Evolution X4 - a mere semblance of a rebuttal?

This Mr Daniel has once again showed us what pro-creationists are really made of. Read his reply to the barrage of ammunition thrown at him below.

As I said previously,
"To swerve away from responding to the question by questioning the accuracy of it would once again prove that pro-creationists have used the same outdated ammunition ever since 1857 over and over again- to brush off all new and fresh efforts made by the scientific community while having nothing new of their own."


In Evolution X3,
The most pertinent point is once again brushed off by "SIR" Daniel...

Before Galileo and Copernicus, The Bible states that the Sun revolves around the Earth... Make that the whole universe revolves around the earth. This is the me-centric thought that permeates society today.

"I am the most important. The world revolves around me." "Human beings are the most superior beings on the world and thus we have the right to use and exploit every other living thing on earth." And of course... this same thought is what runs through the white Colonialists when they enslaved the many less modern civilisations across the globe. -I am superior and therefore you must obey me- while spouting cheerily: "We are here to bring you prosperity and modernisation"

Galileo's efforts ridiculed the Church and he was almost burnt at a stake for being a heretic (were he born earlier by a century). But his efforts became the accepted fact of today.

It should also be noted that this instance above, points to us that holy books are work of men.

Mr. Daniel conveniently sidestepped this debacle.


Another bone of contention I have with him is he is somewhat confused. I cited the bible because in it is written the words of pro-creationists and it is necessary as as a reference. He quips:"The Evolutionist says that from some kind of dust or a dot the big bang happened"

I feel rather sorry at this point because he can be attacked at so many different angles for his first letter and now he just gave us the key to United State's Armoury.

He made the glaring error of confusing between two theories. Evolution is a theory. The Big Bang is a separate theory. Nowhere in Darwin's articles can the two be linked up together. As I said, he is confused. He has to stand his ground on three fronts

1. how did earth came to be? (I shall avoid using the word "created")
2. Can Evolution be disproved? as it is.. there is so much that has been verified
3. Can the existence of God be substantiated?

On the other hand, evolutionists do not feel the need to debate about 1. or 3.
They just quietly do their scientific work and let the pro-creationists do all the yabbering concerning no 2. They do not feel the need to respond to counter-claims.

A master at dodgeball, Adam's descendant Mr Daniel quietly avoided my point on fossils.

also as I said previously,
"Man have been found to have originated from the continent of Africa and branched out from there settling all across the globe. Proof that man evolved from another species can be found in the discovery of Homo erectus, Homo habilis and Australopithecus africanus."

Where did Adam first appear?

Further down his letter, I especially scratch my head at this

"After the introduction of evolution 1963 into the education system in 1963 the Chicago Tribune on April 9, 1995, reported that “SATs get dumber”. “New scores will be higher but standards lower”. Is this how we evolve and get smarter?"

What the hell? really.. WHAT THE HELL? This is how he disproves evolution?
No wonder we start to question his intelligence.

Due to time constrainsts (exam), I shall continue this post at a different time.
I am sorry to be using personal attacks at this juncture as I cannot "tahan" arrogance and his wanton use of denigrating language.

Finally :"Medical student from Muar, get your facts right and please visit our websites on creation science on all that has been done to discredit evolution by scientific methods"

... please stop your efforts at discrediting evolution and spend some time doing something useful for a change?

(I am not an atheist. It's just that I do not believe in a supreme being that made everything and we owe everything to it)

____________________________

AFTER the strong critique D.V. Samuel received from readers last week (The case against Mr Samuel in Your Say), we received a number of letters supporting him. However, due to space constraints, we will leave it to Mr Samuel to “defend” himself. The evolution vs creation debate is far from over but we would like to ask readers to give it a rest for the time being.

HITLER said, “If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough, the people will believe it” (The Third Reich at War). He also goes on to say that people are more likely to believe a big lie as it has a certain force of credibility than the little lie. What we see in our science books is a mixing of lies.

Creationists are not against science but we are against the poison that is intermingled in the science text. The word evolution has many meanings and only one of which is truly scientific in nature.

This is “micro evolution” which is variation within kinds. Only this type has been observed which creationists believe in it as well.

Looking at the first law of thermodynamics which says “energy cannot be created or destroyed”. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, how did the world get here? So we are left with only two choices that either somebody made the world or the world made itself.

Creationists believe that in the beginning “God created the Heavens and the Earth”. The humanists regard the universe as self existing and not created. (Humanist Manifesto 1, 1933 Tenent #1).

The Evolutionist says that from some kind of dust or a dot the big bang happened. My question is where in the first place did this dust come from? Who made matter? The answer no one knows? Creationists say “In the beginning, God created…” but the question would be “where did God come from?” The answer no one knows! So in a nutshell the Creationist would say “In the beginning, God…” and the “Evolutionist would say “In the beginning, dust …”.

Sir Fred Hoyle (Astronomer Cosmologist & Mathematician, Cambridge University: said “ I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.” (“The big bang theory under attack” Science Digest, Vol 92 May 1984 pg 84)

The Evolution teaches us “you are an animal and share a common heritage with earthworms” (Biology: Visualizing Life, Holt, 1994). Medical student from Muar a.k.a. “monkey’s uncle” claims that the age of the earth was determined as 4.5 billion years old using Carbon Dating method. I can’t comprehend that Carbon Dating, which is used for dating archeological remains of biological origin up to 50,000 years old is used to measure the age of the earth! Are you sure you got the dating method correct?

Anything beyond 50,000 years theoretically has no detectible 14C left in it. Hence it is common sense that any sample that contains 14C is not millions of years old. Carbon dating and other radioactive dating methods have been proven inaccurate over many decades. For more information on carbon dating and proof of a relatively young earth visit this site. ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html.

Apart from that, there are various clocks that establish that the Earth is relatively young. One of which is the rapid decay of the Earth’s magnetic field. The intensity of the earth’s magnetic field energy has declined by 14% since 1829. If we calculate backwards into time when the magnetic field is the strongest it would be less than 10,000 years. Beyond this, life will not be able to sustain on this planet. Visit this site for more information www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=371

Darwinist from Selangor said we are just defenders of our faith. The fact is evolution is also a religion and creationists are just defending their faith.

To Mr Adam Kopystynski from Kuantan, many Evolutionists say that creation science is halting scientific advancement and it is shocking to me that you do not think much about Nobel prize winners. After the introduction of Evolution in 1963 into the education system the Chicago Tribune on April 9, 1995, reported that “SATs get dumber”. “New scores will be higher but standards lower”. Is this how we evolve and get smarter?

Medical student from Muar, get your facts right and please visit our websites on creation science on all that has been done to discredit evolution by scientific methods. Please be my guest to think that your great-great-great grandpa was a worm and my great-great-great grandpa was Adam the son of God.

Daniel V. Samuel, Kajang, Selangor