EVILution?

[Esquilax]

Guys, the truth about the bogus tale of evolution has been expressed over and over.
Youtube has plenty of PHD people refuting the nonsense.

Protip: if your reference list supporting your scientific position begins with the words "Youtube has," then you do not have a reference list containing any relevant PHDs.

If your tale was a fact- like the facts we all can SEE (like gravity), nobody would disagree.
The disagreement is a pointer to something.

But we can see evolution. I routinely post a link to an article called "8 examples of evolution in action," in fact I'll do it here again. If your only response is some nattering about kinds, then my response is that it's not my fault that you don't understand both what evolution is, nor what basic scientific taxonomy is.

But you misinterpreting the theory does not mean we can't see it. It means you have a fundamental misunderstanding which is making you speak on something you do not understand.

Your geologic column we see in textbooks is bogus.
The interpretation of fossils is based on the bogus column.
The triumph of circular reasoning expressed today.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

All the supposed "Links" have been frauds, including the little monkey "Lucy". But this crap is still in textbooks. Why?
Because it is part of a religion.
Religion and Man are inseparable.

But Lucy wasn't a fraud. She was an Australopethicus Afarensis, a Homonid that we have plenty of examples of. What made you think it was a fraud? Do you have any evidence to support any of this? Because most of the so called evolutionary frauds are really just temporarily incorrectly identified fossils that the creationist side actively lies in order to spin out as evidence of something more sinister.

Which is a tertiary concern in the face of the fact that you've provided no references at all.

All we see are disappearing kinds of critters- the reverse of your tale.

Drop the kinds crap. You can't even tell us what it is or why it should be used in place of the scientific model, you don't get to the pretend that it's at all relevant.

In the case of the teacher being honest about his take on it-
a repeat of "No intelligence allowed".

Oh, you mean the movie where Ben Stein and his crew lied their fucking asses off? Is that really the kind of claim you want to support?