News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Why is This So Difficult?

I know.

It's for the same reason the world is in a mess:

EVIL.

Too many people have no conscience. They lie, misrepresent, and have no integrity. Some just enjoy expressing their power by wreaking havoc.

Redefining evolution as natural selection does nothing for the integrity of evolutionists. This attempt to revise history is nothing more than a lie. But if it were not a lie, then all of the information relating to evolution that has been taught in high school to everyone I know has been a lie. In either case, Hovind was right!

The world is full of lies, and it is these lies that cause strife, and the desire we have to believe them:

We covet.

So, why is this so difficult, whether we're speaking of managing a forum of people or managing the world?

Because people covet lies, and evil has no shortage of lies to continue feeding our covetousness.

Maybe we should just call lying what it is:

EVIL

I put my thoughts and questions on this on another post - but what if the definition has changed? Since I've been on here I've been told several times the soup to man thoughts are now called "abiogenesis." Maybe the ideas on evolution have "evolved" or else they've labeled it differently at least... I don't know.... But I still hold they aren't all evil. I don't believe in evolution myself, but there are a lot of questions and apparent variations on the degree, at least, that its believed. Some do still accept the creation....or Christianity. We don't know details on this issue yet...even from a Biblical or scriptural sense.

Unfortunately, our expert on this topic, who created threads about the definition of evolution, is gone. You can still read the dedicated threads though.

Look at any science website and you will see that evolution is the change in heritable traits over time. The usual process driving this is mutation and natural selection, though there are others. Abiogenesis is a separate theory. No I'm not making this up. Yes you really can Google it.

Note that Russ repeats the same contrary claims over and over rather than attempting to actually disprove any of them. See if you can find any evidence anywhere here.

This is a delightfully accurate assessment of the definition shell-game.

Consider: if your football team isn't good enough to make it to the endzone; if your place kicker lacks the power and accuracy to score a field goal; the simplest way to give your team a shot is obvious. MOVE THE GOALPOSTS. "Lowering the bar" is another way of expressing the idea.

Evolutionism is a dismal failure. Their "theory" turns out not to even be a testable hypothesis in experimental science; the evidence submitted to substantiate it is circular; I could go on and on. Proponents of evolutionism have time after time stated the shortcomings themselves. It was not a creationist who first recognized the degree of faith involved in being an evolutionist.

Term after term after term has been redefined.

Transitional
Evolution
Mutation
Species
Vestigial
(A)ether
Recombination

In every case, the bar has been lowered and obfuscation has been facilitated. There is not even one exception. Not one!

These are a few terms. But it goes much further. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been misportrayed more times than you can shake a stick at. If it only applied to "closed" systems, as evolutionists insist, it could never have been discovered in the first place. It was discovered, verified, utilized, and universally accepted on Earth; and the evolutionist is very keen on reminding folks that Earth isn't a "closed" system. This lie cannot be believed if one tries!

Recapitulation has been redefined as well. It is accurately defined as exactly the same thing they still teach, with the sole exception that it is politically incorrect/taboo to use the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" slogan. It has endured a rewrite of history in order to facilitate its perpetuation. I explain and provide a link or two in the "Recap Frauds" thread.

It would depend on which ideas you're talking about. The keystone ideas have been acknowledged by evolutionists as inevitably resulting in evil if applied. A "science" that cannot be applied is a waste of time.

T.H. Huxley once wrote a piece that demonstrated civilization was surely doomed if evolution should not be applied, and in the same piece turned around and argued that it would be wrong to apply it. He put mankind between a rock and a hard place, and offered no remedy. His apologists maintain that his argument that evolution must be applied is rendered non-existent/null by his subsequent assertion that it would be wrong. The first argument is not refuted at all; the conclusion is just denied (on questionable grounds a good number of people would not even care about, likely including Huxley himself). Many followers have had no trouble interpreting what he intended. A valid, logical argument followed by a lame, ineffective counter-argument is not difficult to interpret, even if it is double-talk. IMO he didn't want to fog over his real intent very thickly, and it's just bogus to claim he effectively obscured it.

Even Richard Dawkins says evolution would result in horrific things if applied to humans. He says it shouldn't be done. But he does advocate defining the teaching of "religious" ideas to children as child abuse; he suggests all "religious" people are mentally ill. You've seen RAZD post some of what he says about anyone who won't swallow evolutionism. He says discussion of eugenics should begin again. I cannot interpret him as anything other than "get rid of religion and implement full-scale evolutionism".

Dawkins could be taken for Huxley by those who believe in reincarnation.
It doesn't help the investigation when to ask the wrong question or point out the wrong fact is to risk one's career. Honest ideas don't generally have to resort to such measures as are taken in defense of evolutionism.

Thanks for demonstrating that the bar must be lowered even in regards to the term 'expert'. No element of the English language is safe.

ID includes people who accept Darwinism, yet refuse to rule out intelligence altogether. For this refusal, they are labeled "creationists". You are welcome to believe in a 'god' that never did anything or is purely imaginary. Politically, evolutionism is not prepared to expel such persons until the day when the numbers/power structure are secure enough to persecute even these.

The only think ID questions unanimously is that abiogenesis took place without any intelligent agent. If the issue was separate, there'd be no need to expel even agnostics who simply refuse to rule out something which cannot scientifically be ruled out.

This is not accurate. Russ has written several very long posts containing sound arguments. He has done research and provided quotes from evolutionists as well as creationists who are scientists and are qualified to evaluate evolutionism's shortcomings.

One wonders how you define "attempting to disprove". I expect physical force such as a stick up 'side the head is the only thing that has a chance, and he can't be faulted for failing to supply you with such. ...not much, anyway.

One wonders why you say such things. Everyone knows you've been present and responded to Russ' posts. It is futile to downplay his efforts. I suspect you're trying to see just how much you can get away with.

Jeannie,

I understand what you're saying, so let me tell you what the problem with relabeling evolution is.

They are trying to relabel evolution as natural selection, but there are problems of integrity in attempting to do this:

(1) They are attempting to deny that evolution was ever considered abiogenesis. This is a lie.

(2) Natural selection already has a label. Why add another label to it? Answer: Confusion, like the shell game.

Clearly, with new technology and information being exposed, it is becoming clear that abiogenesis is stupid, so the priests of evolution are changing history. I'm not talking about the laypeople here, such as LindaLou. I'm talking about those who produce this ridiculous information.

So why are they doing this?

They are attempting to salvage faith in the evolution religion by changing its definition to something that is far less stupid: "Natural Selection"

This is dishonest, to say the least.

We should just be honest and say that all of the stuff that has been taught in schools and textbooks saying that evolution is rock-to-man theology is wrong. That would be the honest and responsible thing to do.

But the leaders of the evolution religion cannot do that because that would provoke people to begin questioning the integrity of the evolution priests, and they don't want that. They don't want their congregation to lose faith in them or to start realizing the value of their own common sense. It's far easier to retain the faith of the evolution congregation by lying.

The great irony here is that most evolutionists believe that Christianity is deceptive and manipulative, when in fact, the opposite is true.

Evolution is very deceptive, even from it's very foundation.

If you haven't already, I would strongly suggest watching these. Very good stuff:

Why Was The Flat-Earth Myth Promoted? (video)
http://urlbam.com/ha/M001F

Redefining Evolution: The Grand Retreat Begins (Video)
http://urlbam.com/ha/M000Z

Lies In The Textbooks (video)
http://urlbam.com/ha/K