Question 1: Evolution is a bad science theory .. true or false. What is a bad science theory ?

Before we can answer this question let us cite two examples of what we may refer to as Bad Science Theories. We will look at the bad science theories where at one time Alchemists tried to change " lead to gold" and certain people once believed that ".. a machine heavier than air cannot fly..". At one time alchemists thought they could change Lead to Gold. Science has proved that Lead cannot be changed from Lead to Gold. No True Scientist will promote the bad science theory that lead can change to Gold. At one time it was said that "...a machine heavier than air cannot fly...". On 17 December,1903, at Kitty Hawk The Wright Brothers ( Orville and Wilbur ) proved that theory wrong. Today aeroplanes fly around the world and no True Scientist will promote that bad science theory that "... a machine heavier than air cannot fly..". It has been said that : ... A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. In other words, evolution as a theory is just as valid as gravity as a theory. They are both based on repeated experimentation and observation. Suggesting that it is bad science or bad science theory suggests that you do not know what a scientific theory is (which is why I provided a definition) and that you do not know what the theory of evolution actually states or how our understanding of it has contributed to our lives today....". [ Read More at : http://dirtyatheist.tumblr.com/post/53672765787/atheists-challenge-four-super-simple-questions ]

On the surface, the above statement appears to be a statement of truth that cannot be challenged. However, thinking people will challenge the validity of the assumption that "...evolution as a theory is just as valid as a theory. They are both based on repeated experimentation and observation...". The Theory of Gravity may be tested 24/7 everyday of any year. However the so called "Theory of Evolution" cannot be tested 24/7 every day of the year. Does The so called "Theory of Evolution" that is alleged to be "... a Long slow observable process ...." meet the criteria of "... a wellsubstantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment..." ? On closed examination, the answer is no. Charles Darwin (12 February 1809 19 April 1882 ) can only be relied on to comment on what he personally observed during his lifetime. What "body of evidence or a body of knowledge " did Charles Darwin observe between ( (12 February 1809 19 April 1882 ) ? Was the "body of evidence or body of knowledge" observed by Charles Darwin between (12 February 1809 19 April 1882 ) allegedly "...a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment..." ? If so is there any reputable or reliable Scientific Source that was cited by Charles Darwin when he formulated the so called "..Theory of Evolution.." ? It should be noted that , for obvious reasons, There is no actual CCTV footage to show exactly what allegedly happened from the time that the long slow observable process of evolution allegedly began to the time when Charles Darwin formulated his so called theory of evolution. It should also be noted that there are no meticulous handwritten or typed records to show exactly what allegedly happened from the time that the long slow observable process of evolution allegedly

began to the time when Charles Darwin formulated his so called theory of evolution. Finally it should be noted that it is a physical impossibility for Charles Darwin to have personally observed "...the long slow observable process of evolution from the time that evolution allegedly began to the time when he Charles Darwin formulated his so called theory of evolution...". The Media and History Books has documented interesting articles on "..The Neandrathal Man ; The Piltdown Man; The Nebraska Man ; The Peking Man ; ... etc " that give a thinking person an idea of how desperate some people are in their vain attempts to "... prove the so called theory of evolution...". It is public knowledge that the so called "..The Neandrathal Man ; The Piltdown Man; The Nebraska Man ; The Peking Man ; ... etc were nothing but manufactured frauds by certain people who hoped to deceive the world that they had found ".. legitimate scientific evidence to validate the so called theory of evolution...". It has been said that : "... A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment...". "..The Neandrathal Man ; The Piltdown Man; The Nebraska Man ; The Peking Man ; ... etc " cannot be regarded as legitimate scientific evidence . Such blatant cases of fraud where some people would attempt to try and manufacture evidence to support the so called theory of evolution would appear to suggest that there is no compelling and no substantial evidence to support the so called "..Theory of Evolution..". Is "evolution " therefore valid as a theory "..as gravity as a theory..." ? Where is the " body of evidence or body of knowledge " that can prove beyond reasonable doubt that "...on repeated experimentation and observation..." that the so called " ...Theory of Evolution.." is allegedly just as "...valid as the theory of gravity.." ? We know that genetic changes by natural or so called artificial means under strict laboratory conditions will always produce

bacteria. We know that every species will reproduce after their own kind. We know that The Law of Reproduction paraphrased simply states that every living organism will reproduce after it's own kind. For example we know that : Apple seeds bring forth apple trees. Ants breed ants. Bees breed bees. Dogs breed dogs. Cats breed cats. Horses breed horses Monkeys breed monkeys. Chimpanzees breed chimpanzees. Gorillas breed gorillas. etc When we look at Fossil records , there are no fossil records of any so called ".. intermediate stages..." of any given species to catalogue the so called "...stages of evolution..". To date , Fossil records do not provide any compelling substantial evidence to support the bad science theory of evolution. However, fossil records do provide a record that there was a world wide flood on earth. Is the so called "..Theory of Evolution.." a bad science theory like alchemist trying to change "...lead to gold .." ? Is the so called "..Theory of Evolution.." a bad science theory like the one where it was once said that ".. a machine heavier than air cannot fly.." ? You be your own Judge of your own personal belief, but as for me and mine house and a multitude of thinking people, we know without a shadow of a doubt, that the so called "theory of Evolution " is a bad science theory that has deceived the gullible and should not

be taught in schools..