Reader Response:
Here is a comment, left in its uncensored form, from one of our apparently evolutionist readers self-identified as IkeSDSU from 5/17/2012.
Ha ha ha, you creationists, just keep on burying your head in the sand. If you can't see it, it isn't true right? People that are real scientists don't believe your crap and you campain is just waste of time. It will never be taken seriously since you will never let it be analysed using the scientific method. "Because it says so in this book" doesn't hold up. Just stay ignorant, you are only hurting yourself as the world passes you by.
Here is an answer:
So, Ike, have you used the scientific method to confirm or disconfirm either the Bible or the textbooks proclaiming evolution? Do you believe evolution because “it says so in your text books” or have you performed actual experiments? Somewhat hypocritical, don’t you think? Particularly when evolutionist scientists consistently have to admit they are wrong and that evolution just does not have the evidence to back it up step-by-step.
Ike, let’s look at the scientific method and evolution. This is what the majority of the 15 Questions for Evolutionists are about. To follow the scientific method you observe something, form a hypothesis, and perform experiments attempting to prove or disprove your hypothesis (confirm or disconfirm). Once you achieve consistent results you either reject your hypothesis as disproven or you refine it to the conditions of the experiment confirming it. From here more experiments are done to confirm your refined hypothesis in order to disprove it, or confirm and possibly further refine it. Once this point is achieved, others also conduct experiments and if the results consistently confirm your hypothesis, it may be advanced to become a scientific theory; at which point it continues to be critically tested by others and either becomes accepted or rejected.
We’ll look at one simple example. Is it scientifically established that any creature of any kind has ever been witnessed to reproduce a creature of another kind as required in the General Theory of Evolution? Has it ever been observed in nature? Has it ever been observed in a laboratory?
The scientifically observed and tested answer to this question is, ‘”No, no living creature has ever been witnessed to reproduce a different kind of creature as required by the General Theory of Evolution.”
Due to this scientific observation that living creatures are always, one hundred percent of the time, reproduced by another living creature of the same kind, the General Theory of Evolution (often referred to as goo-to-you, pond scum-to-plumber, microbes-to-microbiologist, etc.) is dead in the water. The number one requirement for the General Theory of Evolution to be true has already been scientifically disproven by the scientific method.
By the way, there are the statements in a certain historical text that have been scientifically confirmed as accurate:
“And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind:...”
“..great whales, and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind:...”
“...bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”
“...made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creeps on the earth after his kind: ...”
Ike, please show me your evidence confirmed by the scientific method where any of these statements of fact have been scientifically disconfirmed. Have any of these creatures been scientifically shown and confirmed to have brought forth any offspring that were not of their own kind? No, they have not. They have always been proven to bring forth offspring only after their own kind.
We have a text that in its original autograph is over 3,000 years old that is wholly consistent with testing and observation by the scientific method. This is opposed to your belief in the General Theory of Evolution which is here disproven by the same scientific method you claim we ignore.
So, Ike, who is playing ‘ostrich’ and burying their head in the sand?
By the way, Ike, would you like to actually attempt to answer one of the 15 Questions for Evolutionists?
No fair using reason, intelligence, and science to completely destroy his lame attempt to support evolution. ;)
ReplyDeleteThe best reply from an evolutionist would be that the child is different from its parents genetically and is on its way to becoming a different speices. It just looks similar because the change is so small.
ReplyDeleteApart from the genetic limitations to variation, the problem with this is that it couldn't be observed if it were happening. Thus it is not scientific.
There is another problem with the suggested reply from an evolutionist, the child is still a human being, therefore GTE (General Theory of Evolution, goo-to-you) has not occurred. For actual GTE to take place the child would have to be something other than human.
ReplyDeleteThis suggested answer is actually used by evolutionists in their bait-and-switch tactic of saying, "We know evolution occurs because we see evolution happening every day." Where they think: We know macroevolution occurs because we see microevolution occurring every day. And they actually mean: We know the General Theory of Evolution is true because we see the recombination of genes, mutations and natural selection every day. Therefore, because variation within a species occurs, this variation eventually causes a new species to arise. However, this has even been said by many evolutionists to not be possible as reported by Roger Lewin.
"(often referred to as goo-to-you, pond scum-to-plumber, microbes-to-microbiologist, etc.)"
ReplyDeleteOnly by people who have absolutely no idea, nor care to have any idea, about the theory of evolution on any level. You want to see a cow be produced by a chicken...and of course, no scientist would ever say that is probable. We realize millions of years is a LOT of time to wrap your brains around but just as a hint, it's not the same amount of time as an instance.
And Ike does not need to perform the research himself to prove evolution to you. I'm sure he is capable of reading the impressive work of the multiple thousands of evolutionary scientists whom have added knowledge to the field of study. All we suggest is you all do the same and if it's hard to comprehend...get a tutor.
But whatever you do....don't give in to you religious nature and stop asking questions.
Wingman, I am glad you are so willing to tell upon yourself; insulting and making assumptions about people you do not know in addition to making the point against evolution yourself.
DeleteThe General Theory of Evolution tells us that non-living chemicals produced living, self-reproducing single cells, which in turn reproduced (by evolution) multicellular organisms, on up the evolutionary chain to reproduce fish, which eventually reproduced amphibians, which eventually reproduced dinosaurs and reptiles. According to evolutionary theory, dinosaurs reproduced birds; and either birds, dinosaurs or reptiles reproduced the first mammals.
You tell us, “of course, no scientist would ever say that is probable.” In this you are correct. (According to evolution, the chicken came before the cow.) Repeatedly, the evolutionary scientists tell us over and over how each step of the evolutionary chain is not only improbable, but impossible; impossible to the point of seeming miraculous. Yet they and yourself insist that it is true, and has actually happened in the past without any confirmation whatsoever using actual science and the scientific method. Your precious evolutionary scientists are realizing the extreme improbability of not only the entire General Theory of Evolution, but the extreme improbability of each tiny step of evolution and are starting to return to a belief in intelligent design, but then fudging by saying the designer must have somehow come into being by the process known as the General Theory of Evolution somewhere else in the universe.
Your precious scientists cannot produce one undisputed example of the General Theory of Evolution ever occurring. The only reason they insist we exist by evolution is rebellion against God. If you would dare read the article you commented under, you will find that the scientific method has disproven the General Theory of Evolution, and that it agrees with Biblical Creation.
If you disagree, please, feel free to actually answer one of the 15 Questions for Evolutionists.
...and by the way, the booklet coming out will actually be showing your evolutionist scientists admitting as much...what will you do then?
"The General Theory of Evolution tells us that non-living chemicals produced living, self-reproducing single cells"
DeleteNo, it doesn't. Abiogenesis addresses the origins of biological life. Evolution addresses how an already extant species adapts to its environment through a gamut of mechanisms which operate simultaneously to various degrees of effect on subsequent populations. The time scale can be restricted to micro-evolution (genetic change within a few generations) or macro-evolution (the emergence of one species from another via compounded genetic change).
"Repeatedly, the evolutionary scientists tell us over and over how each step of the evolutionary chain is not only improbable, but impossible; impossible to the point of seeming miraculous. Yet they and yourself insist that it is true, and has actually happened in the past without any confirmation whatsoever using actual science and the scientific method."
Except evolution has been supported by a century and a half of evidence and advances in biology and the subfields within it. All you have to do is look at some papers pertaining to studies within those fields. Papers which tell you the exact methodology and underlying assumptions used to probe the evidence. In short, the scientific method at work. It's not a question of whether evolution happened now. It's just expanding, revising and enhancing the realm of knowledge about the evolutionary process: the importance of the various mechanisms in the process, which species came from which ancestor, creation of new classifications and so forth.
Your precious scientists cannot produce one undisputed example of the General Theory of Evolution ever occurring. The only reason they insist we exist by evolution is rebellion against God. If you would dare read the article you commented under, you will find that the scientific method has disproven the General Theory of Evolution, and that it agrees with Biblical Creation.
Hmm, no. The evidence is there -- in the experiments, recorded in the papers, in the physical evidence itself. Micro-evolution has been shown to be scientifically backed, and further, it's a demonstrably real phenomenon. Biblical creation isn't a scientific theory, let alone a credible hypothesis. God isn't a testable hypothesis. The scientific method does not rely on supernatural assumptions to forward its hypotheses. So no, science does not agree with Biblical creation.
The fifteen questions that the Creation Ministry have forwarded are steeped in a deep misunderstanding of the basics of evolutionary theory.
Delete1. How did life originate? Evolution doesn't address this question. No, citing a single scientist without a source or context does not count as an argument for its relevance.
From Wikipedia: "Kerkut's book, The Implications of Evolution, pointed out some existing unsolved problems and points of concern for evolutionary studies. He referred to seven evolutionary assumptions which he felt lacked sufficient evidentiary support. Creationists have taken these points as evidence against evolution and interpreted them to support their own claims." Your question's bunk, buddy.
That's one question answered.
David, look up the definition for evolution at the NCSE (National Council for Science in Education)and at the University of California at Berkeley if you need more 'proof' evolution includes the origin of life. Purposely limiting the General Theory of Evolution to solely biological evolution is quite disingenuous.
Delete...and no, you did not satisfactorily answer the question.
David, Abiogenesis is the claimed event evolutionists use to explain how non-living chemicals 'evolved' into the first living and successfully reproducing living cell. A claim that has never been observed by any person at any time in history. Abiogenesis is a violation of the law of biogenesis which is confirmed every time a new life comes into existence.
Delete"Micro-evolution" is a purposeful misnomer for what was previously called "adaptation" or "variation within a species" caused by mutation and natural selection. "Micro-evolution" is not evolution at all, but is maintained within the specific kinds of animals. For example, we have over a hundred varieties of dogs, yet they are all dogs and nothing more. We have many varieties of birds, but they are all birds, and nothing more. The General Theory of Evolution requires that fish evolve into amphibians, something no one has witnessed, and something which is not in evidence.
Produce the paper that shows exactly how life originated and gives us evidence confirmable by the scientific method (observe and confirm by repeated testing). Produce the paper that shows exactly how asexual organisms evolved into sexual organisms, and can show proof of the hypothesis with confirmable and repeatable experiments.
Papers that assert hypothesis with confidence are not proof, but theoretical papers based solely upon hypothesis, not upon evidence in hand or repeatable and observable scientific testing.
You are correct that the scientific method does not rely upon supernatural assumptions, neither does it rely upon natural assumptions. The scientific method relies upon the scientist observing something, forming a hypothesis about it, repeatedly testing it, refining his hypothesis, reconfirming his refined hypothesis, submitting it for review by other scientists who can then observe what the original scientist did and perform repeatable experiments getting consistent observable results.
Where is the experiment that shows fish evolving into amhpibians? Where is the experiment showing the chemical evolution of non-living chemicals into a living organism? Where is the confirmable experiment showing a dinosaur evolving into a bird? Don't have one? Then all you have is BELIEF based upon your a priori assumption (presupposition) of materialism; purposely disallowing any explanation that disagrees with your religious belief in evolution. You are dogmatically clinging to assumptions that are not confirmed by observation or by testing; assumptions that have been made so often without confirmation that many have accepted them as truth. Where is the confirmable scientific evidence of any step of evolution? It does not exist except in the minds of the evolutionists dreaming up what 'must have happened' because we must maintain absolute adherence to our a priori commitment to materialism.
By the way, this will all be made plain to you in the upcoming booklet "Asking the 15 Questions Evolutionists Cannot Satisfactorily Answer".
Wingman, evolutionists are full of big talk, but when it comes to willingness to publicly debate the 15 questions for evolutionists, they clam up in a hurry.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to debate us, then we are available for debate here http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 and the debates will be recorded and promoted via a Christian channel with 20,000 subscribers. Just inform the Youtuber Shockofgod that you want a debate and a debater or debate team will be set up.
"The General Theory of Evolution tells us that non-living chemicals produced living, self-reproducing single cells"
ReplyDeleteIt does no such thing. Although the rest of that paragraph is pretty accurate for a 5th grade synopsis of evolutionary history.
"According to evolution, the chicken came before the cow"
Of course I would have to do some research to verify but I could agree with this in the sense that a cat born in 1980 "came before" a dog that was born in 1982. I can only assume (based on my original fallacious example) that you actually mean that a chicken gave birth to a cow which I (and any scientist worth their salt) would have to disagree with.
"Repeatedly, the evolutionary scientists tell us over and over how each step of the evolutionary chain is not only improbable, but impossible"
They DO?!?! What the heck have I been reading all these years? This claim is beyond pure ignorance, it's a pathetic lie.
This all boils down to one thing, doesn't it?....that stupid list of 15 questions which have been addressed countless times. The videos are on Youtube and I'm sure you've seen (and then ignored) them. Starting here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ModNCJLZ3E&feature=related
You will find all your comments actually proven wrong in the upcoming booklet Asking the 15 Questions Evolutionists Cannot Satisfactorily Answer, and it will be by the mouths of evolutionist scientists themselves.
DeleteAccording to GTE dinosaurs evolved into birds, and later either reptiles or birds evolved into mammals; hence, the chicken came before the cow.
By the way, a book with 'answers' from universities is in the conception stage, to possibly begin after the booklet is completed.
Hmmmmm......must have included to many actual facts in my last reply to be approved on this site.
ReplyDeleteOr did I go to far posting a link to Youtube featuring some very intelligent and prepared everyday users (You know? The kind of people you focus your pamphlet towards because asking an actual evolutionary scientist the 15 questions would be an utter failure for the campaign).
Does this worry you? If these questions were the evolutionary Kryptonite you pretend it to be why do you ignore these answers? Why do you not defend the integrity of the questions? Is it because your faith is on shaky ground? Better not challenge yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ModNCJLZ3E
The evolutionist Lapkine totally embarrassed himself as can be clearly seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg Plus, Lapkine said "God is the creator of all things" which is hardly a view that the rabid atheists in the video take.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly are putting forth evolutionists material that only gullible people would believe.
Wingman, have you ever heard the term "chemical evolution" in relation to the abiogenesis hypothesis?
ReplyDeleteSecond, you need to read this information: http://creation.com/origin-of-life-and-the-homochirality-problem-is-magnetochiral-dichroism-the-solution
Wingman, I noticed that you failed to satisfactorily answer the
ReplyDelete15 questions for evolutionists of the Question Evolution! Campaign.
Second, have your ever seen the words "chemical evolution" used to describe the abiogenesis hypothesis?
Third, you are not winning this battle nor are evolutionists winning the creation vs. evolutionism war! See our most recent blog post HERE. Evolutionism and atheism are going to be ground up into a fine pulp!