CMI article image.
Posted on 03/18/2014 8:10:12 AM PDT by fishtank
Arguments evolutionists should not use
by Don Batten
Published: 18 March 2014 (GMT+10)
We have a popular article titled, Arguments we think creationists should not use. Indeed, even many misotheistic evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, have commended the existence of such a page. Well, as the saying goes, ‘What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.’ Here are arguments that we think evolutionists should not use.
Composition of stock.xchng images Bait hook with prawn Don’t fall for the ‘bait and switch’ with slippery definitions used by evolutionists. Evolution means change (or change in gene/allele frequency) so evolution is a fact. This is an example of the equivocation fallacy or bait-and-switch. The evolution of microbes to man—what is really in dispute—means that many thousands of new genes have to be added—about 3,000 million DNA ‘letters’; it is not just a matter of changing the frequency of existing genes. Richard Dawkins commits this fallacy; see: Dawkins playing bait and switch with guppy selection.
Natural selection = evolution. ‘Here is an example of natural selection … proof of evolution!’ However, natural selection cannot create any new genes to make evolution progress (see #1). Natural selection can only sort existing genetic information, so demonstrations of it are not demonstrations of evolution (see The 3 Rs of Evolution).
...more at link
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
CMI article image.
CMI article image.
"Darwin’s finches, which are just varieties/species within a created kind, give no support to microbes to man evolution."
CMI article caption.
"The elegant fibre-optic Mueller cells of the vertebrate eye"
snippet:
‘Bad design’ is evidence for evolution.
The argument goes like this: ‘This trait is imperfect, so it was not created by God, therefore it must have evolved’. This is example of the fallacy of false alternatives. If bad design could be substantiated it would only be evidence of bad design, not that ‘evolution’ could design the trait. The argument is really a theological argument (again) where the evolutionist presumes to know what sort of design would be consistent with God creating it. Evolutionists have commonly argued that the vertebrate eye is badly designed because the nerve fibres are in front of the light receptors, supposedly interfering with the light (they don’t, due to the elegant fibre optic system—see diagram above). Richard Dawkins has been using this argument for decades. However, Dawkins did not demonstrate that the vertebrate eye is deficient in quality of vision (eagles have the vertebrate eye design!) and his argument is seriously flawed: New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins. Furthermore, the popular evolutionary story-telling of how a light sensitive spot became a camera-style eye does not work for the vertebrate eye. So the vertebrate eye is actually a huge problem for evolution and the ‘bad design’ argument would appear to be a diversionary tactic to avoid scrutiny of the bankruptcy of evolution as an explanation for the origin of eyes, and particularly vertebrate eyes. Also, there is no pattern of common ancestry that can explain the inheritance of sight from a universal common ancestor, so evolutionists have proposed that sight has arisen independently at least 40 times! Arising once should be too much of a miracle for a naturalist, but over 40 times? Eyesight is yet another example of homoplasy (similarity that is inexplicable by common ancestry, aka evolution).
CMI article image.
Yep, that's about it, here is their creed:
"There is no scientist but Darwin,
and Algore is His prophet."
(Fishtank \sarc quote.)
"Fossils prove evolution.
They don’t. The pervasive pattern is sudden appearance and stasis/extinction, not evolution of one kind into another. A number of evolutionary paleontologists have acknowledged this. For example: That quote about the missing fossils and The links are missing. The lack of transitional fossils drove Harvard paleontologist Dr Stephen Jay Gould to develop a theory of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ that had evolution happening in such a rapid and localized way that no fossils were left to show it had happened! Of course attention-seeking paleontologists are continually promoting this or that new fossil that shows ‘this evolved into that’. However, give the latest fashionable fossil a few years and it will be dropped as further study shows that it was hyped to the hilt by the discoverers. One has only to think of that whale of a story, of how a four-footed land animal evolved into whales/dolphins, which has been a recent poster child of evolutionists. It is fast unravelling; see Rodhocetus and other stories of whale evolution. Also, when this happens, many of the alleged ‘homologies’ invoked as proof must be reclassified as homoplasies."
If evos want to be very sneaky, they would EMBRACE the Noahic world-wide flood,
BECAUSE
it would give them an "out" ...
They could say, "Of course there aren't any transitional fossils, because the fossil record is only a single-frame snapshot of the entire 4-billion year long movie of evolutionary history."
I thought of that paradox about 12 years ago, and I'm surprised I've never seen anyone else mention that.
Evolution’s troubles. BEEP!
Thanks for the ping and thread.
Good points all around.
Number one argument evos should NOT use IS.....
” Being born again is a form of human evolution.. “
Social Darwinism. 100 million murdered can’t be wrong.
Take the cross-section of humanity - from the tallest to the shortest, the thinnest to the fattest. Take the biggest skull to the smallest, the biggest nose and chin to their opposite numbers.
(or just pick out 100 random folks at Walmart 8^)
Now compare the above group of humans to the picture of Darwin’s finches; hmmm... comparatively speaking, the finches all look pretty much the same to me.
Not so with humans...
What does one logically expect if there was a global flood? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth. I.e, fossils.
One most definitely would NOT expect to find gelatinous heme in the bone marrow of a supposedly 65 million year old T-rex. One must subscribe to the evolutionist “faith” to think that’s possible.
Thanks for the ping!
Yep. Great point.
“the finches all look pretty much the same to me.”
You racist, species-ist .... !
haha...
\sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.