#Complex #Integration: The #Fatal #Flaw Of #Evolution

By Mike King

The great and the good of the “intelligentsia” assure us that all “educated” people accept Charles Darwin’s Evolution as a indisputable fact of science that is "not open for debate." Now those superstitious "straw-men" bible-thumpers portrayed in the propaganda film Inherit the Wind may have a hard time accepting it; but even the slightest doubt can never be tolerated within the elite confines of the academic cool-kids club. Woodrow Wilson Warmonger of World War I fame, a former pointy-headed Princeton professor himself, put it this way:

“Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.”

And yet, neither Darwin, nor Wilson, nor the Communist ACLU Attorney Clarence Darrow (played by Spencer Tracy), nor any other “scientist” (bow your head in solemn reverence when you say that word) has ever adequately addressed the gaping holes of Darwin’s Dogma. The best rebuttal the "smart people" can muster consists of scorn, ridicule, charges of "stupidity" and even government force -- but never any true scientific or philosophical substance. Many of these holes are blown wide-open in the book: “God vs Darwin: The Logical Supremacy of Intelligent Design Creationism” (by yours truly). But for this particular piece, let us focus on what is perhaps the single biggest flaw of all

More #Evolution Nonsense About #Birdlike #Dinosaurs

Tongtianlong limosus, an unusual birdlike dinosaur, was unearthed in the Ganzhou region of China.

New York Times: A Dinosaur With a Beak and Feathers Unearthed in China

By KENNETH CHANG

REBUTTAL BY

http://tomatobubble.com/id1068.html

Today's rebuttal focuses on the Darwin's deluded dogma of "Evolution" TM -- specifically as it is said to relate to a new dinosaur unearthed in China. Before we begin to analyze a few select excerpts, let's us remind "youse guys" of what you probably learned in 8th grade, but may or may not have forgotten -- namely, the classic textbook definition of the "Scientific Method."

From the Oxford Dictionary:

Scientific Method: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

The key word is "the O Word" -- OBSERVATION. Darwin's deluded devotees can scream "SCIENCE!" in your face all they want; but if a theorized phenomenon - or iron-clad-after-the-fact forensic evidence of said phenomenon - are not OBSERVABLE, then it does not meet the standards of the Scientific Method. N.O. = N.S. (Not Observable = Not Science) Learn it. Love it. Live it.--- End of discussion. --- Got it? Good.

    

The "O Word" is more than just synonymous with science, it IS science; and no amount of fancy math equations, artistic renderings,computer models and academic bullying can ever substitute for it.

Now that 8th Grade Science class is complete, let's "observe" what Kenneth Chang's article is claiming.

 

***

 

Kenneth Chang: It had feathers and a beak.

 

Rebuttal: How do you know for certain that this creature had feathers? Only bone and beak fragments were discovered in the rock. A platypus has a beak but no feathers. The scientists are assuming feathers, not OBSERVING.

 

Kenneth Chang: It was the size of a donkey, and it did not fly. It was not a bird, but a dinosaur that was a close relative of birds.

 

Rebuttal: How do you know that this skeletal remnant this some odd-looking creature was "a close relative of birds?" Did anyone actually OBSERVE the transition of the alleged common ancestor into this feathered and beaked dinosaur on one branch; and birds on another branch? (Answer: No) To assume so merely on the basis of a few common characteristics amounts to reckless inference based upon wild conjecture.

 

Kenneth Chang: In a paper published on Thursday ... a team of scientists described a fossil of

#ApeMen Never #Existed - #HombreMono Nunca #Existió

EL HOMBRE MONO (APE MAN) NUNCA EXISTIÓ!

 atlanteanconspiracy,com

 

One of the first frauds in the history of Darwinism, known as “recapitulation theory,” and heralded as undeniable “proof of evolution,” was an idea proposed and propagated by a racist eugenicist Professor named Ernst Haeckel in the late 19th century.  A contemporary and friend of Charles Darwin and Thomas “Bulldog” Huxley, Haeckel postulated that human (and other animal) embryos experience a miniature form of the entire evolutionary impulse during their development in the womb, displaying first characteristics of fish, then reptile, and lastly mammalian or human.  It has long been eliminated from scientific literature, but many people and popular sources still unknowingly quote and believe in Haeckel’s fraudulent work.  Several popular

#Darwinian #Evolution Fails The #Scientific #Method

Here at TomatoBubble.com; we love all of our readers, including the Atheist / Evolutionists. From time to time an E-mail that reads something like the following will arrive in the inbox:

"Mike. I love your work but you really need to stick to history and current events. You do not understand the science behind Evolution and are only harming your credibility when you attack Darwin."

Though this type of feedback is certainly more cordial and tolerable than the occasional, "You are a stupid ignorant deranged 'Nazi' extremist who believes that a giant spaghetti monster created the universe in 7 days. Ha ha ha" - it is still a variation of the condescending you-do-not-understand-science ad hominem logical fallacy that Evolutionists always resort to. This rhetorical device is a weaponized trick that we shall now disarm. 

First of all, the lack of any extensive "scientific background" does not necessarily disqualify a logical thinker from expressing an opinion on Evolution or any other matter related to science. If a man observes a rapidly darkening sky on a brutally hot and humid summer afternoon; followed by a sudden temperature drop and distant rumbles of thunder; would his lack of a "background in meteorology" invalidate his opinion that rain is forthcoming?

If a man opts to take the elevator downstairs instead of simply jumping out of a 40th floor window and into his waiting convertible; would his lack of a "background in physics" invalidate his fear of jumping out of skyscrapers?

It doesn't take a scientist to discern the obvious.

This idea that any matters pertaining to science, or alleging to pertain to science, can only be discussed by those with the right "qualifications" is a clear example of another classic logical fallacy; the 'Appeal to Authority'. Every great philosopher from Buddha, to Confucius, to Plato, to Socrates, to Marcus Aurelius, to Jesus, to Schopenhauer and so many others specifically warned against the inherent errors associated with this type of boot-licking, group-thinking worship of authority figures. Buddha expressed the key to right thinking very well when he stated:

"Do not go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought."
 
In other words, "Don't assume things; and to hell with those diploma-decorated fools who think they know it all. Use your own reason and observation!"  And with that, let us dispense with this puffed-up patronizing rubbish about "lack of a scientific background" once and for all. You see, it doesn't take a "scientific background" to understand the basic and timeless principles of what is known as "The Scientific Method". Ironically, it is the hallowed Scientific Method which dooms the "theoretical science" of Darwinian Evolution to the toilet bowl of pseudo-scientific error.

 

Had Darwin studied Greek or Buddhist philosophy, he would never have made such a monkey of himself.

What is the Scientific Method?
The Scientific Method consists of the flow-chart steps shown in the following chart: