Evolution is a Bad Science Theory

7/27/2019 Evolution is a Bad Science Theory

1/5

Question 1: Evolution is a bad science theory .. true orfalse.

What is a bad science theory ?

Before we can answer this question let us cite two examples of whatwe may refer to as Bad Science Theories.

We will look at the bad science theories where at one timeAlchemists tried to change " lead to gold" and certain people oncebelieved that ".. a machine heavier than air cannot fly..".

At one time alchemists thought they could change Lead to Gold.

Science has proved that Lead cannot be changed from Lead to Gold.

No True Scientist will promote the bad science theory that lead canchange to Gold.

At one time it was said that "...a machine heavier than air cannotfly...".

On 17 December,1903, at Kitty Hawk The Wright Brothers ( Orvilleand Wilbur ) proved that theory wrong.

Today aeroplanes fly around the world and no True Scientist willpromote that bad science theory that "... a machine heavier than aircannot fly..".

It has been said that :

... A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of someaspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that hasbeen repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

In other words, evolution as a theory is just as valid as gravity as atheory. They are both based on repeated experimentation andobservation.

Suggesting that it is bad science or bad science theory suggests thatyou do not know what a scientific theory is (which is why I provideda definition) and that you do not know what the theory of evolutionactually states or how our understanding of it has contributed to ourlives today....".

[ Read More at : http://dirtyatheist.tumblr.com/post/53672765787/a-

theists-challenge-four-super-simple-questions ]


2/5

On the surface, the above statement appears to be a statement oftruth that cannot be challenged.

However, thinking people will challenge the validity of theassumption that "...evolution as a theory is just as valid as a theory.

They are both based on repeated experimentation andobservation...".

The Theory of Gravity may be tested 24/7 everyday of any year.

However the so called "Theory of Evolution" cannot be tested 24/7every day of the year.

Does The so called "Theory of Evolution" that is alleged to be "... aLong slow observable process ...." meet the criteria of "... a well-

substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world,based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmedthrough observation and experiment..." ?

On closed examination, the answer is no.

Charles Darwin (12 February 1809 19 April 1882 ) can only berelied on to comment on what he personally observed during hislifetime.

What "body of evidence or a body of knowledge " did Charles Darwinobserve between ( (12 February 1809 19 April 1882 ) ?

Was the "body of evidence or body of knowledge" observed byCharles Darwin between (12 February 1809 19 April 1882 )allegedly "...a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of thenatural world, based on a body of knowledge that has beenrepeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment..." ?

If so is there any reputable or reliable Scientific Source that was

cited by Charles Darwin when he formulated the so called "..Theoryof Evolution.." ?

It should be noted that , for obvious reasons, There is no actualCCTV footage to show exactly what allegedly happened from thetime that the long slow observable process of evolution allegedlybegan to the time when Charles Darwin formulated his so calledtheory of evolution.

It should also be noted that there are no meticulous handwritten or

typed records to show exactly what allegedly happened from thetime that the long slow observable process of evolution allegedly


3/5

began to the time when Charles Darwin formulated his so calledtheory of evolution.

Finally it should be noted that it is a physical impossibility forCharles Darwin to have personally observed "...the long slow

observable process of evolution from the time that evolutionallegedly began to the time when he Charles Darwin formulated his

so called theory of evolution...".

The Media and History Books has documented interesting articles on"..The Neandrathal Man ; The Piltdown Man; The Nebraska Man ;

The Peking Man ; ... etc " that give a thinking person an idea of howdesperate some people are in their vain attempts to "... prove theso called theory of evolution...".

It is public knowledge that the so called "..The Neandrathal Man ;The Piltdown Man; The Nebraska Man ; The Peking Man ; ... etc werenothing but manufactured frauds by certain people who hoped todeceive the world that they had found ".. legitimate scientificevidence to validate the so called theory of evolution...".

It has been said that :

"... A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of someaspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has

been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment...".

"..The Neandrathal Man ; The Piltdown Man; The Nebraska Man ;The Peking Man ; ... etc " cannot be regarded as legitimate scientificevidence .

Such blatant cases of fraud where some people would attempt to tryand manufacture evidence to support the so called theory ofevolution would appear to suggest that there is no compelling andno substantial evidence to support the so called "..Theory of

Evolution..".

Is "evolution " therefore valid as a theory "..as gravity as atheory..." ?

Where is the " body of evidence or body of knowledge " that canprove beyond reasonable doubt that "...on repeated experimentationand observation..." that the so called " ...Theory of Evolution.." isallegedly just as "...valid as the theory of gravity.." ?

We know that genetic changes by natural or so called artificialmeans under strict laboratory conditions will always produce


4/5

bacteria.

We know that every species will reproduce after their own kind.

We know that The Law of Reproduction paraphrased simply states

that every living organism will reproduce after it's own kind.

For example we know that :

Apple seeds bring forth apple trees.

Ants breed ants.

Bees breed bees.

Dogs breed dogs.

Cats breed cats.

Horses breed horses

Monkeys breed monkeys.

Chimpanzees breed chimpanzees.

Gorillas breed gorillas. etc

When we look at Fossil records , there are no fossil records of any socalled ".. intermediate stages..." of any given species to cataloguethe so called "...stages of evolution..".

To date , Fossil records do not provide any compelling substantialevidence to support the bad science theory of evolution.

However, fossil records do provide a record that there was a worldwide flood on earth.

Is the so called "..Theory of Evolution.." a bad science theory likealchemist trying to change "...lead to gold .." ?

Is the so called "..Theory of Evolution.." a bad science theory like theone where it was once said that ".. a machine heavier than aircannot fly.." ?

You be your own Judge of your own personal belief, but as for meand mine house and a multitude of thinking people, we know

without a shadow of a doubt, that the so called "theory of Evolution "is a bad science theory that has deceived the gullible and should not


5/5

be taught in schools..

Documents

Evolution is a Bad Science Theory