Debating

In just about every E vs C debate. The frauds of both sides are brought up. When the supposed creation frauds are brought up, the term quickly changes from creationist to Christian. Why? This is a tactic to make the creationist feel guilty about his evidence... Your a christian, why you lie? Are all Christians frauds? etc....

But when the evolutionist fraud is brought up. The impression is made that the fraud is actually ok, and not as bad as the Christian creation fraud was.

So I tried to figure out how the evolutionists were making their point about it being ok, and the creationists would come out looking worse. Then I figured out that evolutionists have no moral foundation behind them to bring up like the creationists do. For what could a creationist say that would make the evolutionist look at him self, and want to strive to a better level? Nothing I can think of.

This is also the same reason They don't feel as bad about their frauds compared to how they would try to make the creationist feel by bringing up the Christian issue.

Example:
Piltdown man: What would make a evolutionist feel like he should strive for better? Are there moral pillars to bring up, or is it an anything goes because the evolutionists want it to? To even defend this fraud, and not feel guilty just proves the point even further. The excuses about it being a fraud, and that it was evolutionists who exposed it, is supposed to make it better some how? Evolutionist are the only ones who can expose their own frauds because they do not adhere to a higher power, and no one can test and debunk any evidence unless they say so. because there is no one out side the scientific circles that they would listen to anyway. So who else could do this but them? If there is someone out side of science, that could debunk the evolution evidence, that science would actually listen to. Could someone tell me who that is? No one? I thought so. Any organization that is regulated within itself. Has better than a 95% chance of becoming corrupt.

So evolutionists become judge and jury of their own evidence, but complain if someone like a creationist tries to do the same thing. They are self appointed kings over everyone's evidence (their own, or anyone else's). And what does not go along with the evolution king's idea. Gets tossed aside. Having this much power allows them to always make their evidence look better than anyone else's. And they always talk about the science standard, peer views, etc.... But everyone knows, that has gone up against any of this, it's all a bias view. Because even if one of their own comes up with evidence, or a theory, that contradicts the main stream view. What are the chances it will be really looked into and considered? Because rocking the boat, is not what is wanted, or needed. In fact, it is avoided. Because a rocking boat soon throws off passengers.

Inca Stones:
Evolutionist seemed to believe that "all" Inca stones are fake. Why? Because someone admitted to making reproductions of the originals. But was the word reproduction used? Nope. What was used was the word fraud and fakes. So will this ever be straightened out? Not as long as the kings of evolution have a say so on it. Not as long as they are self appointed experts on all, or any evidence found.

So how did the Inca stones get the rap of being fake? Instead of going to any sources for actual original Inca stones. The evolutionist went to the replica makers so they would be guaranteed to make them out to be as frauds. How easy is it to buy, or take a replica, test it for an out come of being fake? Very easy.

Example: Most of us have probably seen the Antiques Road Show. How many replicas or fakes do they find? Quite a few. But does the replica discredit the originals? Nope. Do they have a test, or marking, or designs etc... They look for to confirm whether it's one or the other? Of course. So why was that not done with the Inca stones?

Because upon testing them, there was only one goal in mind. Prove one fake, and you won't have to worry about them. Get a replica maker to more or less say: "I made them all". And you prove them fake by word of mouth. Is word of mouth very scientific? Or has science turned to gossip when it comes to disproving creation evidence?

So upon realizing that evolutionists get to be judge and jury of their own evidence, do you actually think creation evidence gets a fair shake?

If so, then why not let creationist scientists do the judging of evolution evidence? would only be fair since they always judge the creation evidence. Because it would be the evolutionists in the corner hollering for help, instead of the creationist.

Evolutionists are not about to give their over whelming power to judge everyone, because to do so would show all their mistakes and cover ups. And if not, then why not?

Evidence should be able to stand on it's own no matter who examines it. But since only evolutionists are allowed to examine their own evidence, it is safe to conclude that every out come will be bias to that effect. And it is also the same reason their evidence always looks better than the creationists.

This is also the reason why I believe creation needs to separate themselves from science and become their own entity. Because as long as evolutionists have complete control over acceptable evidence, creation evidence will never get a fair shake.