How Not to be Deceived by Evolutionary Material

When presented with materials used to promote amoeba-to-atheist evolution, people tend to be all impressed with the brilliance of scientists (especially when they use expensive words meant for experts in their particular fields). Using a bit of critical thinking and spotting logical fallacies, you can see that things served up seem mighty tasty, but have no real nutritional value for the mind.

Evolutionists tend to serve up things that seem mighty tasty, but have no real nutritional value for the mind. Here is some information on separating real science from speculation and bad reasoning.
Generated at GlassGiant
A journal article about bilateral evolution seems impressive, but is saturated with fallacies, and it turns out to be nothing more than speculation. If someone is going to present conjecture, fine, but they should at least admit that it does not have any foundation in observable science. We all examine evidence and argue from our presuppositions, but at least biblical creationists let you know where they're coming from. Evolutionists tend to present their naturalistic viewpoints as proven science — after all, science is a philosophy of interpreting data.

I reckon that it would be wise to get familiar with the material in the following article and learn how not to be deceived. Also, I keep insisting that learning to spot logical fallacies is relatively easy, and is very useful in other areas, including during election seasons. Watch out for theistic evolutionists and atheists pretending to be Christians while promoting evolution, they get mighty sneaky and manipulative. Still, every chance to learn how to spot deceivers is helpful.
This article takes a reasoned approach to identify the biases and fallacies within the subsequent mentioned paper, and extorts and instructs the reader to do the same, not only concerning the article mentioned but concerning all such scientific papers.

A journal article titled, “The Origin of the Animals and a ‘Savannah’ Hypothesis for Early Bilaterian Evolution,” postulates an evolutionary connection between and a pathway from “simple” biota organisms found in the Edicaran “period” rock layers, and the more complex bilaterian animals found in the Cambrian “period” (a.k.a., Cambrain Explosion) rock layers.
To keep reading, click on "An (Un)Reasonable Hypothesis for Bilaterian Evolution".