“Without getting into the “science” of evolution, or the ongoing controversy that continues to be a popular topic for debate, let’s just look at the underlying heart of this matter… the reason behind the invention of this theory.
It is widely known that the two main characters in this debate are theist, and atheist. It is also widely known that there are two completely different mindsets behind this and other issues surrounding theism and atheism. There are “how” people, and there are “why” people. Interestingly the “how” people seem to be a victim of their own belief, which ironically is what the “why” people claim will happen to anyone and everyone that does not accept the truth of their mindset. So…
What does the “available” evidence actually show?
It shows that only one truth can be “actually”true, obviously. One other thing for those that believe that evolution is “now a proven fact” (again). Facts are not controversial.
The “how” people say they have find out “how this happens”, and claim this…”this has been and still is a “state of “never-ending involvement” (evolution). They seem to be blind to the absurdity of something being “how this happens” one day, and the fact that if it ever changes once, at all…then that was never how it happened in the first place. Although these people (naturalist) invent new “hows” to every objection and correction to the theory their opponent makes against their ever evolving theory (that is said to be a “fact), they seem to remain blind to the absurdity of “ever evolving truth”.
So let’s look at some of the other rather ironic absurdities of this theory.
Fossils. I will never understand how anyone can say that something is the evidence used to reach a conclusion, and then make excuses about why they can not produce any of it. If you can’t produce any of the evidence you used to reach your conclusion, how can you prove your conclusion is based on evidence? Oh, I almost forgot to mention that this evidence and “fact presented to the world” as “what actually happened”; or this “truth” …has since then evolved as well. They no longer point to fossils as evidence.
Instead, we now have an “evolutionary tree of life” with branches to our common distant relatives (aunts, uncles, cousins, etc…) that makes it impossible to determine which animals morphed into which other animal or come up with a coherent chain of events, but it did provided a good excuse for the lack of the fossil records, and it did provide them with a “new replacement truth”…fossils take too long…They are rare and hard to find…blah, blah, blah..
…really? Then how could they be evidence of “the truth of yesterday” and proof for your theory that is still forced on society as “true”? And how can you point to any of that as “part of the evolution, and hold fast to the claim that “This came FROM that, when THAT was never true in the first place?
In fact, how can you now show us why that was not “just a lie that was made up” in the first place”? This is not the real shinkicking irony and obvious absurdity of this theory though. Their reason for it is.
So let’s move on to “the reason” for evolution. Survival.
If we naturally evolved and these “changes” were to make (the evolving soup) better equipped to survive in the environment, then why did the monkey people who lived outside in the elements survive “until” their replacement arrived on the scene, THEN die out (or apparently “lose their ability to survive”) …and become extinct?
Their successors, and following progressions to “modern-day man” can not survive at all in the natural environment, or “out in the open”…they will freeze to death, dehydrate, starve to death, be eaten by a cousin, or meet some other such haphazard calamity as the evidence clearly shows they actually do and will.
I don’t think this theory of changing to better equip the evolving soup for the purpose of survival checks out either.
This post is already too long, and there are many other ironic and absurd problems with this theory that we can discuss below, so I will wrap up with this absurdity.
Out of all the “differences” this one bowl of soup has “morphed into”, why can’t we carry on a discussion (such as this one) with any of our “common cousins” that are said to have the same parents”, such as grasshoppers? Just as “monkeyman” lost his ability to survive, the other “branches” seem to be losing abilities, not gaining them, and “therefore” becoming “better equipped to survive”…
You really think anyone is not going to bring up the fact that “aside from survival” ALL of these the “other branches” are now gone? This raise another absurdity. If they are “gone now” because they have been “replaced” by new and improved versions of “themselves”, then this begs the question; how is it possible that they “inherited” BETTER genes if the gene pool they inherit from couldn’t “survive”? I am sure they have an explanation that will attempt to take your mind off of this fact; the former did not “survive”, and the latter are “less able” to survive in the current “natural” environment, which makes the reasoning of survival = “this species”
can not survive, and neither will their successors in a natural environment.
So the purpose of evolving life is suicide and extinction.
All of this can be explained away (and usually is by added absurdities), but in the meantime there are no “new species” that can be shown FROM ANY AVAILABLE SOURCE PERIOD, yet they claim to know the age of the earth, and everything that has happened on the earth since it’s “birth”.
Just so you know, everyone on the planet is not blind to absurdity, and many are aware of what is actually happening. Many of us are also aware of the outcome. So enjoy this while you have time.
Oh, and one more thing. I almost forgot one more absurd fact about this evolving debate…
…The opposition to evolution has never changed their argument once, not one word of it, in thousands of years.
We were created and designed by an intelligent Creator.