you're reading...

Does evidence speak for itself? – part 1

It is often said by evolutionists that the fossil evidence speaks for itself and shows a clear lineage from one species to another.  As a creationist, I believe the fossil evidence no more show common decent than it shows common design.  There is a clear way to expose the fallacious thinking of the evolutionist.  See this below image:


We can take skulls of all modern humans and align them and make them appear as if evolution has occurred.  If we can do this with modern skulls, couldn’t we possibly do this with any type of fossil evidence?  So, which came first the “preconceived notions” of evolutionary decent or the “interpretation”?  I smell confirmation bias at play.  Bottom line – evidence does not speak for itself!


About Tim



6 thoughts on “Does evidence speak for itself? – part 1

  1. The sequence above is only a based on cranial size Further down in the same article (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/a_big_bang_theo063141.html), you can see that erectus and neanderthals have other morphological phenomenon outside the range found in modern humans.

    I think a much better conclusion to draw from this is that brain size has little to do with intelligence:

    1. “In the past we have relied almost entirely on brain size to determine the stage of advancement” of a species, says Holloway. But this is a crude and even misleading measure, for the really important changes lie in brain organization. For example, a well-developed Broca’s area, just above the left temporal lobe, is associated with motor control of the vocal apparatus, which can yield clues about when speech may have developed.” The Politics of Paleoanthropology (http://ge.tt/1CaPueL/v/0?c), Science, 1981
    2. “Anatole France, a French author, had one of the tiniest “normal” brains on record, but he was certainly no dummy. On the other extreme, Jonathan Swift (the author of Gulliver’s Travels) had a big honkin’ brain, at the top end of all the brains ever measured (though still only twice the size of Anatole France’s).”, Big Heads (http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/big-heads/), AAAS, retrieved 2012

    Posted by joecoder7 | August 17, 2012, 11:55 pm
  2. (Pseudo)Science is always contradicting itself. Not only is brain size unrelated to one’s intelligence, but one’s brain size is effected by one’s environment–it loses volume in warmer climates.

    Posted by synapticcohesion | August 18, 2012, 5:18 am
    • Althought the original article was, this post was not looking to make any comparison between brain size and intelligence. This was merely an example of how one can easily misinterpret.

      Posted by Tim | August 20, 2012, 1:01 pm
      • Yes I was referring to the original article that you posted. That is why many of these evolutionists also use terms such as “pretty certain” (such as Dawkins). Either you are certain because you are rely on facts, or you are not (because you are relying on wild conjecture and preconceived notions)–you cannot be “pretty certain.” That is an oxymoron.

        Good job in highlighting these key terms–many just don’t pay attention to what they are reading.

        Posted by synapticcohesion | August 20, 2012, 2:58 pm


  1. Pingback: Weekend Post Links:Stinking Thinking, American Freedom and Creationism, Hymns & More « creationscience4kids - August 18, 2012

  2. Pingback: Does evidence speak for itself – part 2 « Grace with Salt - August 20, 2012

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: