(bold in the original)

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

Internet evopushers are trying to make hay because the author of the above claims to be a "Creation Scientist". So what? Is any of it true as he claims?

Well mole-man, I and several honest, very well-informed people have said as much and more that must break your little evopushing heart. Name-calling is no substitute for evidence, and all evidence found in the real world will always be consistent with the truth. -Which is why you must resort to the tactics invariably associated with the religion you support.

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis."

Only technically true, since there is no "Theory of Evolution". Most people aren't thinking about the vaporware status of this "theory", promised over 150 years ago and never delivered; most people equate evolutionism with some sort of "theory", and I take the liberty of assuming both the author and the target audience to be such.

By that interpretation, evolutionism has always been in crisis, for it cannot bear any scrutiny whatsoever. It is an enormous argument-from-spam, the biggest ever compiled. Yet no element in the entire dungheap has any merit. Who can help thinklng "Duh! That's why they need so much spam."?

At no point in history has it been the case that an informed, honest assessment of the facts would lead one to conclude the stories of evolutionism might even possibly be true. Evolutionism relies on ignorance and emotion exclusively, and this must be the case if one considers the implications of logic: that which is untrue cannot be proven true, and that which is true cannot be proven false.

"It has not failed as a scientific explanation."

Possibly the funniest line in the whole spiel. Evolutionism fails to be scientific and fails to explain anything. Evolutionism cannot explain emotion, rational thought, instinct, communication, sex, DNA, recombination, epigenetics, any organ you can name, or any other observed feature of life. Not a single one.

Oh they can tell stories, but such stories always cheat. Ask how the eye evolved, and they'll tell you it started as a primitive eye and added feature after feature. That doesn't explain where the primitive eye came from. Neither is there any evidence whatsoever that life adds features over time - just sheer, flagrant, unscientific speculation.

"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it."

Uh-huh. Is this one of those trick equivocations? Does "evolution" here mean "change in allele frequencies"? If so, the author simply is being in-your-face flat-out dishonest.

Now if it is meant that there is evidence supporting the common evostories like fish evolving into amphibians evolving into reptiles evolving into birds and mammals, etc. then we may most confidently conclude it to be untrue. If there were such evidence, with all the billions plus being spent hyping the religion, someone somewhere would be presenting a little of it. Instead, all we ever get is super stupid propaganda and lies. "Gobs and gobs" - what a joke! I've been practicing evolutionology for a few years now, and I haven't seen them present anything at all that supports their case when honestly evaluated. Special assumptions must always be introduced, or (most often) smuggled in with statements that take them for granted.

Again, consider the implications of logic. Where could such evidence come from?

Perhaps the author, like his kinsmen, considers conclusions to be evidence?

"It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion."

Just a silly assertion. Even a dabbler investigating the issue cannot help but see the religious aspects. And circular reasoning amounts to blind faith, in case you never noticed. Assuming that which you claim to prove is just a childish way of claiming you have power or authority to dictate reality, blasphemous if you think about it, and an outright contradiction of any claims not to believe in a supreme being.

"It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power."

Oh some of us are quite aware of the attempts to apply the religious beliefs in the real world. "Vestigial" organs removed from patients are but the tip of the iceberg. Genocide, abortion, eugenics, all sorts of stuff have come from attempting to implement the "lessons of evolution".

It has amazing power as an excuse for evil, but even evopushers have admitted no positive practical applications can be found. Only by taking credit for the benefits of understanding evolutionism's antithesis, Mendelian Genetics, have propagandists put forward claims of useful practical applications in biology.

"There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well."

Modern evolutionism was a matter of conspiracy from the word go!

The general public doesn't learn about the doings of the X Club in school, but anyone can easily research the history. Things bog down a bit when the story is followed to other countries, simply because so many became involved. I think 'collaboration' is a better term than conspiracy.

And it continues to this day. Every extant "trust" or "foundation" founded by a robber baron is pushing it right now. Carnagie, Ford, Rockefeller - you name it. All the facts stand arrayed against the assertion. It's nothing but a play on ignorance. Not only do they involve themselves directly, they also work to influence the governments of the world, and they've had some success getting funding for pro-evolutionism propaganda over the years, in case nobody's noticed.

But really, what was the point of the piece in question? Is any informed creationist going to read it and say "Hey, maybe reality's not real after all"?


http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22There+is+evidence+for+evolution%2C+gobs+and+gobs+of+it.%22&btnG=Search

What a waste. I haven't surveyed 'em all - not even close, but without even following the links it's easy to see that this message has simply been one to comfort the evopushers of the world. I don't see any creationists questioning creationism at all. And the author even forgot to plug wiki and talkdeceptions as "honest, reliable, trustworthy sources", or some such - not a very thorough job.

Man, what a waste of time! Think about it. Go to the trouble to infiltrate and get people thinking you're a creationist, only to blow the investment on a ridiculous propaganda piece like this. (Okay, he's written another, but it ain't much better and will have zero impact.) That's all? Evolutionism truly is bankrupt. One wishes just such success to all moles!

Not a religion?

From the vaporware thread:

I couldn'tve said it better myself.

They can't make any of it work out and they very well know it; yet they still insist it has to be their way. It's not only a religion - it's one of the most fanatical religions ever!

There was more, of course

That's one approach. It is taken by Christians who see origins as insignificant. It is not taken by creationists - or anyone else - who takes the time to actually investigate.

This is the very same kind of "faith" evolutionists themselves possess: "I believe it's so because I believe it's so - end of story."

But rejecting 2 + 2 = 871 need not be a matter of faith. Things that are untrue can be rejected on other grounds, and evolutionism is clearly and unambiguously untrue. There have been many atheistic evolutionists who took the time to actually look at the cock-eyed junk for what it is, and guess what? Go on guess. They ain't atheistic evolutionists any more.

Know something else? Nowhere in scripture is there a requirement for anyone to have faith in order to know God exists - quite the opposite. Faith is required for salvation. Satan knows God exists, doesn't he? Cain knew. Pharoah knew. Balaam knew.

The premise is totally bogus.

For a person to claim to be knowledgeable, and claim faith is somehow required to reject a religion that demands more blind faith than any other, bar none ...is logically absurd. Even to imply it, as we have seen in this case, is irrational.

Scriptures regarding the matter are well known. Evidence is all around and the scoffers are willfully ignorant. Why would anyone want you thinking otherwise?

There's a link to still more on down the page.

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/10/nature-of-faith.html


What? What!!!

'Nuf said. This mole wants to comfort the enemy by saying the Christian's faith is just as lame as their own.

Know what? The fulfillment of what Moses and the prophets predicted is evidence. Fer cryin' out loud, who can this propaganda be targeting?

Ha ha - somehow I don't think providing evidence which would lead people to understand truth was ever on the agenda - do you?

Of course that's not all. How could he stop without slandering honest people?
Insisting the 2 + 2 = 4 , insisting that the law of noncontradiction always applies - this is not idolatry. True is true and false is false; the two are mutually exclusive.

Not terribly original either - he's just parroting another famous mole.

Also relevant:
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/11/nature-of-idolatry.html
Scoffers just love second-guessing God, don't they?

Uh-huh - not to some people. Where do we commonly see such arrogance, hmmm?

Double-talking twisting of scripture. Wonder who inspired that... - not!

Origins discussions do tend toward Genesis quite a bit, and we all know who was the first to twist God's words.

We are to always be prepared to give what? C'mon, you remember...

The clown's whole gist is that we are (or should be) just what the liars all say we are: a bunch of idiots blindly believing whatever we want to believe - in other words, just like themselves.

Then again, maybe I'm mistaken?

Oops! I should've read further, shouldn't I?

Yep - still tryin' to take bogus pokes at Christians. I guess if someone lies through their teeth for all the world to see, the "loving" response is to just shut up and let it go...

I'm not so "charitable" these days as to write it off as possible stupidity when people go far beyond the bounds of what can be accomplished with innate stupidity. Nobody believes it for an instant - nobody on either side.

I do not pretend to think it's stupidity; that would be highly inconsistent with the facts available, and impossible even in theory - like I say, there are limits to what can be accomplished naturally; some thing take deliberate effort. Anyone claiming 2 + 2 = anything other than 4 , for example, is not just naturally stupid.

What an Evolander!

No, Todd, you ain't foolin' nobody. It would be wise to just give up on the project, but you've demonstrated fairly well your relationship vs. wisdom. I expect to see plenty more - that is, if I take the time to look.

I am not pleased to note that there are some Christian creationists who are predisposed to gullibility, or underestimate the fanatical dedication of the enemy - or both. The mask is off, people, if you read and pay careful attention. Thinking otherwise merely because you don't want to believe moles exist is no better than believing anything else simply because you want to believe it. Desire generally needs to be excluded from evaluations.

Indeed, Todd is making it hard for you to maintain your delusion even if you want to. He has now decided to arrogantly talk down to real men-of-science quite directly.


http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/03/primer-on-transposable-elements.html

I read his blibber-blabber, and the Acts & Facts article on transposable elements.

http://www.icr.org/article/5177/

Now I have some basics to go over. Assertions don't mean diddly. Brian Thomas says there are functions for transposable elements and presents specific examples. The arrogant one simply asserts that they don't really have any function. Assertions don't mean diddly. Assertions don't mean diddly. Assertions don't mean diddly. Got that basic?

Truly pathetic, and inexcusable for anyone claiming to be an informed participant. We know from over 100 years of "vestigial organ" lies that ignorance is not a sound basis for conclusions. Not knowing what something does does not mean it does nothing.

Another basic: Similarity does not prove biological relationships. "Homology" is broken everywhere one looks. It has never worked as a scientific system of evaluation at any point in history - not for one single minute. There can be no "powerful" evidence from "homology" of any type until someone invents a rule that corresponds to the real world.

These are very fundamental issues, things even a dabbler knows.

Even his evo-buddies must blush if they consider his lame attempt to belittle Mr. Thomas. He presents neither actual fact or sound reasoning which would lead anyone to doubt a single thing Mr. Thomas said. He appeals entirely to emotion, since his "opposition" consists of nothing but substanceless smoke.

Go ahead little boy, talk down to your betters some more. See how long the erroneously "charitable" will continue to be fooled by your act.

Speaking of moles, I was amused to observe the NCSE whining when one got caught.


Evolanders may choose to whine and try to pretend their agent was wronged, but it doesn't work.

They're slipping as propagandists, too. Notice the somewhat unflattering picture? Can't say it doesn't fit - if anything it looks too appropriate.