RSS

My Definition of Evolution

11 May

It was originally constructed for a bunch of unbelievers and deconverted people who demanded that I provide one. Of course, once presented they ignored it, dismissed it and then whined that it wasn’t a definition. But that is what happens when you try to have a discussion with those who really do not want to believe. They are happy in their unbelief and as the Bible says- are willfully deceived.

 

My Definition of Evolution:

Intro: I have been asked on several occasions to provide a definition for the process of evolution. Recently, I have stated that that my definition is that the supposed process does not exist & is a lie (which it is).

I do not respond to requests that i produce something on demand by a group of people who do not believe. I wait for God to help me contemplate different issues in order to come to a correct and divine answer.

I am not to just rattle things off the top of my head to appease the demands of spoiled and impatient people like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee.

Definition: The supposed process of evolution is conceived by the misunderstanding of the observed results and attributing those results to an imaginary process through the drawing of faulty conclusions.

The theory is built upon belief, faith, assumption, leaps to conclusions, eisegesis, BUT NOT fact, let alone scientific fact.

This last point is underscored and supported by Charles Darwin who continually used the following words in his ‘An Historical Sketch of the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species (4th Edition of On The Origin of Species by Natural Selection 1866 xiii-xxii):

believe, attributed, maintains, declares, declares his belief, his belief, expresses his belief, might have, apparently believes, his opinion, more probable, now believes, suggested, gives his reasons for believing, infers, his grounds of belief, his conviction.

You will notice that Darwin does not point to one actual fact nor scientific experiment to back up that supposed process.

Conclusion: IF Fact, and by the word ‘fact’, I include both the truth and scientific fact, were part of the theory there would be no question about the supposed process; challenges could be swept away without too much trouble.

Replication & observance would repeatedly verify historical claims & remove all doubt.

Scientists would be in harmony, not only over the general aspects of the theory but also on all specific details and minutia.

The fact that they do not agree and are forever altering the theory shows that their theory is not true & the process does not exist.

The excuse of better technology does not hold up for if Darwin and the others were correct, modern technology would hold up their claims and not participate in changing what they described.

Advertisements
 
Comments Off on My Definition of Evolution

Posted by on May 11, 2015 in academics, archaeology, astronomy, creation, education, Genetics, history, leadership, science

 

Comments are closed.

 
%d bloggers like this: