Evolution and the BIG LIE

Natural selection and variation within kinds is no problem.Evolution in the macro sense is not a problem for creationist beliefs, it is a problem full stop because it does not explain what we actually see. The usual icons given as proof for macroevolution all over the world are exaggerated or distorted and are not presented in a balanced way showing their shortcomings. If evolution is such a 'fact' -why are they not replaced with more convincing examples? They are not concerned with that definition but with the extrapolation that is implied and includes supposition of common ancestry and origin of life arising from chemicals through purely naturalistic processes.How much is real science and how much is pure materialistic philosophy?

Well quite simply if gradualistic evolution is true, what about the cambrian explosion which defies explanation in gradualistic terms. Human evolution
Homology arguments
Origin of Life from lifeless chemicals
Four winged Fruit flies
Haeckel's Embryos etc....

I would say that that is not what 'evolution' is, it is only what 'microevolution' is -the definition does not do justice to all that is implied by the word 'evolution'.

Darwinian evolution requires far more than the deformed molecules of mutation to explain the origin of new organs and body plans -it needs beneficial changes in anatomy. There is no proof that this is genetically possible only a belief that this must have happened -"well we're here aren't we!"
Time -lots of it - is the magic ingredient.

Well it is actually an explosion if all living things are supposed to be the modified descendants of one or a few original forms.It's an explosion unless you are sure evolution happened in which case it is played down and is not really an explosion. To put gradual and sudden in context -the following analogy given by Jonathan Wells in response to criticism of his "Icons of Evolution' book - explains it well -
"Imagine yourself standing at the end of a football field which represents 3.8 billion years ago and let the other end of the field represent the present day. As you walk from one goal line to the other, you see only single celled organisms as you pass the 25-yard line, then midfield, then the 75 yard line; only as you approach the 84-yard line do you notice the first multicellular organisms -some sponges, some worms and jellyfish. Then in the space of a single stride, most of the other animal phyla appear and most of these are still with you when you reach the other goal line. This is not a branching tree pattern; no animals for 5/6 of the history of life, then most modern body plans in a flash. some paleontologists have aptly compared this pattern to a lawn instead of a tree."In defence of evolution, other critics of Wells have admitted that it was a sudden explosion but have argued that that is exactly what we'd expect for various other 'plausible' reasons that are actually not plausible at all. It appears that above and beyond all other considerations, evolution is not to be questioned even when the evidence makes it look plain wrong. That was the standing explanation until soft bodied fossils were found and so it no longer makes sense as an excuse for all those missing organisms.Which one is the big lie -evolution or intelligent design??? I know what I think though I'd prefer to call evolution the big indoctrination or the big deception.

Personally I believe that saying it is not an explosion in relative terms would be far more misleading.It sure looks more like a lawn than a tree to me but then I'm not dedicated to evolution as the only possible answer. Unless it's just another way of explaining the lack of evidence and determining to stay with evolution despite the lack of evidence.

One of the most striking features of the fossil record is the Cambrian explosion which provides no support for the common ancestry of the animal phyla. Homology remains unexplained by evolutionary biology, so even at the level of the vertebrate classes it cannot be used to distinguish between common ancestry and common design. The early embryonic similarities that supposedly demonstrate the common ancestry of the vertebrates turn out to be non-existant, while embryos of other phyla are even less similar.The evidence from molecular comparisions is also problematic.
As biologist Michael Lynch wrote -"Clarification of the phylogenetic (ie. ancestor-descendant) relationships of the major animal phyla remain an elusive problem with analyses based on different based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees."
So, common ancestry of the major animal groups is not a 'fact' -it's not even a well-supported hypothesis.
There is no evidence that selection can change chickens into turkeys much less turn bacteria into animals. The most widely advertised anatomical mutant, the four winged fruit-fly is an evolutionary dead end.
Extensive studies of selection and mutation have been carried out on bacteria (because it is possible to study millions of organisms and thousands of generations in a relatively short time), yet as British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton wrote "Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another." That'll be the mountains of evidence that supposedly contradict the other mountains of evidence that say it is not true?I used to believe in evolution -I don't any more -it doesn't make any sense in the light of the evidence against it. Besides why is the other side of everything against evolution kept out of the textbooks with such dedication -if there's nothing to fear from the evidence then let the opposing evidence be taught.