When science isn't

Evolutionists like to say they're looking at the facts and drawing conclusions from them. But is that what they're really doing?

For example, the fossil find Lucy showed definite ape-like characteristics, especially in the formation of her hip bones, which showed she did not walk upright. The scientific solution? A cast was made of Lucy's bones and a power saw was used to alter the shape of the hip so that it appeared in a shape of an upright walker.

That's not science, my friend.

Then there's Piltdown Man, a find from 1912 that was touted as an early ancestor of man. In 1953 it was exposed as a forgery, in which bones of an orangutan were purposely combined with those of a human.

For more than 40 years, this fraud was touted as scientific fact.

There's Nebraska man from a pig's tooth, Java man whose "bones" were found 50 feet away and a year apart, Orce man who turned out to be a donkey, and Neanderthal who turned out to be an arthritic human. All of these had their artist's renditions. I'll say this for evolutionists -- they certainly are plentifully producing pictures of ape-men.

But let's be honest here. Evolutionists aren't drawing conclusions from evidence. Instead, they're actually generating so-called "evidence" to prove their theory, even if it takes a power saw to do it.

Creationists say that evolutionary thought is based on belief, not fact, and that makes it more of a religion than a science. Evolutionists counter that religion isn't testable while evolution is. So let's put the test to evolution: why all the farces and deliberate hoaxes?

Last time I checked, falsifying evidence ought to qualify someone for for jail time, not for scientific plaudits.