Here at TomatoBubble.com;
we love all
of our readers, including the Atheist / Evolutionists. From
time to time an E-mail that reads something like the following
will arrive in the inbox:
"Mike. I love your work but you really need to stick to history and current events. You do not understand the science behind Evolution and are only harming your credibility when you attack Darwin."
Though this type of feedback is certainly more cordial and tolerable than the occasional, "You are a stupid ignorant deranged 'Nazi' extremist who believes that a giant spaghetti monster created the universe in 7 days. Ha ha ha" - it is still a variation of the condescending you-do-not-understand-science ad hominem logical fallacy that Evolutionists always resort to. This rhetorical device is a weaponized trick that we shall now disarm.
First of all, the lack of any extensive "scientific background" does not necessarily disqualify a logical thinker from expressing an opinion on Evolution or any other matter related to science. If a man observes a rapidly darkening sky on a brutally hot and humid summer afternoon; followed by a sudden temperature drop and distant rumbles of thunder; would his lack of a "background in meteorology" invalidate his opinion that rain is forthcoming?
If a man opts to take the elevator downstairs instead of simply jumping out of a 40th floor window and into his waiting convertible; would his lack of a "background in physics" invalidate his fear of jumping out of skyscrapers?
This idea that any matters pertaining to science, or alleging to pertain to science, can only be discussed by those with the right "qualifications" is a clear example of another classic logical fallacy; the 'Appeal to Authority'. Every great philosopher from Buddha, to Confucius, to Plato, to Socrates, to Marcus Aurelius, to Jesus, to Schopenhauer and so many others specifically warned against the inherent errors associated with this type of boot-licking, group-thinking worship of authority figures. Buddha expressed the key to right thinking very well when he stated:
"Do not go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought."
In other words, "Don't assume things; and to hell with those diploma-decorated fools who think they know it all. Use your own reason and observation!" And with that, let us dispense with this puffed-up patronizing rubbish about "lack of a scientific background" once and for all. You see, it doesn't take a "scientific background" to understand the basic and timeless principles of what is known as "The Scientific Method". Ironically, it is the hallowed Scientific Method which dooms the "theoretical science" of Darwinian Evolution to the toilet bowl of pseudo-scientific error.
What is the Scientific Method?
The Scientific Method consists of the flow-chart steps shown in the following chart:
"Mike. I love your work but you really need to stick to history and current events. You do not understand the science behind Evolution and are only harming your credibility when you attack Darwin."
Though this type of feedback is certainly more cordial and tolerable than the occasional, "You are a stupid ignorant deranged 'Nazi' extremist who believes that a giant spaghetti monster created the universe in 7 days. Ha ha ha" - it is still a variation of the condescending you-do-not-understand-science ad hominem logical fallacy that Evolutionists always resort to. This rhetorical device is a weaponized trick that we shall now disarm.
First of all, the lack of any extensive "scientific background" does not necessarily disqualify a logical thinker from expressing an opinion on Evolution or any other matter related to science. If a man observes a rapidly darkening sky on a brutally hot and humid summer afternoon; followed by a sudden temperature drop and distant rumbles of thunder; would his lack of a "background in meteorology" invalidate his opinion that rain is forthcoming?
If a man opts to take the elevator downstairs instead of simply jumping out of a 40th floor window and into his waiting convertible; would his lack of a "background in physics" invalidate his fear of jumping out of skyscrapers?
It doesn't take a scientist to discern the obvious.
This idea that any matters pertaining to science, or alleging to pertain to science, can only be discussed by those with the right "qualifications" is a clear example of another classic logical fallacy; the 'Appeal to Authority'. Every great philosopher from Buddha, to Confucius, to Plato, to Socrates, to Marcus Aurelius, to Jesus, to Schopenhauer and so many others specifically warned against the inherent errors associated with this type of boot-licking, group-thinking worship of authority figures. Buddha expressed the key to right thinking very well when he stated:
"Do not go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought."
In other words, "Don't assume things; and to hell with those diploma-decorated fools who think they know it all. Use your own reason and observation!" And with that, let us dispense with this puffed-up patronizing rubbish about "lack of a scientific background" once and for all. You see, it doesn't take a "scientific background" to understand the basic and timeless principles of what is known as "The Scientific Method". Ironically, it is the hallowed Scientific Method which dooms the "theoretical science" of Darwinian Evolution to the toilet bowl of pseudo-scientific error.
Had Darwin studied Greek or Buddhist philosophy,
he would never have made such a monkey of himself.
What is the Scientific Method?
The Scientific Method consists of the flow-chart steps shown in the following chart:
Each step must logically flow into the next step until the process
is complete. No skipping steps! As soon as the
standards of any given step cannot be met, the game ends
and the hypothesis must either go into the garbage, or be
placed on the shelf until further data is obtained. Now, let's plug
"Evolution" TM into the assembly line and see what we get.
Step
1: Ask a Question
OK. This one is easy. Anyone can ask a question about anything. Here it goes: "How
did we all get here?"
Step 2: Do Background Research
Gather
data and observe it carefully. If you detect a pattern that suggests a plausible conclusion, then move
onto the next step. What Darwin "discovered" during this step is that all living creatures share many common traits;
and that the differences among them adapt them perfectly to their natural environment.
Step 3:
Construct a Hypothesis
Based on your data mining,
make an educated guess as to what the truth is. Not just any ole guess; not a wild and baseless
guess; but an educated guess based on a compelling pattern of data. Here, at a very early stage
of the Scientific Method, Darwin has already gone off the rails. In his own weasel words:
"The real affinities of all organic beings, in contradiction to their adaptive resemblances, are due to inheritance
or community of descent. Therefore I should infer from analogy
that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have
descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."
(Keep the words 'infer', 'analogy', and 'probably'
in your memory bank for a moment. This will be fun!)
What
Darwin observed is really nothing that a retarded 8 year old, living in
a cave 10,000
years ago, could not have easily noticed on his own; namely,
that all creatures have many traits in common. For
example, a lizard has two eyes, a mouth, teeth, a tongue, four
limbs, a spine, a skeleton etc; and, a human being also has
two eyes, a mouth, teeth, a tongue, four limbs, a spine, a
skeleton etc. And from that, and nothing more, Darwin
"hypothesizes" that all living things came from an original "single-cell" organism? Really Chuck?
Aha!!! Lovely Cindy Crawford and the lizard both
have brown eyes and two nostrils! Therefore let us hypothesize that they both had the same great-great-great grandma[x]
.
Darwin
himself even admits that there is no data to
support his hypothesis; which means that the hypothesis itself
should never have been put forth in the first place. Again,
from his own mouth:
"On
this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude
of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants
of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct
and still older species, why is not every geological formation
charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil
remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of
the forms of life?
We meet with no such evidence. And this is the most obvious
and forcible of the many objections used against my theory."
That's right Chuckie. The MILLIONS of "missing links' flowing from single-cell pond
scum to modern man and every other living organism did not exist in the late 1800's, nor have they been pieced together
to this day. In fact, as even prominent Evolutionists openly admit, the fossil record
actually appears to show that new life forms came on to the scene very suddenly. (which supports the Intelligent
Design Hypothesis)
Nonetheless,
in spite of the fact that the standards of the 'Hypothesis
Step' of the Scientific Method have, by Darwin's own admission, not
been met; let us, purely for the sake of argument, cheat a
little and give the Evolutionists a "free pass"
to the next step.
Step 4: Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
I don't even know where to even begin with this one. How does one construct an experiment to "prove"
that great-great-great grandma[x] was a piece
of algae that spontaneously appeared in a pond, and "mutated" into millions of transitional species, culminating
in what we are today. In the absence of any experimentation, one could conceivably
skip this step and jump to an intense observation of unfolding natural processes; a "natural experiment", so to
speak.
But here again, there
is nothing to observe. The reality is that
trans-species evolution is not observable and has never been observed,
neither in nature, nor in the fossil record, nor in a lab
experiment. Sorry Evolutionists, but a non-definitive skull fragment
of some creature purported to be an "ape ancestor" does not meet the standard of
scientific observation; let alone constitute hard evidence that great-great-great grandma[x] was
a microscopic piece of single-celled pond scum. The same goes
for your desperately hyped-up Galapagos finches, peppered moths,
'super rats', platypuses etc.
And speaking
of "simple" single-cell organisms (which we now know are more complex than nuclear submarines and space shuttles!),
a single-cell organism has NEVER been observed to "mutate" into
a new species of two-cell organism. My God! The
Evolutionists cannot even validate, neither in nature nor in a
laboratory, the jump from one-cell bacteria to a viable two-cell
bacteria; yet they call us "stupid" for doubting that
our one-celled pond scum great-great-great grandma[x] "evolved" into the modern day human,
elephant, bird, bumble bee, dolphin, eagle, spider, flower, tree, flower, octopus etc.
The "randomly formed"
original "simple single cell" comes with its own genome - living computer chips packed with complex DNA
coding that transmit during cell reproduction. Nothing like it has ever been observed to spontaneously appear
and reproduce itself in a pond or in the "primordial soup" that no one has ever seen.
Obviously, steps
5 and 6 of the Scientific Method are rendered mute; but that
doesn't stop the dogmatic Evolutionists and degenerate Marxists
from pounding their fists on the table and screaming "Science ... science ... science!" in your face; whilst
viciously denouncing you as "uneducated" for daring to question their pond scum to human scenario.
The
Theory of trans-species Evolution TM is neither testable nor observable.
Likewise, the theory of life blindly coming from non-life is neither testable, nor observable; to say nothing
of even being sane. Heck, these ideas were never even 'hypothesizable', and that was before our understanding of
the incredibly complex DNA computer code we call, the genome; a mind boggling instructional code that is programmed
into all organisms, including those "simple" single-cell amoebas and bacteria!
Bottom Line: According to
any honest rendering of the hallowed Scientific Method, Evolution TM is NOT science. Indeed, it's not even good science-fiction!
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario