Wait a second. It's the evolutionists who came up with their unprovable (meaning neither measurable, observable, nor repeatable) and ever-evolving theory as a way to kill God.
Wow, I guess the creationist misrepresentations *aren't* going to stop.
Sorry, but you're very mistaken and/or misinformed. First, evolution is indeed measurable, observable, and repeatable. You've been reading too many creationist screeds about evolution and not enough science.
Second, evolution is not "ever evolving", at least not in the sense you mean it. The basics of the theory of evolution are unchanged from Darwin's original concepts.
Finally, evolution was not "come up with" as "a way to kill God". That notion is just false, bizarre, and more than a bit paranoid. Evolution was developed as a way to best explain the evidence. That's what makes it one of those "scientific theory" things you must have heard about between revival meetings.
Therefore, it is the consistent evolutionist, having no fear of God,
How do the millions of Christian evolutionists fit into your tidy little oversimplistic view? Or did I just make your head explode?
who would have the greater propensity to lie and deceive, insofar as his atheistic world is, well, atheistic
Not that I've noticed, frankly.
(I won't bother here with theistic evolution as it is a farce).
There are millions of Christians who disagree with you on that. And you can't make the obvious hole (e.g. many evolutionists are Christian) in your ridiculous premise ("evolutionists are atheists") go away just by declaring that you "won't bother with" it. Not if you want to avoid being laughed at, I mean.
The creationist holds his views in a theistic framework guided by principles like honesty, as codified in the Ninth Commandment.
In theory, anyway. There are any number of obvious exceptions.
Your charge lacks both consistency and intellectual honesty,
Okay, let me get this straight -- your argument is that "'fits and starts' defy traditional evolutionary thought" can't possibly be a misrepresentation because it's simply not possible for creationists to make a misrepresentation? *And* that evolutionist must obviously be lying if they say that it is because they're all godless heathens with nothing them stopping them from lying?
Go ahead, pull the other leg know.
Or at least proofread your posts for ludicrousness before you send them.
But hey, son, just to demonstrate how your "masterful" armchair ehtical analysis turns out to be dead flat wrong somehow, let me provide black-and-white proof that "fits and starts" are *indeed* part of "traditional evolutionary thought", and do not "defy" it as some creationist misrepresented the case, by quoting the most "traditional evolutionary thought" of all (Darwin's original book on evolution) where he was quite clearly talking about evolution proceeding in "fits and starts":
I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed." (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 140-141)This is classic Punctuated Equilibrium -- from Charles Darwin in 1859.But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification. (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 152)
"It is a more important consideration ... that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change." (Darwin, Ch. 10, "On the imperfection of the geological record," p. 428)
"Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
[All quotes from Darwin's 1859 "On the Origin of Species"]
Evolution by "fits and starts" is *indeed* part of "traditional evolutionary thought". QED. And any creationist who claims otherwise is engaging in misrepresentation.
So the next time you're tempted to jerk that knee and fall into the all too common creationist mindset of, "anything a creationist says must be right and anything an evolutionist says must be a lie", remember that sooner or later it's wise to actually do a reality check and FIND OUT which side happens to be correct on any given point.
It's also worth noting that the whole purpose of the scientific method is to make sure you *do* reality checks (that's what experiments etc. are all about), while the pitfall of Faith (with a capital "F") is that it can lead you to believe that you don't *need* to do any reality checks in the things you have Faith about (indeed, the notion is often that one should *discard* any reality checks that happen to contradict the Faith, as they are devilish tricks and temptations).
Faith can be a wonderful thing, but the wise man realizes that it can at times be mistaken. Believing in something hard enough (like the alleged infallibility of creationists on science matters) doesn't make it automatically true.
Where has it been measured? observed? Repeated? I took a year of paleontology as an undergraduate Geology student. I never saw so manu hypothetical protomorphs and ancestral stocks joined by more dotted lines than the interstate highway system--and that never came close to Humans.
"Evolution" is so full of missing links that it is just a theory, not gospel. Besides, Darwin stole the idea from Wallace, anyway.