Again total nonsense. The data just isn't there, certainly in the fossel record to support Darwinism. That's why Harvard evolution guru Stephen Gould came up with his theory of punctuated equilibrium, to deal with the fact there is no date to support classic Darwinism. The trouble is, there is no data to support puntuated equilibrium either. Science is based on observation and measurement. Evolution has never been observed and the theory can't be faslified, another scientific flaw. It is a mere tautology.
“Evolution has never been observed and the theory can’t be faslified, another scientific flaw. It is a mere tautology.”
Spirited: Exactly. Furthermore, true science can know nothing about events that occured before time, life, conscious awareness and death even existed.
In this sense, contemporary evolutionary naturalism resides alongside of all pagan evolutionary cosmogonies extending back to the ancient Babylonian Enuma Elish which speaks of all things emerging (evolving) out of already existing primordial waters (matter).
In his international bestseller, “The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality,” France’s preeminent contemporary philosopher Andre Comte Sponville confesses that though he knows God exists “straight up” (outside the space-time dimension) he is nevertheless offended by Jesus Christ God incarnate.
In a general sense Sponville speaks for all Westerners who are uncomfortable with or outright offended by Jesus Christ God incarnate. And having rejected Him they must in turn reject eternal life in Paradise and instead anchor their hopes in nihilism, the “nothingness” that is left to them: spontaneous generation and evolutionary naturalism along with the idea that “We are already in the kingdom. Eternity is now.” (p. 206)
Really? Do you have any clue how the scientific method works, or how theories are developed and refined over time? Have you ever examined any evolutionary evidence for yourself, and do you have any of the background knowledge needed to understand the evidence? (And by evidence, I mean any evidence, not just the fossil record. Geology, molecular biology, taxonomy, astronomy... any number of science disciplines will do.)
Yeah, I didn't think so. How about you learn the actual basis of the theories regarding the nature of the physical world before you try to make comments about it?