Those who promote evolution - like my own self in the past - are real convinced that they are the scientific ones. Are they? Let's start with 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.
.
Research reveals that the beaks grow back and forth in size depending on climate variations. The evidence that finches or Galapagos Island Turtles et al have ever been or ever will be anything but finches, G.I. turtles et al? Zero again.
.
But if you can provide data that they "evolved" from something else, please do so. Not theories presented as evidence, now, but scientific data.
.
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 new DNA as would be necessary, for ex., to turn a fin into a foot or a leg into a wing. Nothing ever observed creates new DNA. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy which can be altered by things like mutations.
.
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. See the ocean floor dwelling, now extinct, trilobites found on mountain tops all over the world.
trilobites On Mountains - Bing images Notice the exquisitely preserved details on many.
.
Now some claim "plate tectonics" moved 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 heard of erosion. Others claim, "Well, if there are whale fossils in the Sahara, and Nautilus fossils in the Grand Canyon, etc. that shows an ocean was present." Oceans don't create fossils! Fossils are created when life forms are rapidly buried with water and sediment. That way no animals can eat them, natural forces can't erode them, and the chemistry of fossilization can begin
.
(And please do not send me a post quoting Talk Origins, which I call Talk Spin. Yes, I know that they claim to to have found one GC on this entire, vast, planet. But they didn't. If you will check thoroughly you will see them saying "Some of the strata are out of place", i.e. there ain't any GC there, either. I am very familiar with TO. They have no problems with flat out lying and are not even an authentic science source. If you can find an authentic science source that shows a GC, include that with a link to a photo. Then explain why the rest of the planet shows the exact opposite of a GC. My experience is that knowledgeable evolution defending people will say "Well, the GC is just a model. We know none really exists." When I ask "How can you make a model of something that has no evidence whatsoever that it existed?" they don't respond.)
.
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 75% 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. Even the one by the Aborigines of Australia is highly similar to what the Bible reports.
.
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.
.
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 evolutionism 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 (ditto for plants) Kingdom, to become a new genus.
.
In the real world we see new species but we never, ever see a species turning into a different genus. 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.
We have trillions of life forms out there. So why don't we see mutations causing any Lifeform of genus A to turn into a Lifeform of genus 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
.
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: "Look! Fossil A has some similarities to Fossil B! We'll use big words to sound impressive about that, like 'similar homology.' We have exactly zero evidence Fossil A even had a descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less that it turned into B, C, D etc. But we are going to tell you, as gawd's truth scientific fact, that we know all about what happened to its evidenceless, unverifiable descendants. We'll call that science."
.
This 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 used in every defense in evolutionary literature.
.
Ignoring the actual data is also part of evolutionism. For just one of innumerable examples, they say life can come from inorganic matter (and don't say they do not - who came up with the antiscientific primal pond, creationists?) The data, what real science uses, shows life, always and only, comes from life and life of the same kind.
.
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.
.
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.
