In the latest act of media hyped pseudo-science, aka liberal/conventional science, the discovery of the crushed and flattened fossil of a lemur monkey, that while alive had a shattered left wrist, is being touted as the needed “proof” of Darwinian theory.
For the first time, all scientists interviewed freely admit that the theory of evolution had gaping holes in it. They just claim that all of the answers lie in the packaged, crushed fossil that spent the last 20 years hanging on someone’s wall. In other words, they admit that until yesterday, anyone who claimed that there was anything close to conclusive proof of evolutionary theory was wrong, despite having sold that line for decades. The extent of the absurdity of their new “proof” will be outlined below.
The media, which specializes in hyping the ordinary, went as far as to call this spectacle the possible eighth wonder of the world. These are the same crowd that revels in referring to every new president (regardless of party) as the next possible Lincoln or FDR, every foreign leader the next possible Churchill and every Vice President of the United States…. Well, I guess there are some things that even today’s media cannot hype.
Their latest over hyped fraud should be seen as shameful to both creationists and evolutionists alike - although for different reasons, as will be explained. But before we can delve into the substance of the issue, since we’re dealing with liberal “scientists” (as much as one can label as “scientists” members of a radical bunch that walks and thinks in lock step on all matters), I first need to foolproof the article as much as possible. Those who wish to advance to the meat of the issue would be advised to skip the next few paragraphs.
I’m writing this column for evolutionists who are not necessarily atheists. The difference between the two, aside from the obvious philosophical ones, is that it is possible to dialogue with many evolutionists. By contrast, most activist atheists, at least the kind you find on the internet, resort to spinning the words of their opponents or to other fun and games.
The difference was evident in the reaction to two articles that I wrote last year. The first was about logical proof of the existence of the Divine. I prefaced the column by writing that all arguments listed apply whether one believes in creationism or evolutionism and then proceeded to list the actual arguments. That preamble was ignored as hundreds on Richard Dawkins forum chose to twist one of my arguments (or part of one, to be precise), that the entire universe could not have come about “spontaneously,” meaning randomly and in and of itself (as atheists claim) and that the complexities needed to give life to a single organism necessitate conscious participation in creation.
The atheists spun “spontaneous” into “instantaneous” and then proceeded to attack words that I had not said, a favorite tactic of theirs when they’re on the losing side of an argument, with the folly of their illogical views close to be exposed. In the end, they even launched an all out campaign to have my column terminated or to have a liberal-approved “science editor” oversee my work (hardly the tactics they would use had my points been as imbecilic and invalid as they claimed). In so doing, they revealed the tactics they usually employ to ensure that their side is only one that is heard in the mainstream media.
At all times the atheists refused to discuss the premise of the actual article or the listed proofs of the Divine, instead concentrating their attacks on evolution (despite the fact there was nothing in the article about evolution, other than the premise that the arguments listed applied equally to those who believe in evolution as well as those who do not). When I pointed out the only thing they had proven was their own inability to read, they did not take too kindly to that. I followed up with a short article pointing out the folly of evolutionary theory, an article that was met with deafening silence.
At the same time, I also engaged in a debate with an atheist, supposedly about atheism. He too refused to discuss the actual matter of belief in a Divine being and instead centered his arguments on evolution. I obliged. What became clear in the process was that despite my lack of adherence to evolutionary theory and his steadfast and unwavering devotion to same, I was far more familiar with evolutionary theory he or his likeminded posters were. The staunch evolutionists were only able to quote group think and were ignorant of the intricacies and rationale behind the theory, rationale that falls apart upon proper dissection and analysis.
In short, the difference between plain evolutionists and atheist activists is that the former are generally more open to debate and discussion. To be sure, this is becoming less and less the case, due to perpetual losses in open debate against creationist scientists. But in general, it is usually the atheistic element within the evolutionist community that seeks to deny tenure to creationist professors, to censor their writings or to deny them employment in the first place. Non-atheistic evolutionists, by and large, are at least open to having a civil discussion on the matter.
The counters to evolutionary theory are many. The abundance of ape and human fossils and the scarcity of even possibly transitional forms is just one central argument. For a full overview of the farcical charts, groundless assumptions and other central problems with evolutionary theory, the reader is encouraged to first read the Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design and to then go on to the plethora of books discussing all aspects of the issue.
Much information is available on the web as well and for now I’ll concentrate on the longstanding problem of the lack of transitional fossils, a problem with evolutionary theory that almost every evolutionist I’ve come across has turned blue in the face saying denying. But in doing so, they argue with Darwin, as the lack of transitional forms is a central problem that he recognized within his own theory (Darwin felt that the passage of time and the unearthing of new fossils would solve this problem. He acknowledged that the inability to do so would all but disprove his theory if other fossils were excavated on mass. Given the plethora of fossils now recovered, we have our answer).
So it’s refreshingly honest to hear evolutionists admit that the lack of transitional fossils was a gaping hole and a giant question mark on their theory. It’s just sad that they now base their “proof” on the flattened fossil of lemur monkey, with a broken wrist to boot.
The scientists who now admit that evolution was an unprovable theory until the discovery of someone’s collection monkey overlook certain basic facts.
To begin with, the extra toe is similar to the myriads of monkeys who are born with extra digits. Periostitis may be a factor as well (i.e. the bone may have been inflamed). In any case, the fossil is crushed. And those would be valid points if there was any validity to the claim that the lemur fossil even qualifies for consideration as a transitional form. The plethora of non-transitional fossils, with equal amounts of carbon depletion, and the corresponding need to look for any hints of transitional signs in the one in umpteen thousand where any deformity is present (many caused by the aging or decay of the fossil), makes the case that true transition never occurred – for had the gradual transition central to the theory of evolution occurred, transitional fossils would be found in greater numbers than non-transitional ones (given natural reproductive rates) or at least be found in some substantive number.
Another point becomes crystal clear upon analysis of the entire issue. The liberal agenda has proven to be the death nail of conventional science. Gone is any rhyme or reason and logical analysis is held in disdain. Modern day conventional scientists, at least those who are sanctioned by official organizations, are parrots of left wing sociologists, pharmaceutical funders and/or panderers for politically driven grants. Contrary to the norms of any body engaged in the pursuit of truth, they silence and defame critics, doing so in unison and without second thought. When called to the floor for their bad behavior, they ridicule and defame the accuser in turn.
Evolutionary theory has also become the bedrock of liberal psychology, with devastating consequences. Instead of seeking to improve the human psyche and develop proper character traits and lifeskills, pop psychology all too often concerns itself with justifying and even encouraging feel good behavior that has long term destructive consequences. Evolution is central to this madness, in which people are encouraged to live like animals in pursuit of instant, hollow and quick ending self gratification, instead of living as human beings and striving to make a difference in their lives, in their families and in the world around them.
Scientists have finally admitted that the lack of transitional fossils presents a huge problem to the theory of evolution. They finally recognize Darwin’s own words that the lack of these fossils would disprove his theory if more fossils were excavated and transitional ones were not found. The honest among them may even admit that Darwin himself would reject evolutionary theory today, based on the multitude of fossils now excavated. But to resort to basing the case for his entire theory on a single lemur monkey with a fractured left wrist and flattened to a pancake over time is nothing short of insanity. Creationists and evolutionists should join forces in denouncing it.
This case finally reveals the flimsy foundation upon which evolutionary theory is based. That’s a reason for the scientific community to finally approach this subject honestly. But it’s no reason to take a fossil that proves nothing to either side of the debate and to have the media to suggest that it may just be “the eighth wonder of the world.” Doing so is an insult to both sides of the debate, as well as to the intelligence of the reading public. The only possible “eighth wonder” in this case is the monumental idiocy of the journalists and of the scientists involved in perpetrating this flattened, shattered lemur hoax.