Is the atomic weight of cobalt, 58.9?
Is the gravitational constant, 6.67408e-11 m^3/(kg*s^2)
Does e^iĎ = -1?
Does Bigfoot wear a size 32 shoe?
Is Richard Dawkins an athee-evo?
Does Donald Trump have hair?
Can âCrookedâ Hillary set off a lie detector with a cough?
Are you kidding?! Absolutely without a doubt. THAT'S the reason why they DON'T believe in evolutionism. It's those who have a limited grasp of all the nuances of the theory who continue to believe in it.
Would you like to be an expert on the theory of evolution and how it really works? You can be. Just continue reading.
The fundamental key to having a complete understanding of the theory of evolution (aka evolutionism) can be found within the first ten seconds of an episode (S1E2) from the slavishly pro-evolution TV series âDavid Attenboroughâs Natural Curiositiesâ (see script link below since YT has removed the vid because of copyright). There the famous naturalist unwittingly spills the beans with this question: âHow did two small animals ... **change** our understanding of evolution?â (** emphasis added).
Well who would have guessed? It turns out that evolutionism itself has its own built-in survival mechanism: evolution. It evolves as necessary to adapt to ever new contradictory information. When evidence again and again is found against the failed theory, it just maneuvers, dodges, twists, weaves and âchangesâ as required to accommodate the new evidence. Below are some examples.
Almost immediately after Darwin wrote his nonsense, evolutionists touted fossils of the strange looking coelacanth fish as proof of evolution. All were told the 65-million year old seagoing vertebrate was a clearly recognizable precursor to animals that walked on land based on its obvious foot-like fins--that is until 1938 when they found one swimming around in the Indian Ocean. It was just a weird-looking fish. With any other theory, especially with such a setback, scientists would at least consider the prospect that the theory is fundamentally flawed and maybe should be relegated to the dust heap of other failed theories like bloodletting and the flat-earth theory--but not with the theory of evolution. All you do is âchange [the] understanding of evolutionâ which is code for âevolveâ the theory. (Since everything else evolves, why not the theory itself?) So scientists came up with the idea of âliving fossilsâ. They changed the theory from all animals evolving to only those that had not met an âevolutionary dead endâ where they were so perfectly evolved, they no longer needed to evolve any further. (Huh? So even if the theory is true, how do they know with certainty that all animals havenât now met their evolutionary dead end, and therefore there is no more evolution? Youâre not supposed to ask questions like that.)
Later as more and more fossils were dug up it became more and more obvious that the fossil record was NOT replete with transitional-intermediates as theorized by Darwin, but rather if anything, showed animals NOT evolving; staying relatively the same for supposedly âmillions of yearsâ. Such was described as the âtrademark secret of paleontologistsâ by famed evolutionists such as Dr. Stephen Gould. Again, not a problem for the ever evolving theory of evolution; Dr. Gould and others changed the theory and invented the idea of âPunctuated Equilibriumâ where evolution happens so fast when it does happen, it rarely or canât be found in the fossil record. What once was a âproblemâ for evolution, with the writing of a new book, instantly became âproofâ for evolution. Now NOT finding transitional-intermediates in the fossil record was proof of the theory (huh?).
A more recent example of the dodging and twisting was when soft tissue was accidentally found in dinosaur bones in 2005 by Dr. Mary Schweitzer. Mainstream scientists for decades had told everyone that there was no sense looking for soft tissue in dinosaur bones because they were so old, it would be impossible for such to be found in them. Although at first those biased scientists dismissed her evidence as faulty, with more and more testing and it being determined that in actuality, soft tissue is the rule rather than the exception in dino bones, the theory âchangedâ once again and asserted that soft tissue in dinosaur bones CAN continue to exist for even hundreds of millions of years after the death of the animal. Thus at one time what was proof that a bone was young, now is also proof that it may be old--all according to the latest version of the theory. But thatâs not all.
After soft tissue was found in dino bones, some inquisitive testers tested the bones for carbon-14. Because of the relative very short half-life of the C14 isotope, no remains of dead animals should have any C14 in them if they have been dead over 100,000 years. Well guess what. C14 testing of dino bones routinely shows the isotope in them revealing them to be 40,000 years old or less. As with the soft-tissue problem above, most mainstream scientists have initially dismissed and ignored this evidence; however, this problem continues to linger and is becoming more and more problematic. For one thing, dino bones can be bought online and sent to labs for date testing for only a few hundred dollars, so that almost anyone with a little cash can see the evidence directly for themselves--without ever having to even leave their own house! (See vid below of some who have done just that.) Some scientists, recognizing the problem isnât just going away, have already started to âchangeâ the theory again. In desperation, a few are asserting circular-reasoning nonsense: C14 works for mammoth and saber-tooth tiger fossils because they only died out a few thousand years ago, but it doesnât work for dinosaur fossils because they died out millions of years ago (again, huh?).
In a nutshell, the basic logic for evolution goes something like the illustration below:
Person A: Rocks evolve from water.
Person B: Prove it.
Person A: Here we have simple water. Over here we have complex rocks. That means water evolved into rocks.
Person B: How can you say that? Have you ever seen water become a rock?
Person A: No. It happens so slowly you canât see it happening.
Person B: Then how can you say water evolves into rocks if you even admit you can never see it happen.
Person A: Look at this. Iâve drawn a picture*. Here on the left we have simple water. Here in the middle is an arrow pointing from left to right. And over here on the right we have complex rocks. That obviously means water evolved into rocks. What better proof could there be? I mean you have to admit this is a well-drawn picture.
Person B: What?! I still donât understand.
Person A: Hmm ... Let me see. Oh hereâs some. See this?
Person B: Thatâs mud.
Person A: No, thatâs what we evolutionists call a transitional intermediate.
Person B: Huh? I still donât understand.
Person A: You must be a retard.
Knowing how the theory really works, one can easily surmise what would happen if a fossilized T-Rex sitting in a rocking chair, smoking a pipe and reading âThe Saturday Evening Postâ was found. The next day headlines from all the science journals would read, âStartling New Evidence Shows that Rocking Chairs, Smoking Pipes and even âThe Saturday Evening Postâ Are at Least 65-Million Years Old!â
So now you know how Darwinâs failed theory works and continues to survive even to this day. The theory of evolution itself evolves. Because of that, it is impossible to disprove the theory to an avid evolutionist. No matter what credible negative evidence you presented, some sort of ad hoc explanation would be invented to counter the evidence, and the theory âchangedâ accordingly.
Many, many people do not believe in the theory of evolution because of the mountain of overwhelming evidence against it (maybe even most people if they didnât have to deal with inevitable ridicule--or even losing their job--for expressing their true beliefs on the matter). There are too many flaws in the theory to cover in this puny forum. For those interested in a more exhaustive list, I would suggest seeing the appropriate section on the apologeticspress.org website. In the meantime, enjoy the vids below.
http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=david-attenboroughs-natural-curiosities-2013&episode=s01e02
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvWdWbLcJvQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxMkMBXAVZ8
*For those who wonder what imaginative picture drawing has to do with evolution, see the vid below starting at about the 7:38 mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G5vAc5_VJo
And who best to prove Darwinâs theory untrue, but the famed naturalist himself.
Major premise: âIf my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remainsâ (âThe Origin of Speciesâ by Charles Darwin, Chapter 6, âDifficulties of Theoryâ).
Minor premise: Numberless intermediate varieties have NOT been found amongst fossil remains. In fact, the lack of intermediate transitional fossils has even been described as the âtrademark secret of paleontologistsâ by famed evolutionists such as Dr. Stephen Gould.
Conclusion: Darwinâs theory is NOT true.
Finally -
âDebating evolutionists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon which keeps changing the rules of the game--except only another evolutionist would even contemplate trying to play chess with a pigeon.â - David@YourService.