Continuing the rebuttal of the article, “9 Scientific Facts Prove that “The Theory of Evolution” is wrong.”
This is the author’s last “scientific fact” – “Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong“. As you could have guessed, the author saved the “best” for last.
Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The “Big Bang Theory” doesn’t solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.
The author quotes from another article making the exact same mistake:
“We know that matter can be created out of energy, and energy can be created out of matter. This doesn’t resolve the dilemma because we must also know where the original energy came from.”
There begins and ends scientific fact #9… the iceberg that sinks the evolutionary Titanic.
This is gibberish.
The only people who are saying that “something can evolve from nothing” are creationists. If I’m throwing my hands up about anything, it’s because I’m now wasting my time, yet again, on a total, complete red herring.
No, the origin of matter doesn’t matter in the slightest to evolutionary theory. Why would it? It makes as much sense as saying that gravity is disproved because we don’t know where matter/energy “came from”. We can also throw on that pile of disproved things, the laws of thermodynamics, laws of motion, chemistry, biology… anything that depends on the existence of matter and energy.
Why would this objection apply only to evolution? Even if we’re switching to talking about the subject, abiogenesis, that’s not even dependent on the Big Bang. It’s only contingent on energy/matter, somehow, existing… even if a god established it.
What more is there to say? If we don’t know how or where fossil fuels formed, that doesn’t mean that our studies of gasoline combustion are false. I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t follow… but that’s basically the structure of the “fact” here.
This is such a fitting crown to this entire article.
A different author follows up with some disclaimer/commentary.
The above is an excerpt of a larger article promoting creationism (the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being), but without bringing any kind of evidence to support it.
The author brings solid scientific arguments to disprove the “Theory of Evolution” as it is today
No. No he doesn’t. In terms of actual points/arguments made, the entire article was 100% wrong – fractally wrong. At every conceivable level of examination, we found level after level of wrongness supporting other levels of wrongness.
Every assertion or argument made fell into one or more of a few categories:
- The information was wrong.
- The hidden premises were wrong.
- Massive misconceptions about the topics the author discussed, whether it was anything in evolutionary theory, or what a scientific theory/law is.
- Logical fallacies (just look at the complete non-sequitur of #9) wrecking the argument.
- The author merely asserted something, with no argumentation or evidence to back it up.
The author didn’t come close to mounting any kind of challenge to evolution.
…but disproving it does not implicitly prove the biblical “Creation Story” is correct. In fact, there are – at least – just as many arguments to disprove many of the biblical stories.
This is the most sensible thing said in the webpage so far… and then spends awhile talking about whether alien life exists, for some reason that I can only guess about. Then he concludes with this:
Before concluding this article, I want to thank Mr. Kent R. Rieske for his outstanding work and all the scientific data gathered to disprove the “Theory of Evolution” (as it is today), which was imagined and promoted by the high ranking Freemasons as a disinformation weapon and control tool.
As long as we are not allowed to know our true history, the Secret Societies are in control. As long as the “Theory of Evolution” (as it is today) stands, we are nothing else than slightly more evolved “working apes.”
Sorry, I take it back. This is the crown of the article.
Thank you to those who stuck with me through the 30ish posts. I may do a followup or two, but we’ll see.