The Monstrosity of Natural Designation
 

Any skeptic must question the justification of all claims. Moreover, a truly intelligent skeptic must realize that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Carl Sagan). We must remember that "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." That being said, we must question the scientific authenticity (and ergo, educational, political, and media authority, among others) of Evolution; for if we do not seek to justify such an extraordinary assertion of biology, then we are no better than those who accept the Unicorn, the Loch Ness Monster, or the Sasquatch as evinced beasts on Earth.

That being said, I intend to boast an even more offensive claim than that of my last: Evolution is pseudoscience. The ideology of man being apes, relative to chimpanzees; that, through macro-evolution, we came from mere aquatic globs to be these highly complex and sentient creatures named en masse mankind; and/or that there once was an intermediate stage of organism between reptilian makeup and aerial is absolute, 100% hooey. Note that I did not say unsubstantiated (Proof by Assertion) or based on belligerent unintelligence (argumentum ad ignorantiam), but I asseverated that Evolution is entirely fantasy, as in undeniably. This is because it is an argument based on a lie, justified by, quite literally, nothing. Evolution is illogical.

Of course, I intend to present the disproof of Evolution, a great heinous absurdity on countless biologists' parts, soon, but first I would like to aberrate from my initial and primary themata. You see, while I accept and, furthermore, plead! that interested readers and bored onlookers would be excruciatingly skeptical of my contentions, it is mere crockery of the mind to delete or discard my post without due perusing of my alleged debunking and offering of a counter-argument of equal solidity - namely, the ultimate irrefragability of logical deduction and a logician's humble persuasion thereafter. So, if any bid this document "hooey" before even recognizing my claims or offering and establishing a rebuttal of equal logical standing (not any level lower, viz. science, which is that datum obtained through the scientific method (a philosophical, metaphysical tool): empirical fact based on faith that our senses do not lie), that same person can not consider themselves an intellectual on the first ground and is, at least, not a skeptic on the second. Without further adue, I continue:

Evolution (i.e. capital "E" Evolution: macro-evolution, not micro-) is false, as I already alluded, whence it stands. It stands upon a complete and total lie, Darwinian Natural Selection. Natural Selection is a fallacious argument that began with a simplistic petitio principii ("The fittest organism is that which survives. That organism which survives justifies fitness"). However, seeing how any skeptical logician could easily obliterate such a nonsensical view and effortlessly mock biologists (prev. naturalists) for it, it has been spruced up, tortuously refurbished, and annoying says the exact same thing, only in an even worse begging of questions - the circulum in probando.
Def. A: Fitness is the containment of genes from organisms that previously survived.
Def. B: Survival is reproduction of fitness (i.e. "fit genes").
Postulate: Inheritance is nonrandom because fitness is propagated through survival.
Justification: Those who are "fit" (contain fitness) survive; survival evinces fitness.
Let's review:
Postulate 4 w/Justification: A is continued ("propagated") by B because B identifies A.
Wow...

Excuse me while I chortle at the sheer pretentiousness of such fools as Darwin, Dawkins, and Forrest, among others! No! Ratherish, I congratulate these perfidious geniuses on fooling thousands across the globe with the nonsense of pseudoscience and irrational thought. What hooligans!

Presumably, some will attempt, in reply, to substantiate macro-evolution with pleas to "evidence" (e.g. Darwin's finches). Alas for the evolutionist, there are two major problems with this response:
1.) Evolution relies fundamentally upon Natural Selection and therefore has lost its foundational support; thus, it is irrelevant to bring up empirical phenomenon about a conclusion when the problem is located in the logic of the presuppositions.
2.) Logic is the tool we use to consider this or that as evidence for this or that IN THE FIRST PLACE; it is a philosophical feat to connect/apologize empirical phenomenon A with empirical data B. And so, science pressupposes the support of logic, which means that Evolution, a thing based on an illogicality, can not, therefore, even HAVE any evidence - it is literally impossible to give evidence to something illogical because an illogical thing is not a "thing" to begin with - logic denotes reality, thus illogicalities being lack thereof.
And so, the person has two rational choices thence:
1.) Accept Evolution as nonsense.
2.) Attempt to reanalyze and turn-table Natural Selection.
I am one of those who has committed himself to the first choice yet I have nothing against those who honestly set themselves to rational decision 2 because, provided they are a devout and sincere skeptic, they will ultimately be forced to conclude 1; 2 is inevitable. Why? Because Natural Selection is a lie at its basis. Darwin invented it (he never observed it obviously, since you can not observe what does not exist) as support of his conjectures and scientists (prev. naturalists) thereafter have skewed his work to be absolute instead of a mistaken ponderance. Begging the Question never intellectually evolves into a logical basis for anything - it remains a quip to the wise, meaningless to their eyes.

Notwithstanding, the very minute that Natural Selection becomes a valid description, a logical depiction of reality - a thing and not lack thereof - I will immediately admit its actuality and scientific standpoint. Until then, I remain a steadfast skeptic of the monstrosity that is Evolution, and the botched science and faux-intellectualism that follows therefrom - even more, skeptical that such a claim will ever be meaningful: describe biological reality. Relatively, if like me you agree or have just come to concede that Evolution is philosophical back-wash, please check out the following links as they will help explain further predicaments with Evolution (ones scientifically sustained given that we ignore the great logical blasphemy of Natural Selection).

http://creation.com/question-evolution
http://creation.com/15-questions

Now, I am a logician, but there are quite a few scientists involved in a Question Evolution! blog. As I have already admitted, science has no discussion with the problems I presented because logic precludes science. Regardless, if you intend to be obstinate contact the following blog, as it will be more relevant thereat: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/

Oh yes - you spammed those wanky creotard sites when you posted your scintillating introduction to this place - still, a nice bit of editing I think you'll find. Twat.

What exactly is your beef partner?

By the way, do you want to explain how you think complex species came to exist?

Of course not!
He just wants to spam the anti evil-ution bullshit that his pastor, homeschooler and anal violator has been feeding him.
He's a drive-by fuckwit.

I pity you.

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously if you post paragraph after paragraph of unrelated nonsense strung together with pseudo-intellectual words and phrases, words that are misused, and words that are spelled wrong?

Sprinkled throughout are veiled threats and insults.

Pardon me if I did not quote the entire mess, but the last sentence is condescending in the extreme.

What did you hope to accomplish with this unfortunate composition? Whatever your goal, I fear it has not been reached.

I would suggest that if you continue to post, you shorten your writing (more does not always mean better) and run a spell checker as well as have someone with better English skills read it over for content and usage.

Anal Warden.

Hey! Are you trying to aberrate from his initial and primary themata? :mad:

Just trying to be sweet and helpful.

If you can believe that.

No thank you! I have no intention of being obstinate. I prefer to accept empirically demonstrated science upon the merits of evidence. Thank you for selling your leprechaun science just the same!

I CAN believe it! I have faith. :|

...... you fuck off - would have made a far more sensible end to an otherwise splendid post.

Faith is a loaded word. Are you sure that's what you mean?

Actually faith in an of itself is harmless, but most construe it to mean faith in God.

THEN it becomes a problem.........

Thanks, Smelly.

I can always use constructive criticism.

However you may have noticed I have trouble using Anglo Saxon vocabulary.

A handicap to be sure, but one I will have to deal with.

I guess what I meant to say is that I was feeling intellectually lazy, and would rather have somebody tell me what to believe instead of being forced to think for myself - especially when those thoughts might threaten my religious position. I guess you could say that I was temporarily insane. But I think I am better now. :|