[Elpasser]

What "observations?" Whenever there is an observation that doesn't fit into the evolutionary paradigm, it is either ignored or the evolutionary theory becomes ever more preposterous to accommodate it. Like the recent backwards evolution nonsense.

I chuckled to see how evolutionists reverently embraced the kooky story about the Turkish family crawling around on their knuckles! How eager to believe!

[Dimensio]

What "observations?" Whenever there is an observation that doesn't fit into the evolutionary paradigm, it is either ignored or the evolutionary theory becomes ever more preposterous to accommodate it. Like the recent backwards evolution nonsense.

Perhaps you could elaborate on this, by providing a specific example. I chuckled to see how evolutionists reverently embraced the kooky story about the Turkish family crawling around on their knuckles!

What do you mean by "reverently embraced"? Please provide references.

[hawkaw]

What "observations?" Whenever there is an observation that doesn't fit into the evolutionary paradigm, it is either ignored or the evolutionary theory becomes ever more preposterous to accommodate it. Like the recent backwards evolution nonsense.

That's a flat out lie.

If an observation from a test shows the scientific theory to be wrong then the scientific theory becomes invalid. The test must be repeated and repeated and of course everything must be peer reviewed in order to be published.

Scientific theories are not absolute.

Quit making stuff up.

[Virginia-American]

Whenever there is an observation that doesn't fit into the evolutionary paradigm, it is either ignored or the evolutionary theory becomes ever more preposterous to accommodate it

Or, as in the case of the Piltdown Man fraud, it's debunked.