An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance. by Viceroy63
Comment: At the very bottom of this article are found links to other articles in support of the truth that the theory of Evolution has no foundation or bases for truth. Complete with other references and sources.
 Evolution is taught and accepted as factual evidence when in fact there is no factual evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. The theory of Evolution purposes that life evolved gradually over millions if not billions of years from single cell organisms to the complex life that exist today on the planet. But where is the evidence in the rocks to support this?
 Evidence "in the rocks" or fossils (fossilized remains), is what is used to explain evolution and the diversity of life on the planet. Yet there is a problem with the fossil records. There are no intermediate species depicting this. You would think that if the fossil records is what is used to teach evolution as fact and reason for the origin of life on the planet that the fossil records would be without question. Yet there remains great gaps or holes in the records in the rocks for evolution to be taught as fact. And yet it is.
 The gaps are simple to understand when you realize that the Theory explains that life evolved "gradually" over millions of years. That word "gradually," is the key to understanding the gaps. If it takes millions of years for one species to evolve into another, then there should be millions of years worth of fossilized remains everywhere showing the gradual changes over all those millions of years. You just don't show a dinosaur and then a bird and say, "voila, evolution, see!"
 One could argue, "but how?" and the debate would go something like this; "Don't you see the similarities in the bone structures of the arms of the dinosaur and the wings of the bird? Why they are practically identical!" But what about the intermediate species that evolved between the dinosaur and the bird? well it turns out that the fossil records is not perfect or that we have yet to find them? Then why is evolution taught as fact in schools everywhere when it is not a proven fact?
 Charles Darwin, who wrote, "The Origin of Species," devoted an entire chapter explaining the problem with evolution or as we would say today, debunking his own work.
 The Origin of Species: by Charles Darwin Chapter 9: On the Imperfection of the Geological Record
"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." (The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, 1859)
 Darwin saw the flaw in his own theory yet he blamed the rocks for not being adequate record keepers. LOL.
 "The faults lie not in our stars but with ourselves." (Shakespeare)
 He believed in his theory at the time, except for the fact that the fossil records did not support his theory. At least not yet. But perhaps one day all those intermediate species would be found, some how? At least that is what was hoped for. Yet he could not understand why there were not any found at the time when there should be as many intermediate fossils as there are fossils of anything else.
 140 years later Professor Steve Jones of University College London published an updated version of Darwin’s "Origin of Species" in 1999, the fossil records still posed the same problems and gaps.
"The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's whole idea of gradual change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.” (Professor Steve Jones, Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)
 Notice how in 1999, Professor Steve Jones called it a "Theory of Evolution." He stated that creatures seemed to be coming into existence almost as if they were "Created" (supernaturally, although he does not use that word, I do) from nothing but the earth. They just came into existence, lived, danced, laughed and then just died out and never even left a forwarding address. LOL.
 And that is exactly what the fossil records show. Creatures just suddenly appearing out of no where with no intermediate species before them and then they all die out in some terrible catastrophe of mass extinction never leaving an intermediate species behind to form the next link in the evolutionary ladder? Time and time and time again the fossil records show that species just seem to come and go in and out of existence with no other species leading up to them and no new or diversified species being formed after them. How could that be?
 And even when the fossil records show what appears to be missing links between the species they are not. It only appears to be evolution but the facts are grossly misrepresented by the scientific community. Take the evolution of the horse for example. The horse is perhaps the bastion stronghold for evolutionist. "Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development.(World Book Encyclopedia 1982 ed. p. 333.)
 But until not too recently the evolution of the horse has been shown for what it really is. A cruel hoax on an unsuspecting public for the advancement of monetary funds. I see no other way to describe a situation where scientist purposely mislead and defraud the public trust with false evidence to support the theory of evolution that can not be supported or proven. Where no evidence can be found it must be made up or invented. But why?
The following information in the show/hide box can be found and read at (evolution-facts.org.)
I highly recommend visiting that website and stocking up on the truth about evolution and the origin of species and life on this planet.
You do not have to read the show/hide box right away. You can finish reading my article as the "FOURTEEN FLAWS IN THE SERIES [The Evolution of the Horse]" is an even longer article for the bravest of hearts and most unbiased mind willing to learn the truth.
FOURTEEN FLAWS IN THE SERIES [The Evolution of the Horse]
 This foundationless theory of evolution is what is being taught as "fact" in children schools and Universities in the United States and around the world. And many so called "intellectual" people buy it with out ever really questioning the Theory. They simply accept it as fact. The fact is that if you don't accept this theory as fact, then you are looked down upon by the majority of the intellectual world as being ignorant of the so called facts of the so called "truth of evolution" or are just plain stupid. You take your pick.
 Some do not even acknowledge the word "Theory" as simply an idea or a thought and use words like "Unproven Hypothesis?" Whaaat? Yes, the word theory does not simply mean theory but a fact that has yet to be proven??? What ever that means. I always thought that a fact is something proven already, but watch out now, Don't you be ignorant of the difference between the two???
 The truth is that money is what makes the world go round and there is a lot of money to be made by keeping the masses ignorant of the truth. Lots of University Dollars that are fought over to the death. Government research grants and top salary jobs in both the government and in the private sector that folks would just kill for if you mess with them. After all slap me in my face and I can eventually learn to forgive you but take away my bread and butter, mess with my J.O.B. and you're dead meat. You're toast waiting to be buttered.
 As explained in the article in the show/hide box, "Even though scientists may personally doubt evolutionary theory and the evidence for it, yet publicly they fear to tell the facts, lest it recoil on their own salaried positions. One fossil expert, when cornered publicly, hedged by saying the horse series "was the best available example of a transitional sequence." We agree that it is the best available example. But it is a devastating fact that the best available example is a carefully fabricated fake." (Dr. Niles Eldredge [curator of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City] In 1969, Eldredge became Curator in the Department of Invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, a position which he still holds.) -Source: Wikipedia.com
Other Articles that support the position that the theory of evolution is not even possible or a Hoax:
Viceroy63 wrote: This foundationless theory of evolution is what is being taught as "fact" in children schools and Universities in the United States and around the world. And many so called "intellectual" people buy it with out ever really questioning the Theory. They simply accept it as fact. The fact is that if you don't accept this theory as fact, then you are looked down upon by the majority of the intellectual world as being ignorant of the so called facts of the so called "truth of evolution" or are just plain stupid. You take your pick.
No one who is being careful with their terminology claims that the theory of evolution is a "fact." (Sometimes people describe the theory of evolution as a fact, but they are not using that word in the sense that it is an objectively measurable quantity, they are using it in the sense that few or zero respected biologists disagree with it.) The theory of evolution is a scientific theory (see below), which means that to describe it as fact is, well, factually incorrect. It is much different from the realm of actual facts (e.g. the fossils we have collected). What science class teaches you always is, and always has been, is the accepted consensus of the scientific community at large of a reasoned explanation for the facts we observe. Physics class is not just about learning that it is a fact that if you throw something upwards, it will fall down; it is about quantifying how long it will take to fall down, given a particular scientific theory explaining gravity. Chemistry class is not just about learning that molecules have electrons; it is quantifying how certain molecules react, using a particular understanding of intermolecular forces. Earth science/geology class is not just about learning that earthquakes happen; it is describing the theory of plate tectonics that we believe explains why earthquakes happen. Similarly, biology class is not just about learning that we have collected certain fossils; it is about learning how all of those fossils are related, in a coherent framework. The purpose of science class is not so much to teach facts as it is to teach the scientific method -- how scientists take a set of data and analyze it to come to a conclusion.
But the theory of evolution has as much acceptance among professional biologists as the theory of plate tectonics has among professional geologists, so it is perfectly reasonable to teach it in the science classroom. If you believe that there should also be a class that teaches about religious outlook on the world, you are welcome to push for it. Or if you believe that we should not teach science in high school, you are welcome to push for that too. But it is absurd to suggest that we should not teach what the vast majority of scientists believe, in science class.
 Some do not even acknowledge the word "Theory" as simply an idea or a thought and use words like "Unproven Hypothesis?" Whaaat? Yes, the word theory does not simply mean theory but a fact that has yet to be proven??? What ever that means. I always that that a fact is proven already, but watch out now, Don't you be ignorant of the difference between the two???
The word "theory" just means something specific in science. It is not a reasonable argument to suggest that because you have a different definition of it, that the arguments of scientists is moot. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that explains a set of a data in a coherent manner and, as far as we know, is not in dispute with any other data. In other words, a theory is a hypothesis that actually explains known data. A hypothesis is under no such restriction, which is why "theory" is reserved for better-tested ideas. If you would indict evolution as an "unproven hypothesis," so you must indict Newton's theory of gravity and all the other ones I mentioned above, and more.
I just read his first 5 points and had a great laugh given the irony of the title of the thread!
I don't understand how can people be so blinded by their beliefs... "the rise of ignorance", thank you for sharing yours!
Evolution is not solely based on fossils, but also on observation of living species and the adaptation into subspecies in various habitats. Paleonthologists find year after year fossils of new species by the way, just to answer one of your points.
Only in a few third world religioulsy lobotomized countries and in america people believe in creationism... and allow this fairytale for 5 year old to be taught at school as an undisputable truth
I apologize in advance that the subject is not one I'm adept at.
Firstly, I am curious if you have learned the basics of what the theory of evolution comprises, this is not intended as an insult, it is simply that the term, as used in the common English language tends to get muddled and mistakes are common. If so one must understand that it is quite complex, species don't suddenly adapt traits to suit the situation. It is a matter of inherited traits, recessive traits, survival, death, birth and so on.
The successful individual of the brood is able to survive long enough to pass on its part of the equation to another partner who has their own success in surviving; the resulting offspring are giving some parts of each, and can mix with others, slowly making way for traits that stand out as better for the whole.
In other words, it's not simply a matter of yellow turning to green for better camouflage, it’s a matter of yellow mixing with red, yellow mixing with yellow, yellow mixing with blue, and every combination in between, and the few that have the inherited combination for success surviving and remixing to eventually leave green remaining. Thus there is not necessarily a transitional missing link to be identified as such.
Fossils are also finicky thing, bones are not rock; they are made of organic matter and decompose just like any other living tissue. For a fossil to exist conditions have to be just so, without any outside interference, quite akin to a mummy. Most natural mummies are found in bog or the like, separated from the decomposition and crushing forces that would destroy them after death, to say that without fossils there is no way for something to have existed is akin to saying "There is only one found mummy in Greece, I guess only one person lived there at the time."
For the most common type fossilization to occur, minerals must sponge into the organic matter before decomposition sets in, and over time replace it with solid rock, this is found most easily under the sea, where more complete fossilization records do in fact exist.
Metsfanmax wrote:But the theory of evolution has as much acceptance among professional biologists as the theory of plate tectonics has among professional geologists, so it is perfectly reasonable to teach it in the science classroom. If you believe that there should also be a class that teaches about religious outlook on the world, you are welcome to push for it. Or if you believe that we should not teach science in high school, you are welcome to push for that too. But it is absurd to suggest that we should not teach what the vast majority of scientists believe, in science class.
I dunno? A lot of people, and kids are people too, tend to believe in the theory of "Santa Claus." That is also not a proven hypothesis, theory, either and yet year after year you see and hear Mommy and Daddy talking to their children about Jolly ole Santa and hanging Santa Claus stuff like reindeer and those little helpers and like that. Why don't we have a course in schools and universities that teach about the Theory of Santa? Both are unproven facts and both are advanced forward among people in general.
To confuse a Theory with a science is not logical. One is a lie, a fanciful thought the other a fact of nature. The theory of evolution is a lie, an Unproven and unprovable Hypothesis. You are confusing Evolution with Mutations and saying that it should be taught. The science of mutations should be taught in schools and universities but when you assert that we or any animal arose from any other life form on the planet, well that is a fabricated lie and lies should not be taught. Especially not as fact. As I stated with the part about the horse, It is the Bastion of evolutionist but it is the most fabricated hoax in Science. And that is a fact.
I also have a theory that explains where humans came from. I see evidence that mankind arose or came forth from "Martha Stewart's Eternal Vagina." I realized that a lot of you nice folks may be shocked to hear this because no one knew that Martha Stewart even had a Vagina, but she does. And it goes with any decor!
Why don't we teach the Theory of Martha Stewart's Vagina instead of evolution? It's just as unproven a hypothesis (lie), as evolution is. But it makes better sense because if life is going to come out of anything, then it's going to come out of someone's Vagina. Why not? " The Martha Stewart's Eternal Vagina Theory." or "The Big 'V!'" Has a nice ring to it if you ask me.
Last edited by Viceroy63 on Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
you probably believe that the earth is flat and the sun is the one going around it right?
You are the one confused. Of course the theory of evolution is linked to mutations. As / tried to explain, living forms receive different type of genes, in general given by an alpha male or whatever is the reproduction model of their specie. That alpha male was already among the strongest as it managed to reproduce, therefore one of the best adapted to itsenvironment among its specie. Of all his descendance, only part of it will make it to adulthood and be able to transmit its genes. Take this over 100 000 years on a specie that completes a life cycle every year in a changing habitat (air pressure, temperature, vegetation, available food ect ect). Is the original creature going to be adapted to this new environment? Has the environment changed throughout time? are the same type of descendents always going to be the best adapted, or is it going to be their brother with certain mutations that are the ones with the most odds to make it at some point? Also how do you justify that some species are now extict? what happened to them?
Also what do you think of the neanderthal? that it has nothing to do whatsoever with our specie, and that we are not 2 branches with a common root?
I do not believe that the earth is flat because three thousand years ago, before modern science came to be, True scientist had already wrote in the Holy Bible that the earth was in fact round like a circle.
"[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,..." -Isaiah 40:22
[Note] Circle does not mean "Rings."
Thick clouds [are] a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven. -Job 22:14
Viceroy63 wrote:I do not believe that the earth is flat because three thousand years ago, before modern science came to be, True scientist had already wrote in the Holy Bible that the earth was in fact round like a circle.
lol. As everybody knows, the bible is the number 1 source of scientific knowledge of the universe So do you really believe the story of adam and eve, which is proved by common sense ( ) but the theory of evolution which no scientist puts in doubt due to common sense and evidence is as likely as santa clause?
There is nothing as stupid and dangerous as blind faith.