People who militantly defend evolution (AKA evolutionists) like to look down their noses on the “lay” public and smugly drone on about how science is the key to knowledge, how evolution is the most rigorously tested theory in science, and how they only go where the evidence leads. If that were true, why do they feel the need to tell lies to support their theory? I'm not talking about a mere difference of opinion – like how I believe the earth is around 6,000 years old and they think it's 4 billion years old. I'm talking about continuously repeating things that are objectively false. The sad thing is, many members of the public have heard these lies repeated so often, they assume they are true.
I've written series in the past where I list 5 or 10 of some of the most egregious examples but I'm not going to write a series now. Instead, I'm going to visit this topic from time to time and make each, entire post about a single lie. If you want to read all the posts published under this topic, click “lies evolutionists tell” in the label cloud in the left column.
Are we ready? Then let's get started!
 |
| https://unsplash.com/@anniespratt |
This quote just annoys me (I mean, besides the peculiar, European way that Dawkins spelled “colors”). Dawkins may have made this particular quote, but I've heard a similar sentiment expressed many times in different ways. You may have heard someone say something like, “Evolution would be disproved if we found a rabbit in the Cambrian.” Dawkins tells this lie to make it sound like evolution is a very robust theory that is tested every time a new fossil is found. Don't be fooled by his hubris. These quotes and every quote like them are all lies. They are lies on so many different levels, I'm not sure I can cover them all in a single post. Of course, I'm going to try!
First, there is a very subtle lie that is easy to overlook. Dawkins used the phrase “date order.” By doing this, he immediately projects the idea of time onto the fossil record; thus, fossils found lower in the fossil record are “older” than the ones above them. The reality is that the order in which fossils are buried simply demonstrates the order in which they were buried. It is the long age assumptions of their theory that says lower fossils are older.
According to YEC (young earth creationism), most of the fossil bearing, geological column was formed during the Flood event. The lower fossils may have buried first but they're not necessarily “older.” If I filled a glass with ice, the cubes on the bottom were laid down first but they're not “older” than the cubes above them. By referring to where fossils appear as the “date order,” Dawkins is creating the false impression that their sequence represents, de facto, when the creatures lived. It's a lie.
Next, there is an experiment I want you to do: Google the words “fossil redraws evolution” and see what results you get. Go ahead. Try it now. I'll wait. //RKBentley taps his foot patiently// When I did this, at the time of the writing of this post, there were 3.3 million results. Let me show you a small sample of what I found:
Giant Flying Squirrel Redraw Family Tree (2018): “This Spanish fossil discovery has helped palaeontologists to redraw the evolutionary tree of the squirrel family. That branch of the Sciuridae that led to modern flying squirrels must have diverged many millions of years earlier than previously thought.” This quote from the article clearly states that a single fossil find showed scientists had been wrong about the date of divergence that led to flying squirrels by “many millions of years”! Was evolution disproved? Nope. They merely redrew the tree and, instead of proving the theory false, the find actually made the theory better. How convenient! //RKBentley rolls his eyes//
Humans Evolved 100,000 Years Earlier Than We Thought – But Mysteries Remain (2017): “Newly discovered fossil discoveries in Africa have pushed back the age we know modern humans roamed the Earth by roughly 100,000 years—and injected profound doubt into what we thought we knew about where humanity first arose.” Wow! Modern humans are believed by scientists to be only 200,000 years old. So certainly a 300,000 year old fossil of a modern human must qualify as being in the wrong date order, right? Of course it does, but it won't disprove the theory. NOTHING can disprove the theory no matter how out of order it is!
Concerning rabbits in the Precambrian, we haven't found any yet. But it wouldn't even matter if we did because evolutionists have preemptively disqualified that as a potential way to disqualify evolution. From the pro-evolution site, RationalWiki, we read the following:
J. B. S. Haldane famously stated that "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" would disprove evolution — and this has been a talking point in philosophy of science for some time. This phrase is reported to be a rebuttal to the accusations that evolution is not falsifiable. However, the reality of disproving evolution in this manner is quite complicated. As science is based on an interplay between theory and evidence a single point of data is not enough to completely destroy a theory - just as much as an excellent theory can't win out against overwhelming data. Such a thing as finding fossilised rabbits wouldn't cause scientists to throw the theory of evolution out completely and immediately, so a little more explanation is needed.
Do you see what I mean? Not even a fossil rabbit found in the Precambrian would be enough to throw out the theory. Every time some fossil turns up in the wrong place, evolutionists simply go back to the text books and redraw all the lines on the paper. How many times do they have to be wrong on some point of the theory before they begin to question the theory itself? How many times are they allowed to redraw the evolutionary tree until people begin to realize there is no tree?!
Just to be clear, I don't believe any of the dates evolutionists are assigning to these fossils. I'm merely pointing out that they even get their own dates to agree. Dawkins quote is fluff. He speaks it with confidence in order to bolster evolution and make it seem unassailable but it's all smoke and mirrors. For him to boldly say the theory stands up to every new discovery is laughable. There's no polite way to put it – he's lying!
No comments:
Post a Comment