We're regularly treated here to a barrage of "proofs", of evidence that Evolution is a bald-faced lie. Here's the usual suspects:
1) Abiogenesis is an excuse invented by evolutionists to explain evolution.
Initial Startled Response (ISR)
: Huh? What's that you say? How are these two related?
They are not. Scientific Illiteracy (SciIll)
rears it's ugly but prolific head.
2) Evolution has no proof, just assumptions.
Huh? What's that you say?
again. There are now numerous and varied field and lab studies that absolutely confirm this species diversification method. All the key elements have likewise been irrefutably separated out and proven. Proven.
3) Creation explains everything we see in the real world, unlike evolution!
Huh? What's that you say? You missed all those published research proofs? Or perhaps you just wouldn't read the publications.
In fact, Creation does a very poor job of explaining even the recent obvious things we find in our world, much less all the contradictions and implausible observable facts. and those pesky fossils and that geological column..... sigh.
4) Dinosaur remains prove the co-existence of man and beast.
Huh? What's that you say? Proves how
Rather, what we have
found absolutely disproves any such co-existence. Disregarding that ambiguous and unrelated story from Job, mis-represented as some proof of cedar-tailed dragons, meaning "dinosaurs". Well of course!
We provide, on demand, concise, reproducable, documented hard evidence of each
of our contentions. To the point that there's no longer any real objection possible. Moreover, many of the world's top credible theists, Christian scientists and even the usually stubborn Catholic Church (who does not want to appear totally stupid or mired and stuck in medieval thinking...)
also agree with the facts of Evolution.
And therefore, the remnant loyal Creationists/Genesists, having been insurmountably
CORNERED, have defaulted to nonsense, mis-quoted repeat chantings. A sad commentary, and a rather dishonest and ineffective strategy. But please; check for yourselves.
Is there a defense of this strategy? Are the C/Grs capable of learning on this diverse and complex subject?