| You often hear evolutionists point to speciation as | | | | host of other similar organs; do these even more |
| evidence of evolution. This couldn't be farther | | | | striking similarities prove all these life forms |
| from the truth. A process that transforms one | | | | evolved from one ancestor? Similarities can just |
| species into another in an orderly fashion, | | | | as well make an argument for Creation: species |
| regardless of whether it happens "overnight" or | | | | have similarities because they were created by |
| over a long period of time, is not an evolutionary | | | | the same God. |
| process -- nothing evolves! This is a | | | | Well, God, evolutionists point out, is not science. |
| transformation. A metamorphosis that produces | | | | Let me see if I understand this. To say that God |
| no chaos, or the same "chaos" every time, as a | | | | created life is not science because you can't |
| byproduct, is the result of design or planning. | | | | prove God's existence. But to say that life |
| The ONLY way speciation can be considered | | | | created and developed by itself, which is also |
| evolution is if it produces a myriad of randomly | | | | unprovable, that is science. Just taking God out of |
| disfigured, dysfunctional organisms for every | | | | the picture makes it science? |
| functional one. There have been no such findings | | | | Evolutionists make the mistake of thinking that |
| in the lab or in the field. The vast majority of life | | | | because analyzing biological systems today is a |
| forms in the fossil record seem to have emerged | | | | science, any unproven concoction of how it all |
| well-designed and functional in their first | | | | came about is also science. Evolution falls in the |
| appearance. This is not evolution, although | | | | same category of "theories" as "the earth is flat." |
| evolutionist like to call it that. | | | | Evolution forums are probably the best evidence |
| It's asinine enough to believe that a long series of | | | | of how bereft evolution is of any true science. |
| trial and errors can eventually, accidentally evolve | | | | Log on to some forums and you'll find that |
| a new life form, but to be faced with concrete | | | | evolutionists' response to any opposition to their |
| evidence that no trial and error even occurred | | | | "religion" is usually countered with the most vile, |
| and still believe life somehow developed without a | | | | hostile and belligerent language. Most don't even |
| plan or design guiding it, is moronic and delusional. | | | | bother to discuss science. Interestingly, those that |
| Furthermore, there is no evidence in the fossil | | | | point out the shortcomings of evolution talk about |
| record of any species even transforming into | | | | science in far greater numbers than evolutionists. |
| another one. The sudden appearance of various | | | | And there's a reason for this: evolutionists just |
| life forms shows not even a transformation | | | | don't have the science to support their views, |
| process. That's not to say this can't happen, | | | | while disproofs are in abundance. |
| there's just no evidence of it in the field. | | | | Evolution today is no longer a science issue. The |
| What evolutionists have done is taken the | | | | theory has been disproven so often from so |
| occasional aberration of nature, like "TikTaalik" and | | | | many different angles it's become like hitting a |
| "Ida," and concocted convoluted explanations of | | | | dead horse. Evolution is basically a struggle |
| how they must have come from one species and | | | | between those who need it in their lives and |
| evolved into another, because the fossil has some | | | | those who don't. Dispelling the godless religion of |
| bone structures similar to both. | | | | evolution boils down to spreading the message |
| You don't need bones and fossils for this. So | | | | that "the horse is dead."by JoshGreenberger. |
| many life forms have eyes, ears, noses and a | | | | |