That is not totally true. Take gravity for example. Most people only understand Galilean gravity at best. That is the good old D = (1/2)gt^2 + vt +h. That describes how an object falls near the Earth.
If a person has had a smattering of physics and calculus he can understand Newtonian gravitation. F =GMm/r^2 . That describes the motions of the planets fairly accurately. And even fewer understand Einstein's General Relativity. That is as accurately as we understand gravity today. By the way that does not make Newton and Galileo "wrong". They are merely inaccurate under certain circumstances. Very few new ideas in the sciences that are well accepted are shown to be wrong. That is why denying evolution is no different from denying gravity. The gravity that we accept every day is like the variation that is obvious in every birth. And the fact that people do not understand gravity does not stop them from using the GPS functions of their cell phones.
Okay I will bite one last time, in this case on evolution. I don't have time to debate it. Anyway, if you don't see what I feel is totally obvious here, you won't hear anything else I say either.
Gravity cannot be compared to evolution. Gravity falls into the realm of empirical sciences. That is, it is testable, observable and repeatable. If evolution were a science, instead of a pseudo science religion, it would fall into the category of historical sciences which are not testable, repeatable and observable. For example, the evolutionists came up with the primal pond theory. (Don't say that they don't support it. They have workshops on abiogenesis, and it is all over their peer reviews for discussion.)
Where is the evidence for life ever coming from inorganic matter? It does not exist. It is not testable, repeatable or observable. All attempts to create life in labs - with high tech, intelligently designed materials and goals! - have failed.
The real data is always denied in evolution. Like that in every case throughout history we see that life comes from life and life of the same kind period.
The evolutionists start with something like a living cell, alter it and say "See evolution could have...must have.... probably...likely....can be inferred....to have done something like that in the conveniently invisible, unverifiable, mythical millions of years ago!"
Here is another example where we see a theory being presented by a famous evolutionist as scientific fact, though it has no supporting data and, once again, defies what is actually seen in the universe.
.Richard Dawkins teaches that everything comes from nothing. This defies common sense and universal experience, not to mention the laws of physics and thermodynamics - but, once more, in evolutionism you ignore actual data and make up stories from the unverifiable and conveniently invisible past. You put up fancy charts to prove your point which have no authenticity or verifiability whatsoever. It's all pure psuedo science b.s. smoke and mirrors. But it sells books and lecture tours for those who will believe anyone who is a scientist and hates the Lord.
Here is another example of that approach...
Richard Dawkins also teaches that you came from bacteria.
Now we have a world overflowing with data on bacteria. It has been observed since 1670, ancient fossilized examples have been found, and for centuries it has been studied around the clock, around the world. What does the data show - you know, data, what real science uses? it shows that no matter how much bacteria change, they stay bacteria in their bacterial domain.
Where is the data showing that you came from bacteria, then? Well, it doesn't exist. Yet you are led to believe it does exist, and is gawd's truth scientific fact. But hey, if you are willing to believe everything came from nothing, I guess you'll buy it that you're nothing but a bacteria update, too.
On this web page you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, and other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator.
These Quotes Reveal The Credulity Of Evolutionists
Let's look at the "Bible" of evolutionism, The Origin of Species. Maybe because it is so mind numbingly boring, people rarely notice something, namely that it never shows the origin of anything! Darwin's finch beaks are supposed to support goo through the zoo to you, but what do they really show? Zero.
Living finches, and their fossils, are all over the planet showing various size beaks, varying sizes of body parts, and many other physical differences. They are all nothing but finches. The fossils and living evidence that Galapagos Island Turtles et al have ever been or ever will be anything but turtles et al? Zero again. In evolutionism you always ignore the real data, or spin the actual evidence, and then make up data-free stories from the conveniently unverifiable, invisible, ancient past.
Oh, and btw, as usual in evolutionary theory you are being told one thing while the opposite is true, as about natural selection. It does not lead to evolution as Darwin claimed. It only shuffles, or sometimes eliminates, pre existing information that has always been in the genes. It never creates original strands of DNA as would be necessary, for ex., to turn a fin into a foot or a leg into a wing. Nothing ever observed creates original strands of DNA. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy which can be altered by things like mutations - to a very limited extent.
Beneficial mutations? They are said to be the second force for evolution. However, Charles Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on them, said "The good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."
Darwin was nothing but an armchair theorist who, unlike his contemporary Mendel, never supported his theory through the scientific method and cast doubts on it himself. Yet he is an icon of evolution, like another contemporary, a lawyer named George Lyell, who came up with the totally fictional Geologic Column.
The GC exists only in art work. The real evidence? Fossils are jumbled, in no neatly organized pattern whatsoever. There really are no such things as Cambrian, Jurassic, and so on "periods." Like the GC those are just fictions presented as facts. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chile. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils, such as sea shells and mollusks, are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops - like the world's highest, the Himalayans. Fossils of ocean floor trilobites are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places world wide, high and far inland.
Take a look. Notice the brown, somewhat egg shaped, fossil on a greyish background in the middle, 2nd row. That is an ocean floor dwelling, extinct, trilobite.
Marine Fossils On Mountains - Bing images ) Notice the exquisitely preserved details on it. Now some claim "plate tectonics" moved those vast stretches of ocean dwelling, bottom floor, marine life fossils to travel for millions of years and then wrap around the tops of mountains, completely intact and with perfect detail as you see in the link. It's like they never even heard of erosion.
If you wnnt to convince me there is a Geologic Column, please link close up photos. They should show lowest level "Cambrian" fossils at the bottom and higher level "era" fossils ascending upwards from there to match the GC. Now, I don't mean far off, distant photos of piles of rocks and mountain ranges which they CLAIM have a GC in it, but, again, close up photos.
The Bible says that flood waters completely covered the whole earth after, for one thing, "the fountains of the deep broke forth." (Did you know there is an ocean below our commonly known oceans, or have you seen the mid Atlantic ridge which looks like it used to be a great crack on the ocean floor? Probably not.). The fossil record shows that marine life fossils are at every level on the planet, everywhere around the globe, and that, in fact, over 99% of the fossils on land are marine. And they say the Bible is not historical and not backed by science. And btw there are almost 300 Great Flood legends around the world. For example, the one by the Aborigines of Australia is virtually identical to what the Bible reports.
Have you been told that there are huge cities found on ocean floors around the world? At least one such city has a pyramid bigger than those in Egypt.
So you've been told a book showed the origin of species, but it didn't. You've been told G.I. animals show evolution but they only show they are having, at most, minimal changes that leave them basically what they were before, still turtles, finches, etc.
You were told there is a Geological Column, but there is not one on the planet. You're told over and over that natural selection shows evolution when it actually just somewhat modifies the organism through shifting already present information, or sometimes through loss of information in the genomes, leaving it essentially what it was before. It may eventually become a new species of fish, or bee, or tree, etc., but it will always stay a fish, a bee or a tree etc. We see no evidence whatsoever of any species moving up to the next step on the Animal or Plant Kingdom, to become a previously unknown family, order class, phylum or kingdom.
We have trillions of life forms out there. So why don't we see mutations causing any Lifeform A to turn into a Lifeform B? After all, their ancestors have supposedly had hundreds of millions of Darwin years to make the switch and be moving around as part A and part B. But fish are staying fish, birds and are staying birds, flowers are staying flowers, mold is staying mold, trees are staying trees, monkeys are staying monkeys, bacteria are staying bacteria, etc., no matter how much they change. Again in the real world we see new species but we never, ever see a species turning into the next step up on the animal kingdom (plants ditto), a different family. Yet that would have had to have happened for evolution to occur, and it is claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that it did happen over and over and over.
What else does evolutionism offer besides unsubstantiated theories, in fact theories that defy the real evidence, presented as facts? Logical fallacies. Logical fallacies always, always, undergird evolutionism defense.
The favorites are Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience, though it uses many.
Correlation Does Not Imply Causation goes like this: Fossil A is seen to have some similarity to Fossil B. There is no evidence whatsoever that Fossil A or B, or C etc. ever had a single descendant that was significntly different from themselves, but still we are told that they all led to one another. Parrots are bipedal, sing and dance, and sometimes speak appropriately, like humans. Sharks and dolphins have "similar homology". Spiders and octopuses have 8 legs radiating out of their round bodies, etc. etc. So it goes in nature. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation.
That leads right into the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. Another example of a use of that fallacy is when an evolutionary paleontologist will pick up a fossil from the ground and tell you with absolute authority that they know all about what happened to it's invisible "descendants" in the untestable past - for over 100 million Darwin years!
"Missing links" is a Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy phrase. How do you tell missing links from never existed links? Have...faith...brothers and sisters! And be so grateful that YOU ain't religious!
Learn how to spot logical fallacies and you will see them in every defense in evolutionary literature.
Pile theories presented as facts on top of logical fallacies, ignore the real data or try to spin it away, and stir well with sophistry. Then you have evolutionary theory.
Anyone with eyes to see and a heart that loves truth and true science: You're not a fish update. You have a Creator Who made you and loves you and wants you to know Him, and to love Him too. Don't trade that in for pseudo science mumbo jumbo.
Again, I don't have time to debate. Sorry. Again, if you don't see what is in print above, you won't see anything else I print either. "Let those see who have eyes to see."
Blessings and bye.
