[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "If evolutionists had performed like real scientists, and followed the scientific method, like Newton, they would have sought to falsify the works of Darwin and Lyell in the beginning (as some did,) rather than justify their theories in whatever way possible, even fraud.
You seldom hear of that by the "establishment" these days, but fraud was rampant among evolutionists from the beginning."

The fact is that over the past 150+ years many new ideas have been added to Darwin's basic evolution theory, but the theory itself has never been falsified.
Here is a list of evolution predictions later confirmed.

Here is a listing of "9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False"

1. Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

2. Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong
   The article falsely claims the famous Archaeopteryx fossil is a fraud, but there are 11 such fossils found so far plus many more similar in China and nobody has claimed they are all frauds.
   So the anti-evolution case depends on lies.

3. Scientific Fact No. 3 - Missing Inferior Evolutionary Branches

4. Scientific Fact No. 4 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

5. Scientific Fact No. 5 - Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong

6. Scientific Fact No. 6 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

7. Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

8. Scientific Fact No. 8 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

9. Scientific Fact No. 9 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

In fact, none of these "prove" anything about Darwin's basic evolution theory -- 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection, long term, produce new species.
Even Danny Denier Kalamata, for all his boisterous claims, admits that the alleged "species barrier" is no real barrier at all and the supposedly "inviolable barriers" begin at the "Family" (aka "kind") taxonomic category.
Well, a lot of evolution happens before a population reaches the alleged "family barrier".

Kalamata's response: "that's not evolution".
But it is.

Here is a listing of facts which, if true, would actually falsify evolution.

This site lists several noteworthy frauds -- Piltdown, Haeckel, Nebraska & Protsch implying these represent the full body of scientific work on evolution over 150+ years.
In fact they represent only an infinitesimal fraction of it and even this site (eventually) concludes:

"Evolutionists are quick to point out that this is how science works—that it is self-correcting.
And there is a great deal of truth to that statement.
However, one must question how such scientists can continue to support evolution being taught as “fact,” knowing that much of what we believe to be true today will have to be “self-corrected” in the future."

Long-term evolution should never be taught as "fact" since it's a theory, a confirmed explanation, based on literal mountains of facts.
Short-term evolution, aka "adaptation" or "micro-evolution" is observed fact, Kalamata's "heroic" efforts to define it away notwithstanding.

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata: "If evolutionists had performed like real scientists, and followed the scientific method, like Newton, they would have sought to falsify the works of Darwin and Lyell in the beginning (as some did,) rather than justify their theories in whatever way possible, even fraud. You seldom hear of that by the "establishment" these days, but fraud was rampant among evolutionists from the beginning."
>>Joey wrote: "The fact is that over the past 150+ years many new ideas have been added to Darwin's basic evolution theory, but the theory itself has never been falsified."

That is a serious problem, not that evolution has not been falsified, but that evolutionists will not allow it to be falsified. When evolution IS falsified, which has happened many times, evolutionists scramble to invent a new process with a fancy-sounding name, that deceptively explains-away the falsification, (like "convergent" evolution, or evolutionary "co-option,") about which they trumpet, "See? Evolution was NOT falsified!" Nothing changed, except the rhetoric.

Over the years, that deception has been performed so many times that no matter what happens, it is touted as evidence of evolution. That is not science.

What evolutionists will not tell you is that most all observances claimed to be evidence of evolution are also evidence of special creation. Special creation predicts variations within the species, and that those species will always remain within the family they were created in -- canines will always be canines, people will always be people, bacteria will always be bacteria, and etc.. That is observable and testable science.

The part that makes evolution unique is common descent (aka, macroevolution,) which has never been observed, neither in the fossil record, in nature, nor in a laboratory. As long as common descent remains unobservable, the scientific evidence fits special creation better, or, put another way, special creation IS science.

*******************

>>Joey wrote: "Here is a list of evolution predictions later confirmed."

The truth is, without common descent, there is no evolution, Not one truthful thing in that list is evidence of common descent. The things that are false, such as the overhyped claim of transitional fossil series, might be evidence of common descent, if they were true.

*******************

>>Joey wrote: "Here is a listing of "9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False"

LOL! Not surprisingly, Joey picked an amateurish website to try to discredit creationism/ID. He would never attempt this shenanigan using one of the major creation sites, such as ICR.org, Creation.com, or AnswersInGenesis.org, which are staffed with well-educated PhD's and MD'S.

Try this page for questions that evolutionists should be asked:

15 Questions for Evolutonists

My favorite question to ask is, can you show us evidence for common descent -- any evidence. It never fails that evolutionists, like Joey, trot out a bucket of fish heads to stink up the place; but they never present any solid evidence for common descent, because there is none. Common descent can be found only in museum mock-ups, imaginary artistic drawings, in "science" lectures, and in text books. It has never been observed in the real world.

*******************

>>Joey wrote: "Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong"

See what I mean? No one believes that. The author is an amateur, but somehow Joey found him in the midst of all the PhD's and MD's that believe in special creation and intelligent design! That is truly remarkable journalistic prowess!

Joey reminds me of the typical MSM journalist who visits a conservative political rally, and somehow is able to find the only space alien in the crowd, which is then presented as the typical conservative. The Left is famous for that tactic. The truth is meaningless to them, except on the rare occasion when the truth actually serves as a means to the end in promoting their warped ideology.

That said, retired Cornell professor John Sanford, author of "Genetic Entropy", claims Charles Darwin didn't understand Natural Selection:

How Darwin Got It Wrong

I recommend watching the entire lecture.

*******************

>>Joey wrote: "The article falsely claims the famous Archaeopteryx fossil is a fraud, but there are 11 such fossils found so far plus many more similar in China and nobody has claimed they are all frauds." Again, Joey presents this amateur as typical of creation/ID researchers. One of the world's leading ornithologists, evolutionist Alan Feduccia, UNC, said the Archaeopteryx is a bird. That is good enough for me:

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that." [Alan Feduccia, in Virginia Morell, "Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms." Science, Vol.259, Iss.5096; Feb 5, 1993, p.764]

Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms

Years ago, there was a fraudulent bird, hyped-up in National Geographic, that had a similar name -- the Archaeoraptor:

Major Evolutionary Blunders

*******************

>>Joey wrote: "So the anti-evolution case depends on lies."

Again, Joey presents this amateur as typical of creation/ID researchers. Evolution is a lie. Anti-evolutionists need only tell the truth to expose them.

*******************

>>Joey wrote: "In fact, none of these "prove" anything about Darwin's basic evolution theory -- 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection, long term, produce new species."

Joey fails to mention that there is no way to prove a historical science, and that common descent has never been observed in any way, shape or form.

*******************
>>Joey wrote: "Even Danny Denier Kalamata, for all his boisterous claims, admits that the alleged "species barrier" is no real barrier at all and the supposedly "inviolable barriers" begin at the "Family" (aka "kind") taxonomic category."

Joey is playing rhetoric games, again. Genetic research has shown that species cannot cross over the genetic boundary into another family. That includes humans. Yes, humans have never evolved. We are today the same as in the day man was created, except for the accumulation of a gazillion deleterious mutations along the way.

Some college students and evolutionary professors were asked for evidence of common descent. The professors are Peter Nonacs, Craig Stanford, PZ Myers, and Gail E. Kennedy. Their answers are exactly what you would expect from those who accept evolution as their faith-based religion:

Evolution vs. God (Interviews)

*******************

>>Joey wrote: "Well, a lot of evolution happens before a population reaches the alleged "family barrier". Kalamata's response: "that's not evolution". But it is.

That is true, but loaded with deceptive rhetoric. There is absolutely no evidence of any new genetic material ever evolved. Without new genetic information, there is no evolution, by definition. There is plenty of devolution, or loss of genetic information, but no evolution. Joey's pretense that devolution is evolution is pure sophistry.

Existing genomes are "reshuffled" and mutated over the generations to bring out various created and inherited characteristics. But none allow a species of one family to cross over into another family. The only conclusion is that organisms are intelligently-designed and/or specially-created.

*******************

>>Joey wrote: "This site lists several noteworthy frauds -- Piltdown, Haeckel, Nebraska & Protsch implying these represent the full body of scientific work on evolution over 150+ years."

That is not all evolutionists have accomplished. Besides wasting taxpayer money, they have created a few additional frauds.

*******************

>>Joey wrote: "In fact they represent only an infinitesimal fraction of it and even this site (eventually) concludes: "Evolutionists are quick to point out that this is how science works—that it is self-correcting. And there is a great deal of truth to that statement. However, one must question how such scientists can continue to support evolution being taught as “fact,” knowing that much of what we believe to be true today will have to be “self-corrected” in the future." Long-term evolution should never be taught as "fact" since it's a theory, a confirmed explanation, based on literal mountains of facts. Short-term evolution, aka "adaptation" or "micro-evolution" is observed fact, Kalamata's "heroic" efforts to define it away notwithstanding."

Joey is loaded with deceptive rhetoric. Creationists are okay with the term micro-evolution, as long as it is understood that there is no evolution involved -- no increase in genetic information. The only processes at work are gene reshuffling and devolution, which is a loss of genetic information.

Mr. Kalamata