Home > Uncategorized > Is Evolution true?

Is Evolution true?

When we stop and think about what the evolution worldview is doing, it is really simple.

They are arranging fossils in an order that makes them look like a sequence.

That is no different than if I line up a series of rings from small to large to say that one evolved from the other.

I can come up with all kinds of reasons to support my theory too! I can reason that based on shape, color, size, even chemical makeup, all of which would make sense if I already believe that one evolved from the other.

I would be looking for proof to support my theory instead of looking at facts and drawing conclusions.
In an evolutionist’s mind, evolution is already true—not because the evidence supports it, but because it is what they want to believe.

Categories: Uncategorized
  1. 3 April, 2012 at 22:14

    Also, evolution is not a “worldview”; it is the working scientific theory, in the same sense that the theory of gravity is the working theory.
    The only reason evolution has ever gained a reputation for being controversial is that evolutionary theorists have taken the time to engage with fools who continue to dispute it–a little back-and-forth has ensued, and voila! people like you think evolution is a controversy.
    The truth is, your “worldview” is damaging to society.

  2. 17 January, 2012 at 10:08

    That would be true if similarity were a major criterion, but evolution is based mostly on a) the dynamics of genetics and b) the fossil record. The latter allows an absolute dating of fossils along with independent methods (C14 and stuff), plus a relative dating (which fossils are found with which other fossils?). The combination of methods allows one to produce a coherent timeline of “evolution events”, which is difficult to achieve with any other theory.

    Take for example the KT extinction event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event). How would you explain the fact that below this layer you find a multitude of species, but immediately above it only a very limited number, and that the more you proceed upward from the seperation layer, the number of species increases again — but you find only those which are related (“similar”) to the ones you found immediately *above* the layer, while those below don’t return again? It makes sense if you assume a “vertical timeline” plus evolutionary mechanisms; if haven’t yet heard any other theory which would account for events like this.

  3. 15 January, 2012 at 18:48

    Whoa, dude, talk about reversing the argument!
    Think about Occam’s razor.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: