Further Fake Evolution News Down at Deception Pass
Edited for wording on December 23, 2016
There's a great deal of talk these days about "fake news". As I understand the term, some sites write up "reports" for the Web that are entirely false, and people believe them. (These are unlike clearly identifiable parody sites.) But what about untrue news from sources that are considered reputable? Darwinists are cranking that stuff out mighty fast.
Over yonder at Deception Pass, the hands at the Darwin Ranch are getting a mite consternated. They're losing their grip on public sentiment, credible evidence, and even on reality. (The failure of "Lucy" made matters quite a bit worse for them.) To keep the funding coming in, they whip their ponies of persuasive propaganda into a gallop and commence to presenting strong evidence for evolution — or so they think. What really happens is that we get a passel of speculations, assertions, guesswork, bad reasoning, and the like that are passed off as "real science". Not hardly! But their devotion to Darwin is unflagging.
Part of the problem is the secular science press (such as with the "dinosaur feather in amber" nonsense). Scientists present non-science, and "journalists" go rip-roaring to their editors with fake news stories having grandiose claims that the scientists didn't even say. At least, not outright. Scientists were often using the "maybe", "we think", "must have happened", "perhaps", and related unconvincing phrases. No wonder there are still many people who are deceived by evolution, they believe what scientists say without using critical thinking and healthy skepticism. This here child contends that evolutionists don't want to know the truth of creation and the Creator, because they'll have to admit that they're accountable to him.
There's a great deal of talk these days about "fake news". As I understand the term, some sites write up "reports" for the Web that are entirely false, and people believe them. (These are unlike clearly identifiable parody sites.) But what about untrue news from sources that are considered reputable? Darwinists are cranking that stuff out mighty fast.
Over yonder at Deception Pass, the hands at the Darwin Ranch are getting a mite consternated. They're losing their grip on public sentiment, credible evidence, and even on reality. (The failure of "Lucy" made matters quite a bit worse for them.) To keep the funding coming in, they whip their ponies of persuasive propaganda into a gallop and commence to presenting strong evidence for evolution — or so they think. What really happens is that we get a passel of speculations, assertions, guesswork, bad reasoning, and the like that are passed off as "real science". Not hardly! But their devotion to Darwin is unflagging.
Part of the problem is the secular science press (such as with the "dinosaur feather in amber" nonsense). Scientists present non-science, and "journalists" go rip-roaring to their editors with fake news stories having grandiose claims that the scientists didn't even say. At least, not outright. Scientists were often using the "maybe", "we think", "must have happened", "perhaps", and related unconvincing phrases. No wonder there are still many people who are deceived by evolution, they believe what scientists say without using critical thinking and healthy skepticism. This here child contends that evolutionists don't want to know the truth of creation and the Creator, because they'll have to admit that they're accountable to him.
Mainstream science media cast a false illusion of Darwinism’s success by making promises in the headlines that the articles don’t deliver.To see some amazing examples of false science, click on "Empty Promises from Darwin Storytellers".
If all you read are the headlines at major science sites, you are being tricked when it comes to evolution. They regularly announce that some evolutionary mystery has been solved, but then the details down below don’t show that. The headline promises a scientific explanation, in the form, “How the [whatever] got its [whatzit],” but then all you read is a Kipling-like just-so story. Reporters and journals seem preoccupied with making Darwin look good at all costs. Below are some examples of the Darwin media racket at work.