The religion of blind faith evolutionism confidently affirms "the belief" that " a pile of dirt will sure enough produce a rabbit over time , given a large and talented enough pile of dirt AND given a long and talented enough length of time filled with just-so stories all the way to the top of mount improbable, stories easy enough to tell but they are not science, not at all compatible with the Bible doctrine on origins".
Dawkins' "mount improbable"
Darwin's "not at all compatible with the Bible doctrine on origins" (Also James Barr on that point)
Colin Patterson's "just-so stories easy enough to tell, but they are not science"
Asimov's "molecule to human brain" sequence only faintly echoed in the "dirt to human brain" example
As you wish. You have free will and so you are free to wish whatever you want. I would never argue otherwise.
meantime - one of your own atheist evolutionist leadership has a "more frank" assessment.
=================================
Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history
On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:
April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland
"You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “
==============
[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]
==========================================
Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:
Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians are "'...holding creationist ideas and could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"
Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"
"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...
"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?
I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”
"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolution and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.
"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...
It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...
about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way."
========================================
These are not the much-expected frank confessions one would expect of a chemist, a physicist, a mathematician, a software engineer, an electrical engineer.
No my friends for that sort of "confession" you "need" an evolutionist -- one who firmly "believes in" -- evolutionism.
