Visible Evidence

Still, playing around with dictionaries and thesauruses isn't going to get anyone anywhere. If one wants to classify evolutionary theory as not falling under the heading of "science" then so be it; it doesn't change the theory itself nor the strength of it.

supersport keeps latching onto vague preconceptions and ignorant assumptions in order to attack a view with a solid foundation. I'm not trying to disprove Creationism here and nor am I going to; I merely want to bring attention to the flaws in supersport's own words.

And their so-called evidence is NEVER visible. Never. For example, every creature on earth is said to have evolved from a common ancestor. Of course none of these common ancestors have been found — or will ever be found — but we're just supposed to take their word for it because they know more than us. But the reality is, this is not science — this is nothing but brain-rotting blind faith in an intellectually bankrupt theory.

With the human genome unravelled and clearly observable and variable links between other species' DNA and ours, I struggle to see lack of evidence. Just because fact needs to be seen through a microscope doesn't make it "invisible".

Besides, I challenge supersport to prove conclusively and personally that him and his hypothetial cousin have common ancestors: am I just supposed to take his word for it? Yes, of course I am. It's common knowledge.

But again, "blind faith in an intellectually bankrupt theory" would seem to better suit religious notions that have been passed on almost exclusively through word-of-mouth and continual translation of a single text over centuries.

But the fairytale doesn't stop there. Evolutionists have made a living the past 75 years on the Big Joke that is the unseen beneficial random mutation.

Creationism, as far as I can tell, still relies at least to some on the concept of Adam and Eve, two patients zero from whom we were all created. (Which, incidentally, are an invisible common ancestor.) If random mutation is so improbable and so unlikely, how could genetic material vary so much that, thousands of years down the line, six billion descendants of two humans could be so diverse and all be unique?

There simply is not enough of a population for the likely occurrence of beneficial random mutations. Of course cumulative selection of thousands of such mutations has never — and will never — be witnessed.

THE most crucial aspect to the whole evolutionary farce is natural selection. This, as well, has never been documented, studied or witnessed. As far as I know there have never been controlled experiments on animals in an attempt to prove this concept. Once again, we are supposed to fall in love with the theory — not any actual evidence.

Apparently supersport has never heard of penicillin once hailed up as the wonder-drug capable of killing many harmful bacteria. But in recent years, the effectiveness of penicilin has declined [3] because those few randomly immune bacteria which survived the penicillin onslaught continued to survive and reproduced. Now, the majority of those bacteria left in the wild are the descendants of those which became immune to the drug.

And as one commenter points out in supersport's own thread, "natural selection and random mutation can be easily demonstrated in bacteria using the Luria-Delbruck fluctation assay."

I find it hard to imagine any other sound explanation than this. And if there is one then fine, but the claim that such mutations have "never been witnessed" is completely unfounded.