|
|
|
|
|
TEBS suggested that giantism in the fossil record does not discount evolution: I gave him this point for a variety of reasons, though it is not difficult to find an evolutionist to disagree with him (Steven Gould and E.D. Cope to name two). I am aware of the disagreement within the evolutionary community on this subject, and also aware of the arguments surrounding giantism and evolution. Prediction is an excellent acid test for a scientific theory. If evolution were to make a prediction about the fossil record, it would predict that life was smaller in the past, not larger. However, when one points out that the fossil record shows the exact opposite, the prediction is thrown out the window in favour of the "environmental pressures" argument. Evolution conforms to whatever evidence is provided! The fact that evolution fails the prediction and simply conforms to the evidence merely solidifies my arguments that evolution is not scientific, and that it is believed in blind faith. The theory of evolution constantly evolves to fit the evidence presented to it. As my good friend Vance Nelson said, "it just takes creativity (from the evolutionist - that which is supposed to have come about from the non-intelligent processes) to come up with explanations for almost any evidence that 'contradicts' any part of evolution. Its not about the evidence, its about the beliefs that are used to interpret the evidence." I'm really going to sound harsh and cynical here, but, to cite just two quick examples: Evolution would predict loads of intermediate lifeforms in the fossil record. None are found, so "Punctuated Equilibrium" is proposed - an evolutionary model which requires no evidence - now isn't that convenient. If dates achieved by evolutionary-based dating methods come up with the wrong dates, contamination is assumed. If a fossil is found in the wrong place, (i.e., a human skull in cretceous rock) it is considered an intrusion. The list goes on and on... Evolution conforms to whatever evidence is presented. |