “weeks”), sometimes it means a thousand years. So far from being a giant vat of confusing misinformation, Bible numerology is a fascinating field all its own.

  18. Simen said

    Healtheland, have a look here: list of roman emperors. After a quick tally I found there were about ~80 emperors between Jesus’ time and Constantine. Further, there are 8 political eras between Jesus time and Constantine. That hardly counts as ten. As you can see, your guesses are totally off. If the Bible, under this heavy interpretation even, doesn’t get it right, it’s pretty obvious that the Bible is indeed a big pile of confusing misinformation.

    Basically, you must base your Bible readings on a lie to get it right.

  19. nosugrefneb said

    Wow, the Bible is starting to piss me off! Why would a “day” in Genesis be of different duration than a “day” in Revelations and any other “day” elsewhere? I’m starting to see firsthand how people can make such broad claims from its passages; when you have wildly different interpretations of it, anything’s possible, even when you’re interpreting something that really should be black and white, such as the length of a day!

    What’s next? “No” means “yes”?:)

  20. nosugrefneb:

    Well, sir, in the case of Revelation, it was 100% correct. Revelation was written over 300 years before Constantine. Yet it was totally accurate: after the reign of 10 kings passed, the persecution of the church ended. Now one can dispute about the “weeks” prophecy of Daniel (which predicted to the very year when Jesus Christ would be born) by saying that the gospels were made up with the stories “reverse engineered” to fit the prophecies of Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. (Jews, of course, disagree, but then they mysteriously changed their calendar to have the Daniel prophecy point to someone else, though of course they deny that such was the reason … the 189 missing years thing … and even more curiously they stopped naming their boys Joshua – the name of the greatest Jewish general – which was the actual name of Jesus, which is a transliterated name.) But that is impossible to say about Revelation. The writer predicted 10 kings, and was absolutely correct.

    The Bible’s claims are not so much broad as they are hard to interpret. Again, on the numerology thing, it is not totally hard to figure out, because there are a limited number of options. A day, for instance, is either a day, a year, 1000 years, or an “age”, which Christians call “dispensations”. In Revelation 2:10, it meant an “age”, a political dispensation. And it sort of helps that the vast majority of the events described in the Bible have already happened, and the “days” and other time passages can be checked against recorded history. You would have a point if a “day” could mean 212 years, or if there were 11 kings and people attempting to justify the Bible tried to combine the reigns of two of the kings or ignored them, but that has not been the case: it has always been possible to correlate a time given in the Bible to a unit of actual verified historical time along a consistent pattern. It is not just something that we kooky Christians came up with incidentally, Jews generally agree the same (with the exception of that whole “New Testament” stuff, of course), and our own understanding of the number systems came from studying their tradition.

    But where the numbers are relatively easy, the hard thing to “get” about the Bible is that it is filled with allegories, metaphors, and not only dual references but triple and quadruple ones, and trying to understand precisely what people living a very long time ago in a place far far away meant when they were using all of these idioms, allegories, word plays, etc. (which again, Jewish tradition helps quite a bit). THAT is why you have so many people who have dedicated their lives to studying the Bible.

  21. Simen said

    Well, sir, in the case of Revelation, it was 100% correct. Revelation was written over 300 years before Constantine. Yet it was totally accurate: after the reign of 10 kings passed, the persecution of the church ended. Now one can dispute about the “weeks” prophecy of Daniel (which predicted to the very year when Jesus Christ would be born) by saying that the gospels were made up with the stories “reverse engineered” to fit the prophecies of Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. (Jews, of course, disagree, but then they mysteriously changed their calendar to have the Daniel prophecy point to someone else, though of course they deny that such was the reason … the 189 missing years thing … and even more curiously they stopped naming their boys Joshua – the name of the greatest Jewish general – which was the actual name of Jesus, which is a transliterated name.) But that is impossible to say about Revelation. The writer predicted 10 kings, and was absolutely correct.

    Where did my post go? Anyway, I pointed to a list of Roman emperors that showed there were ~80 emperors between Jesus and Constantine, and they were divided into eight or nine eras, not 10.

  22. Simen:

    Sorry, your post was caught in my spam blocker, and I have been a combination of ill and busy this week. But here is a link stating otherwise on the ten emperors:

    http://www.momentin.com/charts/tendays.html

    Some also claim that the “ten days” refers to the reign of Diocletian, which lasted 10 years and was the bloodiest for Christians. http://www.lightministries.com/id203.htm

  23. Cameron said

    ah, I’m so happy I’m actually keeping my promises, someone get nosugrefneb back here, I’ve finally dug out my tenth grade biology textbook (homeschooling is a virtue, isn’t it).

    alrighty, the evidence AGAINST evolution that you have supposedly not seen:

    EVERYTHING

    Evolution- Part Scientific Theory (Microevolution), Part Unconfirmed Hypothesis (Macroevoltution)

    1. Darwin’s fabricated connection of macro-evolution and micro-evolution, he was correct in the latter (with all those finches he saw on the gallapogos islands…) but what with we now know about DNA and the changes only occuring within a species, we know the connection is blantantly disproven and unsubstantiated by any modern research.

    2. The Geological Column: Inconclusive Evidence

    95% of fossils are those of clams, and the 5% evolutionists rely on even doesn’t fit their intentions.

    “I admit that an awful lot of [disproved ‘evidence’] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in his museum] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable…” (Darwin’s enigama: Fossils and Other Problems)

    “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has greatly expanded…ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.” (Field Museum Bulletin[i] January, 1979)

    “Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views.” (The Origin of Species)

    3. Structural Homology: Formerly Evidence for Macroevolution, now evidence against it.

    “The evolutionary basis of homology is perhaps even more severely damaged by the discovery that apparently homologous structures are specified by quite different genes in different species…With the demise of any sort of straightforward explanation for homology one of the major pillars of evolution theory has become so weakened that its value as evidence for evolution is greatly diminished (“Evolution: A Theory in Crisis)

    4. Molecular Biology: The Nail in Macroevolution’s Coffin. Evolutionists ignore 99% of molecular biological evidence in contradiction with the hypothesis of evolution and focus on the 1% they were able to scrounge up in support of it.

    take a stand! colleges and universities are breeding through lies and “scientific” intimidation a generation of severely misinformed students.

    they claim only science, not faith, must be taught in the classroom, but it seems that by default evolutionists require even more faith than creationists.

    after all, the blanks for I ___ in evolution and I ___ in God are both filled in by the same word. “believe”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: