I'm not disputing the general idea of evolution that mutations result in selective pressure and adaptation, resulting in development of species.
What is a blatant lie is that evolution is a conclusive theory that fully explains where humans come from.
It does not.
Scientists and anti-theists like Dawkins who shill for evolution neglect to mention that the "missing link", or the creature supposed to be the father of both hominids (us) and other primates such as our closest supposed relatives the chimpanzee, has not been found after decades of intense research and exploration. It does not exist. By all metrics it should have been found but it does not exist.
The idea that humans are "descended from apes" has yet to proven, we have not found the link between hominids and the rest of the primates. There's a massive gap.
The theory and process of evolution as we currently know it is not sufficient to explain the development of a being with the intelligence of a human. Otherwise many other species types would have eventually evolved to a similar level of intelligence. Why are their no intelligent reptiles or intelligent anything else to the same level of humans that they can create civilisation?
The uniqueness and exceptionality of humans defies our understanding of evolution. We should not exist, but we do, and we have yet to find our predecessor.
tons of "missing links" exist. it's just that by the nature of evolution being continuous change there is an endless number of "missing links" which will never be fully discovered unless you uncover every single organism to ever exist. evolution isn't "conclusive" if your standard goes to the level of how can we be sure that our senses ever reflect reality or whether reality exists, but it is conclusive empirically
Alexander Allen
>lack of evidence is evidence of lack ur shit rolf
William Ross
>but it is conclusive empirically >>inducting
Austin Perez
It gets to the point where any time another ancestral hominid or proto-hominid is found, creationists still insist that that isn't the missing link they were looking for. It's either an ape or a human, they say, because they're still viewing the two as separate discrete categories fossils can be sorted into ("kinds," to use their term), rather than gradual change and hierarchical development we actually see.
Jaxon Taylor
There is no 'missing link'. Evolution isn't linear; it's not a chain of advancement to higher forms. There is nothing in evolutionary theory, nor specifically in physical anthropology, that stipulates the need or possibility of an intermediary species between 'hominids' and other primates. You are confusing taxonomy, which is an organizational schema, with a historical and organic process.
Caleb Walker
BRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP
Hudson Sullivan
>if your standard goes to the level of how can we be sure that our senses ever reflect reality or whether reality exists, but it is conclusive empirically
come on dude it isn't THAT conclusive, there are problems with the theory of evolution but scientists want to discourage that sentiment among the general public as much as possible, because of retarded shit like creationism and most of the intelligent design crowd. Evolution isn't as rock solid as fedora flippers would like to believe, neither is science in general when it comes to explaining life and things like mind and consciousness. But science with some good philosophy riding its coat tails is the best we can do so far
Sebastian Edwards
>the father of both hominids (us) and other primates such as our closest supposed relatives the chimpanzee
Chimpanzees are hominids you utter moron. If you're going to write shit bait like this at least fucking make an attempt to hide your retardation.
Dylan Reyes
Evolution is an unscientific myth.
HERE'S THE STATE OF EVOLUTION TODAY: "Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux… all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproven" - Professor Denis Noble, Evolutionist, Physiologist and Biologist, May 2013 1. Abiogenesis. They have given up on it and now say it's not part of evolution theory. 2. They are now admitting that they have no explanation for diversity. So now it's not evolution either. 3. They have given up on the fossil record since it looks like creation. So now they say they don't need the fossils. 4. Gould and associates say there is no gradualism (no transitionals). Stasis is the underlying factor in the fossils so it's not evolution either. 5. Random mutations and natural selection produce nothing so that's out too and they are rejecting it as evolution. 6. All they have left is the common ancestor monkey. The inability for "kinds" to interbreed destroys that one so it's not long for this world. 7. PE is now a failure so it's out as evolution as well. 8. The “tree of life” has also been rejected.
How often have you heard evolutionists say: "There's really no disagreement among reputable scientists when it comes to evolution." Or: "Evolution is settled science." Creation Moments has heard such statements fall from the lips of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and many others, too numerous to mention.
Clearly these evolutionists are all working off the same page in their playbook. They're also showing that they aren't thinking clearly. Why? Because they are writing books, making films and giving speeches tearing down scientists who disagree with them. But wait - didn't they just say that there's no disagreement among reputable scientists and we're dealing with settled science?
By saying things like this, evolutionists believe that people can be easily fooled by one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book - the argumentum ad populum. As used by evolutionists, this fallacy can be stated like this: "Since all scientists believe in evolution, evolution must be scientifically correct."
Even if the first part of this assertion were true - which it isn't - the second part does not logically follow. It's like the child who tries to justify some undesirable behavior by saying, "It must be okay because all the kids are doing it." Besides, if scientific truth is determined by majority vote or by what most scientists believe at a certain point in time, then Darwinism itself would have been rejected when it was first proposed.
Brayden Adams
To see the fallacy Hypothesis Contrary to Fact in full force merely read the literature of any evolutionist and note that the literature will have references such as: may or may have, must or must have, possibly,could or could have, should or should have, might or might be, etc.Then note that their conclusion demands to be recognized as scientific fact. Apparently evolutionists did not get instruction concerning scientific axioms and principles that demand that any conclusion that rests on these kinds of phrases can never be considered a valid theory or fact.
One hasty generalization is when micro-evolution (adaptation within a species) is used to support macro-evolution (the change of one species into a different one.) The first is merely normal. The second never occurs. Yet evolutionists say that because some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics, this difference within the species proves that species change into creatures that are not of their own kind. That's a hasty generalization for you.
Evolutionists are constantly begging the question. They base their extrapolations on assumptions. A good example of this is the rock record. Evolutionists say that slow, steady rate erosion created rock layers that were obviously caused in a cataclysm. Evolutionists ignore the real world of sudden disasters that dramatically and suddenly change the landscape, since that ruins their theory of slow, predictable change over millions of years.
The theory of evolution is often referred to as a tested and proven scientific fact, when evidence overwhelmingly is against it. In fact, the theory of evolution is based on conjecture, and from there assumptions are made that contradict observable fact. Evolutionary arguments cannot withstand objective, in-depth criticism because they are nothing but hot air.
Hunter Ward
By true scientific standards, evolution is not even a theory. A scientific theory is confirmed by observations and is falsifiable. There will be proof whether it is right or wrong.
Evolution cannot be put to a test, since it supposedly happened millions of years ago and we certainly never see it happening now. It can never be proved—either true or false. It has always been on speculation alone.
Because there is no actual evidence to support evolution, proponents resort to logical fallacies. Evolution puts forth a tautology, which is the circular argument that the fittest survive, and therefore those who survive are the fittest. See how one statement is used as proof of a repetition of the same argument. The fittest—those who leave the most offspring, evolutionists say— leave the most offspring. A hamster spinning in its cage could hardly go in more circles!
There is a line of reasoning known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). Evolutionists like to do this all the time. They try to show that belief in a Creator is false because it is absurd. "We cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch him," they say. "So we're supposed to believe this tripe?"
Meanwhile, we cannot see species turning into another species, but they expect us to believe that they do.
Julian Edwards
When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22
