Just Accidental?

[Cobol]

We can now explain how complex organisms came about, and why the universe so closely matches the needs of its inhabitants, in terms of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Complex organisms evolved over time, and the universe was not designed to fit life, but rather life evolved to fit the universe.

With the advent of the theory of evolution, it is claimed, we no longer need to invoke God to explain the order of the natural world.

 

[metis]

Each creative day could have been thousands or even millions of years long....the Creator does not operate in earth time. He is not restricted by the same time constraints as we are...The word "day" in Hebrew is "yohm" and can mean 'an unspecified period of time'.

Well, the reality is that this approach doesn't work. "Yom" means "day", although no doubt it can be used in a symbolic sense, and one should be able to tell which is which by it's context.

In this case, "yom" has to be considered as a literal day because in many of the verses it says words like "... And there was evening and there was morning...", which would make no sense if it was referring to an epoch that would have no "evening" or "morning".

Secondly, it says "[2] And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done"..., thus setting up what would become known as "Shabbat", which is a day, not an epoch.

Instead, what makes much more sense logically and theologically, is to view the creation accounts as allegory, focusing in on the teachings of our morals and values. Whether the author(s) realized that or not is inconsequential since it is never assumed theologically that the authors fully knew what they were passing on to others.

 

[Deeje]

I have seen some women in my time that I’m certain that were beat down with an ugly stick, yet they were married. Either there husband was outright blind or beauty truly is in the eyes of the beholder.

I have seen really beautiful women married to fat, ugly, balding men....your point?

Sometimes the real beauty is on the inside...where it counts.

 

[roger1440]

I have seen really beautiful women married to fat, ugly, balding men....your point?

Sometimes the real beauty is on the inside...where it counts.

I thought I made my point. beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[Deeje]

I'm using "kind" in reference to the emergence of new "species", and this has been observed.

"Species" is variety within a kind. Like Darwin's finches.....

They adapted to different feeding conditions but remained clearly identifiable as finches....

Or canines......these dogs are not the product of natural selection but specifically bred by man to the size and shape desired by them. The outcome of this kind of selective breeding may produce the desired look, but can cause major structural damage to the animals....especially those with short snouts and elongated bodies and short legs. These would never have been produced naturally in the wild....yet they are all one "kind".

Or the peppered moth, a favorite among evolutionists......its still a moth.

One "kind" does not morph into another "kind". This has NEVER been observed.

Like with interpreting scripture, we look for patterns, especially on items that may not be abundantly clear. The fossil record leaves patterns that can be and continue to be analyzed. Much like a court makes decisions dealing with evidence, this is what we do in science, but you don't do that with your theology as there simply is no objective evidence for divine creation.

But there is no evidence to dismiss it either. As I have said all along, we have no tangible evidence for a Creator (as in being able to produce him before your eyes) just as you have no tangible evidence for macro-evolution. We do what you do....we see evidence, but we interpret it differently to you. We can't "prove" God to you....just as you can't "prove" evolution to us. That means we each have a 'belief system' that is based on faith in the ones who teach it.
If you watch the video in post #2635 you will see what I mean.

But he went on to explain in both of his books that these changes may well have implications that go well beyond just "kinds", so all you are doing is "picking & choosing" here.

Or Darwin was right in the first place.....speculation is not proof.

This shows how little you know about how science works as scientists often are in disagreement with one another. Why don't you go to the library and get some copies of "Scientific American" and read the commentaries at the beginning of each issue for proof for this? But I highly doubt that you will because you really don't want to know, much preferring to believe in fairy tales that you've been indoctrinated to believe.

"How science works" is exactly the point. It doesn't work well at all in the case of evolution. How can it be taught in schools as fact when the scientists can't even agree among themselves?

I have no problem with a theory being taught as a theory, but it should be made clear that it is far from fact. This is not the case as the video shows.....kids believe in evolution because they are expected to, not because the evidence is irrefutable. Most of them can't even explain the the process, but put faith in their professors to know what they are talkintg about. Is that good enough?

But, AGAIN, notice that you are offering 0 evidence for your assertion that God created all. Nothing. Nada. Zero.

I obviously disagree metis.....evidence for the Designer is in every design we see in nature.....in countless numbers of them in fact. Design denotes purpose....purpose needs a purposer. Programs need a programmer....it isn't rocket science.
But as I have said throughout this thread, you have no more proof for amoebas evolving into dinosaurs than we have for the existence of a Creator. I cannot produce him for you.....but you cannot produce conclusive evidence for macro-evolution either.

Therefore, it is absolutely hypocritical for you to demand evidence when you cannot do it for that which you believe. So, again, please present any objective evidence that you have that clearly indicates that one deity made all, Deeje. If you can't, and I think you know that you can't, then don't go around demanding that everyone else needs to present evidence-- even though more than enough has been presented to you.

The point of this whole thread was to show that neither of us has the goods metis. I wanted to demonstrate how much of the "evidence" science touts, is not real but based on assumption and prediction. The "interpretation" of the evidence leads gullible ones to assume that conjecture is fact......it isn't. There are so many gaps that science cannot explain except for educated guessing....and good illustrations and diagrams.

There is not a shred of real evidence that any of it ever happened.

 

[Deeje]

Well, the reality is that this approach doesn't work. "Yom" means "day", although no doubt it can be used in a symbolic sense, and one should be able to tell which is which by it's context.

In this case, "yom" has to be considered as a literal day because in many of the verses it says words like "... And there was evening and there was morning...", which would make no sense if it was referring to an epoch that would have no "evening" or "morning".

At Genesis 2:4 it says..."This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." The whole creative process is said to have been created in a "day". (yohm)

We ourselves use the term metaphorically......"in my grandfather's day" or "the dawn of a new era"...Any era has a beginning and an end.

Secondly, it says "[2] And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done"..., thus setting up what would become known as "Shabbat", which is a day, not an epoch.

Instead, what makes much more sense logically and theologically, is to view the creation accounts as allegory, focusing in on the teachings of our morals and values.

Genesis makes sense both logically and theologically if taken literally. The creative periods were simply not 24 hour days. And Genesis does not say how much time elapsed between the creation of the earth in a "formless and waste" state to the time God began to prepare it for habitation. Read the account again and see.

As for the 7th day.....it just says that God rested on the 7th day, but there is no declaration as to its conclusion. Every other day is summed up and God's satisfaction is expressed with the accomplishment of that "day". But there is no concluding declaration with the last day. Do you know why?

Whether the author(s) realized that or not is inconsequential since it is never assumed theologically that the authors fully knew what they were passing on to others.

If you mean understanding the scientific details of what they were writing...no they did not. Nor did they need to. But how would Moses know about the order of creation, without knowledge that was beyond man's abilities at the time? It had to come from a supernatural source.
How did he know about evaporation and precipitation? How did he know that the earth hangs on nothing? How did Isaiah know that the earth is a circle or sphere? I can take the Bible very literally in these instances.

 

[QuestioningMind]

These are a few different species of ducks....one can only marvel at their artistic designs and color schemes.

Who could possibly think that these just evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation? What survival advantage is there in being this beautiful?

Anyone who has studied and understands the theory of evolution would think it possible that they evolved this way through the process of gene selection.

Since your arguments are all based on your claim that the theory of evolution is a fraud, please answer a few simple questions.

1. What do REAL scientists do that the fake evolution scientists do not?
2. Why are all of the REAL scientists (biologists, chemists, astronomers, etc.) who employ the scientific method convinced that evolution is a real science and not a fake science like you?
3. Explain what the scientific method is and how those who study evolution do not employ it.

Thanks! Your answers will help everyone to better understand how qualified you are to judge the legitimacy of theory in question.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Explain what the scientific method is and how those who study evolution do not employ it.

There is no repeatable, observable, measurable experiment which demonstrates a single cell morphing into a human being, far less doing so through millions of lucky accidents.

Science IS a method, not a consensus of opinion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

With the advent of the theory of evolution, it is claimed, we no longer need to invoke God to explain the order of the natural world.

which was also said for static, eternal, steady state universe models, and classical physics.

It's no coincidence that the scientists who took us beyond these ideas, Lemaitre and Planck, were skeptics of atheism- when you are not looking to disprove God you are free to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

 

[metis]

I obviously disagree metis.....evidence for the Designer is in every design we see in nature.....in countless numbers of them in fact. Design denotes purpose....purpose needs a purposer. Programs need a programmer....it isn't rocket science.

Again, you have not presented one iota of evidence, and just because something exists doesn't translate into that a deity must have caused it.

And, btw, how do you know it was only one deity, Deeje?

So, no sermons please-- just objectively-derived evidence.

 

[metis]

Genesis makes sense both logically and theologically if taken literally. The creative periods were simply not 24 hour days.

Except that you are not taking it literally for reasons I covered in my last post, namely that "yom" in this case must be translated as meaning "day" because of how it's used in the context of "... the evening and morning..." and other similar terminology used the accounts. This is the more literal interpretation that you conveniently avoid because it doesn't fit into your predetermined position.

No, you are only fooling yourself if you believe you are taking a literalistic approach with this.

 

[metis]

As for the 7th day.....it just says that God rested on the 7th day, but there is no declaration as to its conclusion. Every other day is summed up and God's satisfaction is expressed with the accomplishment of that "day". But there is no concluding declaration with the last day. Do you know why?

Yes, I know why, and it's because it's a day called "Shabbat"-- the day of rest. There is not one hint that it could be anything else, so again you simply are fabricating excuses to avoid what it actually is saying.

 

[Jose Fly]

There is no repeatable, observable, measurable experiment which demonstrates a single cell morphing into a human being, far less doing so through millions of lucky accidents..

Likewise there's no repeatable, observable, measurable experiment that demonstrates the earth making an orbit around the sun.

Are you operating under the impression that if a process can't be directly observed in a lab, then the scientific method does not, or cannot, apply?

 

[QuestioningMind]

There is no repeatable, observable, measurable experiment which demonstrates a single cell morphing into a human being, far less doing so through millions of lucky accidents.

Science IS a method, not a consensus of opinion.

No there isn't a single repeatable observable measurable experiment that demonstrates that single cell evolving into a human being. So what? Are you of the opinion that all valid scientific theories are based on single repeatable observable measurable experiment? No, they are based upon a large number of different repeatable observable measurable experiments in evolution, just like EVERY OTHER AREA OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY.

Yes science it IS a consensus of opinion, all based upon the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

So how about answering the other questions? Why do the scientist from REAL areas of study all agree that evolution scientists use the exact same method they do and that evolution is a valid science? Are you claiming to know more about the method than they do? And what exactly IS the scientific method and how are followers of evolution not using it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No there isn't a single repeatable observable measurable experiment that demonstrates that single cell evolving into a human being. So what? Are you of the opinion that all valid scientific theories are based on single repeatable observable measurable experiment? No, they are based upon a large number of different repeatable observable measurable experiments in evolution, just like EVERY OTHER AREA OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY.

We have single repeatable observable measurable experiments that demonstrate that plants thrive with added CO2. We can demonstrate that light acts as both a wave and a particle with simple slits in cardboard.. there are many very interesting phenomena that can be demonstrated empirically this way.

There is no such thing for ghosts, Big Foot, evolution, ESP, global warming or astrology

Yes science it IS a consensus of opinion, all based upon the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Like Piltdown man, canals on Mars, global cooling, steady state, big crunch, classical physics... [science] such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact: Mark Twain

So how about answering the other questions? Why do the scientist from REAL areas of study all agree that evolution scientists use the exact same method they do and that evolution is a valid science? Are you claiming to know more about the method than they do? And what exactly IS the scientific method and how are followers of evolution not using it?

why did they agree the above were valid also? Likewise there is no empirical evidence, there is speculation within the vagaries of academic fashion

But if you are into scientists opinions rather than scientific method, there are 700+ here

Homepage - Dissent From Darwin

 

[Deeje]

Anyone who has studied and understands the theory of evolution would think it possible that they evolved this way through the process of gene selection.

Yep, the ducks designed themselves just to impress their women.

Take a close look at them and tell me that again.....

Since your arguments are all based on your claim that the theory of evolution is a fraud, please answer a few simple questions.

1. What do REAL scientists do that the fake evolution scientists do not?

They do not assume that something is true unless they have actual proof, not just unverifiable assumption. There is no hard evidence for macro-evolution. There is evidence for adaptation but scientists who support macro-evolution want to take that beyond observable boundaries.That is fantasy, not fact....it is based on belief and faith in your teachers, not evidence-based science. You criticize us for that.

2. Why are all of the REAL scientists (biologists, chemists, astronomers, etc.) who employ the scientific method convinced that evolution is a real science and not a fake science like you?

This con is eagerly believed by those who who have a problem with brainless religionists (as do I) who insist on the literal 7 day creation and who want religion to 'go take a hike and get real'.....the problem is, the scientists went past "real" themselves and on into a world of their own fantasy. They threw the baby out with the bathwater and went right down the path that eliminated any supernatural cause of life because they can't prove he exists. Just because religion got it wrong and misrepresented what the Bible says, doesn't make the Creator go away. It doesn't make all life on this planet "just accidental". And you guys appear to demand less "proof" than we do.

In case you haven't noticed, peer acceptance is extremely important in the world of academia. When anyone questions the validity of the theory of evolution, what is the first thing they experience? Ridicule and character assassination. Egos can only survive when a widely promoted belief is upheld by all of the sciences. The evidence for macro-evolution is flimsy to say the least, but tell people its true long enough and present concocted explanations and diagrams and 'voila'....it must be true. Such is the power of suggestion and who is suggesting it.

3. Explain what the scientific method is and how those who study evolution do not employ it.

Gladly. One of my favorite evolutionary fairly tales is whale evolution......

Now look carefully at the creatures that science has chosen to imply that each of these is a step in the evolution of a whale.
According to them, about 48 million years ago we see an extinct whale cousin......who said?

Then we have the whale ancestor who is apparently older than his cousin by a few million years. Now it gets interesting....ambulocetus is also supposed to be about 48 million years old. But when you google images of these creatures, you begin to realize how much of them is fact and how much is produced by an artist's imagination. Some evolutionists have even distanced themselves from ambulocetus because of the placement of the eyes, more like an alligator than the placement of a whale's eyes.

Now rodhocetus was originally depicted with a fluke tail and flippers like a whale....but they never did find a fossil with a fluked tail and they now admit that the fluke and flippers were an assumption. The structure of its arms were not consistent with them ever being flippers.

One of my favorite evolution sites is The evolution of whales

Let me quote the opening sentence on the evolution of whales.....along with this graphic.....

"The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know."

The article goes on to point out one of the main reasons why Pakicetus is thought to be the ancestor of a whale.....

"These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

So what is it that links pakicetus to a whale?......an ear bone that "strongly resembles those of living whales". That is supposed to be "critical evidence" for their claim?

I think that sets the tone for the entire evolutionary argument.

The truth be told.....evolutionary science is a con of mammoth proportions. It is not based on real evidence but on what scientists assume "might have" happened in the dim dark past when there was not a soul around to verify any of it. They have woven their own fairytale around the fossil evidence and led themselves down a path that makes them look very foolish to those of us who are believers in an Intelligent Designer.

Thanks! Your answers will help everyone to better understand how qualified you are to judge the legitimacy of theory in question.

You're welcome.......I hope it will expose this fraud for what it really is. You can be a genius and still be deluded. Its not about your intellect...its about what is in your heart and how much real evidence you need to convince you that something is true. It is nothing more than the power of suggestion. If you market anything the right way, the world will beat a path to your door.

 

[Deeje]

Again, you have not presented one iota of evidence, and just because something exists doesn't translate into that a deity must have caused it.

And, btw, how do you know it was only one deity, Deeje?

So, no sermons please-- just objectively-derived evidence.

I have as much "objective evidence" as you do metis. Science does not present objective evidence any more than ID'ers do.

Your belief system tells you there is no Creator and mine states that there is just one. We choose what we want to believe.

 

[Deeje]

Except that you are not taking it literally for reasons I covered in my last post, namely that "yom" in this case must be translated as meaning "day" because of how it's used in the context of "... the evening and morning..." and other similar terminology used the accounts. This is the more literal interpretation that you conveniently avoid because it doesn't fit into your predetermined position.

No, you are only fooling yourself if you believe you are taking a literalistic approach with this.

I have explained my position several times......you are free to disagree with it. "Yohm" can be used for an unspecified period of time. The creative days could not have been 24 hours long.....the creative process was lengthy and the earth itself is old. The Bible does not disagree with that.....some Christians do themselves no favors by hanging onto false beliefs.

Yes, I know why, and it's because it's a day called "Shabbat"-- the day of rest. There is not one hint that it could be anything else, so again you simply are fabricating excuses to avoid what it actually is saying.

Metis, there is no declaration of a conclusion to the 7th day because it has not ended.

The apostle Paul wrote concerning the example of ancient Israel......(Hebrews 3:16-4:11)

"For who heard and yet provoked him to bitter anger? Was it not, in fact, all those who went out of Egypt under Moses? 17 Moreover, with whom did God become disgusted for 40 years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose dead bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did he swear that they would not enter into his rest? Was it not to those who acted disobediently? 19 So we see that they could not enter in because of lack of faith.
4 Therefore, since a promise of entering into his rest remains, let us be on guard for fear someone among you seems to fall short of it. 2 For we have also had the good news declared to us, just as they had; but the word that they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. 3 For we who have exercised faith do enter into the rest, just as he has said: “So I swore in my anger, ‘They will not enter into my rest,’” although his works were finished from the founding of the world. 4 For in one place he has said of the seventh day as follows: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,” 5 and here again he says: “They will not enter into my rest.”
6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter into it, and those to whom the good news was first declared did not enter in because of disobedience, 7 he again marks off a certain day by saying long afterward in David’s psalm, “Today”; just as it has been said above, “Today if you listen to his voice, do not harden your hearts.” 8 For if Joshua had led them into a place of rest, God would not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 So there remains a sabbath-rest for the people of God. 10 For the man who has entered into God’s rest has also rested from his own works, just as God did from his own.
11 Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest, so that no one may fall into the same pattern of disobedience."

We who are followers of Christ have the prospect of 'entering into God's rest'...a period that was assigned for free will to be tested and for humanity to prove their worthiness for everlasting life in the "new earth" to come. (2 Peter 3:13).

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yep, the ducks designed themselves just to impress their women.

Take a close look at them and tell me that again.....

What a silly statement. Of course the DUCKS didn't design themselves. The process of evolution over time determined the colors that were most attractive to members of the opposite sex. Since ducks with such colors got more action than those who didn't eventually those with out such colors become far less common.

They do not assume that something is true unless they have actual proof, not just unverifiable assumption. There is no hard evidence for macro-evolution. There is evidence for adaptation but scientists who support macro-evolution want to take that beyond observable boundaries.That is fantasy, not fact....it is based on belief and faith in your teachers, not evidence-based science. You criticize us for that.

Yet 99.9% of scientists in all fields accept that evolution is valid. Somehow I'm more apt to believe that they know how the scientific method works than you do, since in post after post you indicate that you're actually clueless as to how it works.

This con is eagerly believed by those who who have a problem with brainless religionists (as do I) who insist on the literal 7 day creation and who want religion to 'go take a hike and get real'.....the problem is, the scientists went past "real" themselves and on into a world of their own fantasy. They threw the baby out with the bathwater and went right down the path that eliminated any supernatural cause of life because they can't prove he exists. Just because religion got it wrong and misrepresented what the Bible says, doesn't make the Creator go away. It doesn't make all life on this planet "just accidental". And you guys appear to demand less "proof" than we do.

In case you haven't noticed, peer acceptance is extremely important in the world of academia. When anyone questions the validity of the theory of evolution, what is the first thing they experience? Ridicule and character assassination. Egos can only survive when a widely promoted belief is upheld by all of the sciences. The evidence for macro-evolution is flimsy to say the least, but tell people its true long enough and present concocted explanations and diagrams and 'voila'....it must be true. Such is the power of suggestion and who is suggesting it.

Peer acceptance is a problem is ALL areas of scientific study. Anytime a new theory arises that challenges old assumptions certain scientists will dig their heels in and try to deny the evidence. Fortunately that WONDERFUL scientific method makes such personal biases completely moot. The theory of plate tectonic was ridiculed by the establishment when it was first proposed. Yet within a few years after scientist after scientist studied the data the establishment had no choice but to accept that plate tectonics in indeed valid. Einstein suffereed the same ridicule... but with a few years the evidence was too overwhelming to ignore. Boy did Darwin get ridiculed when he first made his proposals... but low and behold, after actually studying the data using the scientific method, the establishment had no choice but to accept his ideas as valid.

Gladly. One of my favorite evolutionary fairly tales is whale evolution......

Now look carefully at the creatures that science has chosen to imply that each of these is a step in the evolution of a whale.
According to them, about 48 million years ago we see an extinct whale cousin......who said?

Then we have the whale ancestor who is apparently older than his cousin by a few million years. Now it gets interesting....ambulocetus is also supposed to be about 48 million years old. But when you google images of these creatures, you begin to realize how much of them is fact and how much is produced by an artist's imagination. Some evolutionists have even distanced themselves from ambulocetus because of the placement of the eyes, more like an alligator than the placement of a whale's eyes.

Now rodhocetus was originally depicted with a fluke tail and flippers like a whale....but they never did find a fossil with a fluked tail and they now admit that the fluke and flippers were an assumption. The structure of its arms were not consistent with them ever being flippers.

One of my favorite evolution sites is The evolution of whales

Let me quote the opening sentence on the evolution of whales.....along with this graphic.....

"The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know."

The article goes on to point out one of the main reasons why Pakicetus is thought to be the ancestor of a whale.....

"These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

So what is it that links pakicetus to a whale?......an ear bone that "strongly resembles those of living whales". That is supposed to be "critical evidence" for their claim?

I think that sets the tone for the entire evolutionary argument.

There you go again equating debates concerning specifics with debates about the legitimacy of the entire theory. There will ALWAYS be debates concerning specifics in EVERY field of science, because as time goes by we get more and more information to analyze. For instance:

"Because plate tectonics is still a relatively new science (having replaced the theory of continental drift in the late 1950s and early 1960s), there is some dispute about the actual categorization of plates into the three levels. Most experts do agree that there are seven primary plates that make up the majority of the earth’s surface and the Pacific Ocean. These plates are the African Plate, the Antarctic Plate, the Eurasian Plate, the Indo-Australian Plate, the North and South American Plates, and the Pacific Plate."

Notice how the article says there is some DISPUTE over specifics. Now that you know this are you convinced that the theory of plate tectonics is a fraud as well? After all, the scientists don't all agree about EVERYTHING connected with the theory. They make SUPPOSITIONS, so it CAN'T be REAL science, right?

Either you accept the scientific method or you reject it. This isn't religion where you get to pick and choose. IF evolution is a fraud because specifics are still debated and suppositions are used, THEN you have to reject ALL science as fraud, since every other field of science has disputes about specifics and uses supposition as well.

The truth be told.....evolutionary science is a con of mammoth proportions. It is not based on real evidence but on what scientists assume "might have" happened in the dim dark past when there was not a soul around to verify any of it. They have woven their own fairytale around the fossil evidence and led themselves down a path that makes them look very foolish to those of us who are believers in an Intelligent Designer.

Right, because YOU understand evolution and the scientific method far better that the 99.9% of scientists in all fields who accept it as valid. How exactly have all of these very smart biologists, chemists, astronomers, geologists, etc. all been duped. Honestly, claiming that you're smarter than the experts and you've figured out this fraud that they've all been fooled by has got to be one of the most hilarious claims you've made yet.


You're welcome.......I hope it will expose this fraud for what it really is. You can be a genius and still be deluded. Its not about your intellect...its about what is in your heart and how much real evidence you need to convince you that something is true. It is nothing more than the power of suggestion. If you market anything the right way, the world will beat a path to your door.

 

[Deeje]

@QuestioningMind could you please make the necessary adjustments to your quotes so that your post is decipherable? Its hard to respond to that.

Thank you.