Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."

Phat:

---

OK I'll confess. I know little about what Darwin wrote.

Dredge:

---

Darwin was a famous nineteenth-century scientist and author who dabbled in both biology and fairy tales. One of his best fairy tales was the one about bears evolving into whales.
​
Unfortunately, some feeble-minded folks can't tell the difference Darwin's biology and his fairy tales.

---

---

It is not alway feeble-mindedness. In Phat's case, he just doesn't care. Drug resistance gives a demonstration of the fundamental way evolution (descent with modification) works and it causes tragic consequences.
Our antibiotics are no match for superbugs, and it’s a ‘global crisis,’ UN report says

The Miserable End of Darwinian Evolution“There can be no going downhill - species can’t get worse as a prelude to getting better.” – Page 91, Climbing Mount Improbable, by Richard Dawkins“It cannot be said often enough that Darwinian theory does not allow for getting temporarily worse in quest of a long-term goal.” – Ibid, Page 132“To say it again, going down the slopes of Mount Improbable is not allowed by Natural Selection.” – Ibid, Page 134“The fact of heredity sees to it that the accidental improvements found in each generation are accumulated over many generations. At the end of many generations of cumulative finding, a designoid object is produced which may make us gasp with admiration at the perfection of its apparent design.” – Ibid, Page 28
We shall now “gasp with admiration at the perfection” of the apparent design of Darwinian “selection” today.(Picture of one the many worst slums of Africa - Can't be shown)Slums are the fastest growing, i.e. Darwinian, human habit on earth today. Worldwide, over one billion humans live in them, 24% of all humanity.“Going down the slopes of Mount Improbable is not allowed by natural selection.” The billion plus humans living in slums are not going up any slopes other than trash.Making copies of ourselves “is every living object’s sole reason for living.” – Richard DawkinsThen Dawkins and his atheist accomplices are all losing the evolutionary battle, and for them, what else is there, really?
While religiously unaffiliated people currently make up 16% of the global population, only an estimated 10% of the world’s newborns between 2010 and 2015 were born to religiously unaffiliated mothers..
By 2055 to 2060, just 9% of all babies will be born to religiously unaffiliated women, while more than seven-in-ten will be born to either Muslims (36%) or Christians (35%). – PewResearch.org/religion/2017/04/05We could call this “The Tragedy of the Brights,” as they like to call themselves in smug, pretend superiority.The least educated of the world are the most Darwinian:(Graph of least educated countries, in Africa, and their ridiculously high birth rate)This is in stark contrast to some of the racist and anti-prophetic words of Charles Darwin, whose first book was titled, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.” – Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Chapter 3
The ten most fertile countries in the world are all populated by what Darwin referred to as “savages” or “dark races”.1. Niger: 7.27 children per woman.
2. Angola: 6.57 children per woman.
3. Democratic Republic of the Congo: 6.54 children per woman.
4. Mali: 6.49 children per woman.
5. Benin: 6.48 children per woman.
6. Chad: 6.47 children per woman.
7. Uganda: 6.45 children per woman.
8. Somalia: 6.43 children per woman.
9. South Sudan: 6.42 children per woman.
10. Burundi: 6.41 children per woman1. (Statista.com)The least educated also happen to be the least developed:(Graph can't be shown)And the poorest:(Graph can't be shown)In conclusion, Darwinism and its atheist advocates in particular, such as Richard Dawkins, married three times and only one child, are evolutionary failures.Science Books Challenging DarwinismIntelligent Design – The Bridge Between Science and Theology, William A. Dembski
Signature in the Cell- DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, by Stephen C. Meyer
The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities, by William A. Dembski
Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language, by Dembski et al
Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution, by Michael J. Behe
Intelligent Design: Message From the Designers, by Rael
Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, by Stephen C. Meyer
Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language by William A. Dembski
Undeniable, by Douglas Axe
Brilliant Creations – The Wonder of Nature and Life, by John Phillip JaegerTHE END
OF DARWINISM….

One billion people is ~12% of all humanity, not 24%. I suspect the rest of the numbers you are throwing out here are as equally erroneous! And we could call your smug superiority “The Tragedy of the Darks.”It's interesting that you think slums are some sort of refutation of evolution, when what we actually see is that populations surviving in harsh conditions tend to have broader range in variable characters that promote survival in their offspring. We might not see this in many human populations because humans tend to move around a lot, so there are never enough generations sequentially living in marginal habitats, like slums, to adapt, and slums in various cities and cultures are not equivalent habitats.Human culture evolves far more rapidly than human biology.

I quoted a website on slums and poverty. Whether a billion people living in squalor is 12% or 24% is really quite irrelevant when you consider how many a billion poor humans is.
But you're caught up in your own pseudo-intellectualism and if something doesn't fit with your political views, you can find a way to dismiss it and show everyone how much smarter you are than others.Here is the website I created to show others how the poorest people on earth live:The Miserable End of DarwinismIt's informative to most people if not you, Mister Dunning-Kruger.The insuperable statistics of original protein synthesis are an absolute refutation of Darwinism.Thousands of scientists and scholars have published papers, books and videos refuting your religious cult of Darwinism. A small sample of their comments and facts can be reviewed here: A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent | A topnotch WordPress.com site As to your bottom feeder:The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
​
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3Medical doctors "know the subject" and they kill 250,000 to 400,000 patients each year through malpractice. (Source: Mayo Clinic)As to the "scientific method" you cite so confidently, Ernst Haeckel drew fraudulent pictures of various embryos 150 years ago and they were reproduced and quoted "scientifically" into the 21st Century."A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it" - Max Planck (winner of the 1918 Nobel Prize in physics for quantum theory )If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance. - Orville Wright

The last universal common ancestor already had protein synthesis. Nothing at all would be changed in the theory of evolution if God created the first life and then all the biodiversity we see today evolved from that first created life.You might as well argue against our understanding of how germs cause disease because we don't understand where the first life came from. Or claim that we can't know how clouds form because we don't understand where the energy found at the start of the Big Bang came from. How many do they save? No one is saying that doctors are perfect. How would you determine that Haeckel is wrong without using the scientific method?

And yet, what YOU WROTE was twice the actual percentage, that's 2X, not even close to accurate! Maybe you could quote any political views I posted? As Taq already noted you seem to ignore the millions and millions of lives saved every year by medical doctors. Maybe your own political bias is showing.And now the only people referring to them are creationist nutjobs.

Please stop posting lengthy cut-n-pastes, even if just quoting yourself from another forum (in this case The Miserable End of Darwinian Evolution​). Each post should be an original contribution.I'm setting your post per day limit to 1.