Facts and Opinions

It seems to me evolutionists have a difficult time distinguishing facts from opinions. Facts are facts; opinions are facts--heck, everything an evolutionist says is a fact, or so it's insinuated. But the fact is, this is nonsense. First, a little clarification is in order:

A fact is something demonstrably true. For example, if I say, "The force of gravity exists," that's a fact. It's defined as such because I can take you up on top of my house and reveal its existence to you. In fact, I can demonstrate it as many times as necessary--in other words, until you tire of getting pushed off the roof.

But what if I declare, "I believe dinosaurs still exist."? Obviously, that's my opinion. Sure, Tyrannosaurs very well may be stomping wattle huts flat in the Amazon, devouring the natives even as they conspire in the destruction of another pristine rainforest; and Velociraptors may be chasing down lions in the Serengeti, as we speak. But I cannot prove this for certain; it's not something I can determine beyond question. Of course, this doesn't address whether or not I'm correct. It's simply an unknown.

So facts are established truth. Opinions may or may not be true, but we lack conclusive information.

Enter the all-wise, all-seeing evolutionist. He assures us of his knowledge by making the statement, "Certain organisms share similar body structures. To elaborate, the bat's wing, the porpoise's fin, and the human hand all have common characteristics, though they differ in size and shape."

So far, so good. He's dabbling in the realm of the factual, for the moment. X-rays or drawings of these structures do show similarities.

Then, raising his nose a wee bit higher in the air, the evolutionist steps out of the factual dimension and into that of speculation. "Therefore," he concludes, "since these organisms all identify with each other through certain characteristics, they must have descended from a common ancestor." This is a logical end only for those who accept atheistic Darwinian evolution as fact, or who suppose that God uses evolution as His primary means of creating species. For others, this pronouncement is anything but obvious.

So we have a factual statement used as a stepping stone to a speculative utterance.

Personally, I have nothing against speculation. Possibilities make life more intriguing. Such ruminating often opens doors and leads to the discovery of hard facts.

Though speculation plays an important role in learning, it is not science. Science deals in empirical methods. In certainties. In tangibilities. This poses a great problem for evolutionists, whose worldview constitutes a collision of opinions and facts that do not support each other. The fossil record, growing ever larger by the year, does not bear out the notion that organisms having similar structures descended from a common ancestor. The transitional forms don't exist, and what the fossils do show are fully formed organisms from their first appearance in the record. So this belief is a contradiction of the known facts.

Worse, the evolutionist makes no distinction between his first and second allegation. In his mind, both are factual. Any conclusion that does not fit into the evolutionary paradigm is less than worthless.

This is commonplace in the "scientific" community today. Opinion is paraded as fact, and dissent outside prevailing "wisdom's" parameters is suppressed or ignored as nonexistent.

Assuring people that your unproven assertions are facts--while tolerating no challenge from those who disagree--is not science. It's a hoax perpetrated toward the goal of brainwashing those who don't recognize fraud when they see it.