|
| |
"Evolutionists" versus
Scientists
Copyright © 2001 by The Fathers' Manifesto
Please distribute freely, all portions intact.
"On an average every species
must have same number killed year with year by hawks, by cold, & c.--even one species
of hawk decreasing in number must affect instantaneously all the rest. The final
cause of all this wedging must be to sort out proper structure.... One may say there is a
force like a hundred thousand wedges trying to force every kind of adapted structure in
the gaps in the oeconomy of nature, or rather forming gaps by thrusting out weaker
ones." Charles Darwin
Science requires many attributes which
"evolutionists" simply don't possess:
Scientists must accept and analyze
every distinct possibility of their supposition until they have enough observable evidence
to produce a theory. "Evolutionists" completely reject any notion that
creation is a possibility which makes them advocates rather than scientists.
Scientists must remain open minded
about external data, opinions, empirical evidence, and other competing suppositions.
"Evolutionists" believe that 81% of the American population supports
creation only because they are "ignorant".
Scientists cannot claim that a
supposition is a theory until they have "observed phenomen which has been verified to
some degree". The "theory of evolution" is not a theory at all
because no "evolutionist" has ever observed speciation, which is a fundamental
requirement of evolution.
Scientists must analyze, clarify, and
explain the compounding statistical errors which are created when multiple suppositions
are combined. "Evolutionists" not only ignore the improbability of their
speculation when they combine speciation, evolution, carbon dating, contradictory
palentological evidence, the dearth of respectable fossils, and contradictory DNA
evidence, but they dismiss it by claiming that even events which have an almost zero
probability of occurring can still occur, given enough time.
Respectable scientists have raised
serious doubts about the reliability of carbon dating, and suggested that the Earth is
much younger than carbon dating suggests. "Evolutionists" reveal their
advocacy when they question the credentials of the scientists and engage in character
assassination rather than a legitimate defense of their position.
Scientists must consider the
ramifications of the Earth's magnetic field strength decreasing 50% in every 1,400
years. "Evolutionists" claim [falsely] that this is not an exponential
decrease and that there isn't enough observable evidence.
Scientists should welcome
organizations like the Institute for Creation Research which are filling the gap in the
scientific analysis of creation. "Evolutionists" instantly presume that
any research done by such organizations is suspect, even though they admit that they
themselves haven't examined and don't want to examine any facts, opinions, speculation or
theories based on creation.
Scientists must recognize that an
extremely small variation in DNA produces radically different species.
"Evolutionists" speculate that the DNA of chimpanzees and humans being
"98.5% similar" is proof of speciation, which is analogous to claiming
that the blueprints of Volkswagens and Boeing 747s being "98.5% similar" is
proof that there is little difference between a Volkswagen and a Boeing 747.
Consider how many similarities there
are between the design plans of a Volkswagen and a Boeing 747. They both use the
same paper, ink, and mathematics. They both use English and metric measuring
systems. They are both drawn on computers using identical software programs.
They both required simulation and prototypes and testing and redesign. They both use
parts which can be manufactured en masse and assembled on an assembly line. They
both have engines, brakes, hydraulic systems, electrical systems, water cooling systems,
electronics, transceivers, headlights, doors, windows, ceilings, floors, carpeting, seats,
and seat belts.
They are almost identical?
If Volkswagen used a smaller font size
in the plans than Boeing, then a complete collection of the printed design plans of the
Volkswagen could be larger than for the Boeing 747. Does this make them "98.5%
similar"?
No.
 | The Talk.origins Usenet newsgroup http://www.talkorigins.org is the most referenced web site used by "evolutionists".
This is a great site for discovering how they prefer
to engage in character assassination and slander rather than debate. This site has
an entire page dedicated to questioning the credentials of "creationists" with
whom they disagree. Yet they themselves have elevated college dropout, uneducated, medical
school flunky Charles Darwin to a "virtual god". If they were to apply the
same level of scrutiny to Darwin, his "theory", or "speciation", this
site wouldn't exist. Such hypocrisy is exceeded only by their "religious
conviction" to their cause http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
|
| A particularly specious
article on this web site falsely accuses respected scientist Thomas G. Barnes of
mischaracterizing his data as being exponential, of "resting on false
premises","simply playing a trick on us", "already played his
trick", and being "simply false". Even if any valid points were made,
this is advocacy at its worst, not science, and it discredits the entire web site. |
| The alt.education Usenet newsgroup is a great
illustration of the pack mentality which led to the mass hysteria surrounding the
"theory of evolution". In just a few days of debate, most
"evolutionists" had rejected any new scientific evidence which challenged their
position, derided any reference which was associated with "creationists",
manufacured false premises and outright LIES about this author, "appealed" to
the "Christian nature of Christians" in order to curtail the debate, and
dedicated more effort to character assassination than to real debate. In only two
posts, one poster had managed to pack together 26 false statements, 10 LIES, 14
adhominems, 4 "I hate its", and only 9 facts. Being accurate 14.3% of the
time isn't good, but it appears to be better than the accuracy involved in the overall
"evolution debate". |
| |
|
