I get tickled every time I read in the news about some journalist who so readily offers his “Expertise” on the subject, even though when it comes to it even the experts will own up to the fact that as far as the expertise are concerned great deal of this work is historical (in type) information and will be always treated as speculative. Supposedly this work is done by deductive reasoning which will involve great deal of detective work.
Evidence and conclusions
But can we truly say that they are putting the puzzle together or are they simply adding two and two and getting five hundred, can we trust people who we know have in the past been caught to cheat and lie in order to get our undecided votes? I could mention numerous times when we only had the pig tooth and somehow they reconstructed whole extinct species. One can only but marvel at the amount of foresight and understanding these people posses when no information or blueprint was ever found. Few bones is all it’s needed and like by magic they create whatever you may be missing in order to support their previous presuppositions.
Honest Scientists: Even amongst the “Scientist” today there is such thing as personal pride, dishonesty and falsifying. I remember that two years ago South Korean geneticist has claimed to have successfully cloned animals only later to retract this and own up to the fact that when it comes to it, scientist like all others have to compete for grants, tenures etc, not to talk about the prestige that is given to the new discoveries that prop up old theories. In China few years ago few excavation specimens have been proved to be manufactured, again in order to support this theory.
Now you may say that these are very sarcastic observations, but let me put it this way, how on Earth did these “brilliant minds” and presumptuous “big headed know it all”, have the key and instructions manual to interpreting that data, without actually being able to observe this and only when this is truly observed (according to their definition of science) can this be called scientific.
Every time they bring supposedly new things out to prop up their theory, I keep on thinking was this not addressed previously, disputed and challenged by their own group of scientists? Then I am reminded that vast amount of advertising power that stands behind this ideology is far greater and more powerful, supported by many brainwashed journalists, who shake in their boots at the thought of loosing their street cred, they will say anything as long as it’s in the agreement with the rest of the pack.
Have we forgotten how science develops, that we should continue to challenge, just like in the days of our teenage years?
Design not evolution
Fact that their is some evolution (Only within the same species i.e. bigger, longer, stronger, etc) that help specific spices survive can only but prove the fact that the creator was capable of understanding the variances and changes within the environment, that we inhabit and has therefore made sure that there is enough give and take within his design. Flexibility and adaptability does not prove Evolution it only confirms that the designer, has thought of everything, like a car designer who will make sure that his creation will function during the winter at the same reliable quality as during the hot summer days.
When people, say that similarity in different species confirm gradual evolution they blatantly ignore the possibility that the original designer may have liked and approved of his design that he persisted with and continued to use and modify the original blueprint.
Whenever I find articles about the evolution one thing is always present, and that is the assumption of being right and telling the ignorant what they should accept, in other words our dogmatic approach is much better then your dogma. Fanny how Christians are ridiculed about their faith and told that they are closed minded and ignore many possibilities that exist out there.
This is a oxymoron (Definition of OXYMORON – a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”) who is closed minded he who says that possibility of God existing and undertaking miraculous creation is plausible or those who forever search for naturalistic explanation, regardless of where the evidence is actually taking us.
There seams to continue to prevail general philosophical view that if we repeat the error often enough, say it loudly and convincingly enough people will believe us whatever we say. Claim of open mind, and thinking outside the box, often stand as a barrier to those who are puffed up, with self adoration and are convinced by selfcagrutulations and mutual support amongst the “Evolution believers”.
Why is it that today even though you will find many good web pages around the world that will challenge this highly skeptical and speculative theory will continue to persist and present itself as “scientific”.
Please note that I am not objecting to anyone having contrary (to my) points of view, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with me, we are all free in making our choices, but in the same way that they will tell us that we should stay open minded they should practice that which they preach.
When there is no observable explanation available they should ether start the process and wait for the confirmation, (this will take some time) during which no theory should be dismissed or stop insulting others by underhanded comments which serve no purpose other than bully others into submission, and nobody enjoys that kind of treatment.
Defend the word
The danger of worshipping Darwin
Presenter, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea
Andrew Marr gets to grips with Darwin’s Dangerous Idea
His vast brow hangs over us all. His foamy white beard cascades down in the familiar Michelangelo Old Testament style.
He speaks to mankind of ancient origins and end times.
In this year of his double anniversary, are we in danger of turning Charles Darwin if not into God, at least into the founder of a secular religion?
I’m a lapsed Presbyterian Christian. I had a blinding revelation of disbelief at the age of around 15.
It was every bit as clear and convincing as others describe revelations of faith.
Back then, I explained to the school chaplain that I could accept religion, but only as a metaphor – Heaven and Hell on Earth, that sort of thing.
Kindly but firmly, and rightly, he said that no, this would not be sufficient.