False Claims of Observed Evolution

Posted by -

So it is 2025, and my unregistered assault keyboard is still under warranty despite heavy use.

Proponents of minerals-to-machinist evolution desperately want to convince other people that they are right, pretending the Creator does not exist (Rom. 1:18-23). We have seen shenanigans and hooey used as propaganda. Definitions of words are changed, speciation and variations are called evolution — but no creature has become something else. Indeed, it appears that many of Darwin's disciples do not understand the basics of evolution themselves, so they blow smoke just like Charlie did!

Mostly made at PhotoFunia
Atheists and other secularists tell people what to think about origins.  Biblical creationists want people to learn how to think — and why.

There was a fellow who seemed to live in fear, so whenever a new assertion was made by evolutionists, he would contact others and me, asking, "This can be refuted, right?" Aside from having faith in ever-changing apparent evidence instead of the inerrant Word of God, he resisted our efforts to teach him critical thinking and a bit of patience.

Most creationists do not want parents to shield their children from evolution because they're going to learn it anyway. What they will get in secular indoctrination centers (that is, public schools) is a polished version that omits failings and known dishonesty. They will be given much of what the public is given but more intensely: Those variations, speciation, and natural selection prove that the general theory of evolution is right, which is the fallacy of conflation.

Here we are (other creationists and myself) trying to teach you so you can protect yourselves and also share some wisdom with others.

Okay, I rode off the main trail a mite, didn't I? Well, it was important. Here we are back to the subject of this post: Examples of evolutionary jiggery-pokery.
Why is it necessary to teach Darwinians about their own theory? Charles Darwin’s book was about the origin of species, not variations within species. He wanted to explain bacteria to brains, goo to you, and fish to Gish by a slow, gradual process of natural selection (the Stuff Happens Law). Do any of the following claims of “evolution in real time” qualify as support for such a grand scheme?

I'd be much obliged of y'all would start the New Year off right and read the rest of "Imaginary Evolution in Real Time."