Really? I don’t believe in evolution because I require proof, Mr. Dawkins. Does my writing so far Indicate that I am ignorant, stupid, cognitively or perceptional impaired, or wicked?
Is it possible that Richard Dawkins is a malignant narcissist, wickedly gathering an adoring band of followers with what he knows are deceptions?
Forbes magazine (2017)
You’ve heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity.You’ve also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.
Except that’s a complete lie… when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility…
All we have to guide us, from an empirical point of view, are the quantities we can measure and observe. Even at that, those quantities are only as good as the tools and equipment we use to make those observations and measurements…No matter how good our measurements and observations are, there’s a limit to how good they are.
Science employs a particular vocabulary for describing how ideas are proposed, tested, and supported or disproven. And that’s where we see the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
A hypothesis is an assumption, something proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.
In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis…
A hypothesis is usually tentative, an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested…
A theory, in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data…Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, its likelihood as truth is much higher than that of a hypothesis.
Evolution has been aggressively advertised as scientific truth in opposition to religious dogma since its inception in the 19th century. Its claim that there is no Creator of life has made significant inroads against religious belief in developed nations.
A new poll conducted by Ipsos for Reuters News in twenty-four countries found that 41% of respondents identified themselves as “evolutionists” and 28% as “creationists,” with 31% indicating that they “simply don’t know what to believe,” according to a press release issued by Ipsos on April 25, 2011.
What has Evolution discovered since its philosophical inception in the 19th Century that establishes its scientific credentials?
Pay close attention to the Newspeak used by Evolutionists.
Evolution is a well-supported theory drawn from a variety of sources of data…including observations about the fossil record, genetic information, the distribution of plants and animals, and the similarities across species of anatomy and development. Scientists have inferred that descent with modification offers the best scientific explanation for these observations.
Is evolution a fact or a theory?
Scientists most often use the word “fact” to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact…
Within the same breath this teacher states that “Scientists have inferred” and that evolution is a fact because it is “something that has been tested or observed so many times.”
In fact, Evolution is not even a scientific theory. It has remained strictly in the realm of imagination.
A scientific theory can be defined as a series of repeatedly tested and verified hypotheses and concepts. Scientific theories are based on hypotheses that are constructed and tested using the scientific method, and which may bring together a number of facts and hypotheses.
For a theory to be valid, it must be testable, hold true for general tendencies and not only to specific cases, and it must not contradict verified pre-existing theories and laws...
a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon…Laws can be thought of as the starting place, the point from where questions like “why” and “how” are asked.
The scientific method is…a process that’s meant to ensure that the…conclusions are not biased by subjective views and can be repeated consistently by others…
In the information era, scientific concepts surround us, but even if access to knowledge is easier than ever nowadays, there are still a lot of misconceptions around. It’s always better to be on the safe side and getting your facts straight.
Nowhere is “getting your facts straight” more important than investigating the reality of hyper dimensionality vs Evolution’s pure materialism.
Evolution is not a fact. It has never been observed. On the contrary, multiple evolutionist claims have been disproven.
The following quotes are from scientific articles, not Bible apologists.
The Bone Wars, also known as the Great Dinosaur Rush, was a period of intense and ruthlessly competitive fossil hunting…marked by a heated rivalry…resorting to bribery, theft, and the destruction of bones. Each scientist also sought to ruin his rival’s reputation and cut off his funding, using attacks in scientific publications…
the original fossil evidence for Trachodon was limited to seven teeth…
The dinosaur family tree is littered with dubious species like these.
- I would like to know how many whole skulls of dinosaurs have been found to date?
- Has any dinosaur been found in its entirety; body and skull included?
- Has a body been found in close proximity to its skull? I
- If not found in close proximity, how is the body associated with the head?
[Answer:] It really isn’t that simple…
Currently it is estimated that around 2,100 “good skeletons” have been found, and the number of known species is several hundred (300-500)…researchers often rely on the bone structure of contemporary reptiles and birds, which are the descendants of the dinosaurs and therefore their distant relatives…
Please do not quote parts of this article, but only cite it at its entirety.
For the sake of brevity in my writing I did not quote the above article in its entirety, but I did provide a link so my reader can confirm that the writer of this article prevaricated and never answered any of the questions posed.
What the writer of the above article does reveal is the circular reasoning used by Evolutionists to establish their belief system by substituting the bones of contemporary animals into incomplete fossil skeletons to “prove” that contemporary animals are descended from those extinct animals.
scientists…very rarely unearth an entirely intact dinosaur skeleton…
SUE is the most complete Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton discovered to date, with 250 of the approximately 380 total bones in a T. rex.
‘when it comes to complete dinosaur skeletons, there’s just one. Yes, one…it’s been over a century and a half since it was first uncovered…”
That seems really sketchy to me. How can they derived 120 varieties from eight skulls?
Four bones were found on the Isle of Wight in 2019 and researchers from the University of Southampton believe they all belong to a dinosaur which comes from the same family as the Tyrannosaurus rex.
That’s a lot of speculation.
Evolution is not a theory, because there is no series of repeatedly tested hypotheses.
It is not even a hypothesis, because it is not based on observation of stages of evolution even in the fossil record or – and this is key – the ability to generate life in so much as in a one-celled organism.
While the existence of a human evolutionary family tree is not in question…the connections among them – are much debated by researchers and further confounded by a fossil record that only offers fragmented look at the ancient past. The debates are sometimes perceived as uncertainty about evolution, but that is far from the case.
Asserting that the existence of a human evolutionary family tree is not in question is not based on science. It is first degree dogma. Trustworthy forensic and paleontology research should be as uncertain about their convictions as homicide investigators and juries if they want to reach a truthful conclusion.
“Cro-Magnon” is the name scientists once used to refer to…people who lived…40,000–10,000 years ago…In the 19th century, scientists…decided that the [fossil] findings were different enough from…us…to give them a different name…
A century and a half of research since then has led scholars to change their minds. The new belief is that the physical dimensions of the so-called “Cro-Magnon” are not sufficiently different enough from modern humans to warrant a separate designation…
More important is the successful recovery of ancient DNA…
This is simply not true. There is no DNA to be found in fossils which by definition have had all their organic cellular matter replaced with minerals.
OK, so maybe that’s not so much a lie as ignorance on the part of the writer and publisher posing as experts on evolution. What about preserved actual organic remains, like a wooly mammoth in Siberia?
If a body is left out in the sun and rain, its DNA will be useful for testing for only a few weeks. If it’s buried a few feet below the ground, the DNA will last about…10,000 years. If it’s frozen in Antarctic ice, it could last a few hundred thousand years.
- There is no logic in that circular reasoning, let alone use of the scientific method.
These changes are called mutations and happen spontaneously from flawed – [FLAWED!] – DNA copying or from mutagens, such as X-rays or chemicals.
It is common knowledge that genetic mutations are detrimental, not beneficial.
You don’t hear evolutionists crowing about the latest findings being uncovered by DNA investigators.
University of Illinois animal geneticists…have created a side-by-side comparison of the human genome and the pig genome…”We took the human genome, cut it into 173 puzzle pieces and rearranged it to make a pig,” said Schook. “Everything matches up perfectly…
So, if all of the genes match up, what is it that makes a pig a pig and a human a human? “That’s the million dollar question,” said Beever. “The genes match up when compared side-by-side, but understanding how they work together is the next step…”
Why do we need this much information about the pig? “It’s clear that the pig one of the closest large animal species to humans,”
How do evolutionists handle this?
Then how can evolutionists make the completely opposite claim in support of evolution?
In contrast to all this, the genetic difference between individual human beings averages out to be only around 0.1%.
Furthermore, chimp transplants into humans have failed.
American surgeons used organs from chimpanzees... [kidneys, livers, heart]
Invited to speak at a surgeon’s conference…the moderator introduced him to the large audience by saying: “In Mississippi they keep the chimpanzees in one cage and the Negroes in another cage, don’t they, Dr. Hardy?”…
No other chimpanzee-to-human organ transplants by U.S. surgeons have been attempted since …
chimps were too close to humans for the comfort of the rest of society. Ethics, not genetics, won the argument.
Whoa. Now that we have discovered that pigs are even closer to humans than chimps, is anyone in society rising up in condemnation of the massive pork industry? About 118 million hogs are slaughtered in U.S. facilities each year.
However, devout evolutionists maintain their belief that “DNA supports evolution because all life on Earth carries DNA, and evolution happens only after DNA changes.“
Evolution’s failure to follow scientific methodology is most clearly shown by the fact that, despite two hundred years discovering billions of fossils the world over, absolutely no fossils of the theorized transitional states between any species have ever been found.
A lack of discovery removes a suspect from legal consideration.
This lack of discovery should have eliminated evolution as a scientific consideration.
This doesn’t stop Evolutionists from clinging to the concept with the tenacity of an over-confident Middle Schooler.
In recent years, a field that has traditionally relied on fossil discoveries has acquired helpful new tools: genomics and ancient DNA techniques...hinting at a far more complex past than was previously appreciated…
“To piece together that story, we need information from multiple different fields of study,” remarks Eleanor Scerri, an archaeologist at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany. “No single one is really going to have all the answers—not genetics, not archaeology, not the fossils, because all of these areas have challenges and limitations.”