Gary S. Hurd, Liar or Ignorant?
Gary S. Hurd (Dr GH) has taken Philip Skell to task for his statements about the unimportance of Darwinism.
Philip Skell is talking about the premise that all living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown populations of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents. The context is very important and Gary Hurd seems to be ignorant of that context. Either that or he is a liar- you decide.
First Gary sez that abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are independent. Well Gary that is bullshit. Ya see moron if living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via blind, undirected chemical processes then there would be no reason to infer the subsequent diversity arose solely via blind, undirected chemical processes. It is really very simple.
Next Gary brings up speciation. Again speciation isn't being debated (even YECs accept speciation) and no one knows if speciation occurs via accumulating genetic accidents. And the current theory of evolution posits that all genetic changes are errors/ mistakes/ accidents and these accumulate in a variety of ways.
Then Gary brings up whale evolution- again Gary there isn't any evidence for it occuring, never mind occuring via an accumulation of genetic accidents. IOW no one knows if the transformation from land mammal to fully aquatic cetacean is even possible- no way to test it without first assuming it.
And finally Gary chokes on antibiotic resistance. Ya see Gary bacterial resistance has nothing to do with the theory of evolution's grand claims and fits in perfectly with the Creationists' variation within a Kind.
So what we have is Gary S. Hurd equivocating like the little evotard he is.
Is Gary S. Hurd ignorant or a liar? Perhaps he is an ignorant liar.
It appears the theory of evolution is devoid of content = empty. The evidence for that is found in the following avoided questions:
1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
Those are a few of the thousands questions evos need a testable hypothesis for.
So why are evos so afraid of those questions? I say it is because by attempting to answer them they will expose their position as the bullshit it is.