Don't leave us in suspense, what's the result? Is the Theory of Evolution a bunch of made up lies that were pushed onto the unsuspecting science establishment and is held there by a conspiracy of ardent atheists bent on world domination?
I can understand how you would think so. Unlike pop history, I prefer to do research before reaching conclusions.
Does this conspiracy still hold sway over all scientists even though the Theory of Evolution can be easily disproved and the scientist disproving it would win the Nobel prize?
Seems this could be incongruous. Would 'all scientists' include those on the Nobel Prize Committee?
Please provide more evidence than a club of men who championed a theory that they thought was true.
Request noted.
No, there is no evidence of a connection, but that doesn't stop AIG from saying it is true.
And lack of evidence hasn't stopped you from falsely claiming AIG said something they didn't. I think I see how this works... Do you think the X Club's propaganda machine operated on similar principles?
The fact that scientists conclude that the evidence in the natural world supports the Theory of Evolution, is not evidence that those men pushed something onto the scientific establishment that they believed was not true. Their actions in getting support for the Theory of Evolution among scientists is not evidence that the Theory of Evolution is not true.
Damage control? You may need to do better.
Are you aware of the
conclusions of your fellow evolutionists* who've looked into the subject? Might they know what they're talking about, or is there some evidence they're blowing smoke?
I saw a thread where you claim this, but fail to support even one of your assertions.
Untrue. I provided three links supporting my claim that circular reasoning is invalid.
Why do you oppose this investigation?
If they are so easily deceived with evidence that you (don't know chemistry, don't know biology...by your own admission) can easily see through, then they must be pretty stupid.
My question wasn't answered I see. And I dispute that people lacking insights are stupid. It's rather difficult to learn what one isn't taught or doesn't observe. "Stupid," on the other hand, refers to people who consistently fail to learn things that are clearly presented to them, and even then one needs to allow for lack of aptitude in a given area.
Now that I think about it, there's a pattern: the more someone becomes involved in evolutionism, the less they seem capable of applying the rules of science. They contradict themselves more frequently, and their words make sense less frequently. Maybe there is some stupification involved at some point after all. 'Nother topic.
Another baseless claim with no evidence to support it whatsoever. Of course you'll start another topic. Bullcrap is cheap.
Oh, I wouldn't say "no evidence". I'm confident others have observed this pattern. It's not like effective steps are being employed to conceal it.
*I'm poor at remembering names. The list has some I don't recall. It may contain men of science in addition to evolutionists.
