No, Darwinian evolution is NOT a proven fact. It flies as a fallacial farce in that it cannot demonstrate one kind of animal developing into a completely different kind of animal (ie dogs to whales, theropods to birds, etc.), cannot demonstrate the development of bisexual reproduction from asexual organisms, cannot demonstrater the development of DNA or RNA from amino acids, cannot explain the formation of the first stars, etc. Evolution isn't even a theory, though many people falsely make that claim, or erroneously repeat it because they've heard it so many times. The only evidence for evolution comes from Hollywood movies, cartoons, and handbook sketches. Acceptance of evolution as fact relies on blind faith.
There is no better explanation of fossils from mass extinctions, layers in rocks, and the Cambrian Explosion than direct creation by God and the Genesis Flood.
12 comments
It flies as a fallacial farce in that it cannot demonstrate one kind of animal developing into a completely different kind of animal (ie dogs to whales, theropods to birds, etc.), cannot demonstrate the development of bisexual reproduction from asexual organisms, cannot demonstrater the development of DNA or RNA from amino acids, cannot explain the formation of the first stars, etc.
PRATTs for the win!
"There is no better explanation of fossils from mass extinctions, layers in rocks, and the Cambrian Explosion than direct creation by God and the Genesis Flood."
yeah... I like how the Flood sorted certain dinosaurs to a certain 'age' of strata. The dinosaurs, of all ages, sorted completely apart from any mammals... AND their eggs, sorted to the same level. And their nests. And egg shells. And footprints...
How did the Flood ensure that dinosaurs' footprints were sorted to the same level of mud that their bones went? Can you replicate that in a lab?
Or just show any mudslide that sorts bodies and preserves footprints while doing so?
it cannot demonstrate one kind of animal developing into a completely different kind of animal (ie dogs to whales, theropods to birds, etc.),
It's 2018 and people still believe this is what the theory of evolution describes. Wow.
cannot demonstrater the development of DNA or RNA from amino acids, cannot explain the formation of the first stars, etc.
Because evolution, astrophysics, abiogenesis, and cosmology are the same thing, another piece of nonsense only put forward and hammered to death by fundies.
Drake, when there's a serious flood, it leaves traces on the landscape. Rocks are transported, sand forms a delta, abrasion carves a channel, and geologists can find AND CAN DATE all these things. While many places have had A flood, there has never been a world-wide flood, and it is physically impossible to have enough moisture to account for that bible story, which was obviously copied from even earlier accounts. They are fairy tales, perhaps describing a real flood that once happened in the area, but the "Noah's ark" stuff is patent nonsense, a tale to amuse the children so they could be tucked into bed before the adults got around to The Song of Solomon.
You haven't been educated in evolution. I'll give you a pass for ignorance, but for goodness sake, get yourself to a night school biology or paleontology class and don't spend the rest of your life that dumb.
No, Darwinian evolution is NOT a proven fact
Judge John E. Jones III - who presided over Kitzmiller vs. Dover - disagrees, don't bother him about it.
And as he's a Conservative Christian: personally appointed to the Federal bench by Conservative Christian George Dumbya Bush, in turn voted in - twice - by Conservative Christians like you, thus it's utterly impossible for he to be an 'Activist Judge', his decision in that precedent-setting case proves that there is a better explanation:
That we came about as a result of gradual biological processes.
The law says so. Also, Romans 13:1-5.
Who are you to disagree with the word of your 'God', Flake...?!
I'm tempted to blame pokémon. The Japanese term "shinka" means both evolution and metamorphosis, and got translated to evolution in English.
But there's more to it than that; in the broadest sense, evolution means "change over time". We say that a person's views on a particular subject can evolve, for example. Hell, it's not even technically inaccurate to say that a fertilized egg evolves into an adult human. It's just weird to put it that way.
So part of the problem is equivocation - treating the narrow, technical use of "evolution" within the context of biological sciences as if it meant the exact same thing as the broad, common-English use of the term.
Hi, just wanted to let you know that the last few chances to get the award-winning free trial of the Rank Tracker software is coming to an end.
https://www.track-r.net lets you see exactly where your site is placed in the Google search engine listings.
It also helps you understand how to increase your rank with free advice.
Offer of the 7 day free trial ends soon.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.