My Reply To "Playd76" On YouTube

Every so often I'll view a Creation vs Evolutionism video or debate on YouTube and will come across some of the comments typed out regarding the video. I usually try to reply to one of the comments where I feel a person is at least attempting to use some logical argument and engage in some kind of dialogue hoping to reason with them. The biggest misconception that most of these atheist and evolutionists have is that they are unable to distinguish the difference between "Christianity" and "Religion". They fail to understand that Christians will stand right beside them when it comes to some of the things that were done in the name of religion. They seem to be confusing the Roman Catholic church and some of their practices which clearly contradict what Christ taught. Here is the dialogue between myself and "Playd76" from the video Creation vs Evolution:

Playd76 has also been invited to read this reply and then comment or debate via the comments section for this particular post to defend his/her argument. As I usually do this often I will attempt to paste various dialogues between myself and other commentators on YouTube so that you can see what the common arguments are as well as mistakes and misconceptions are between various belief groups.
_______

I started out the comment stating that there was no "empirical" evidence for Macro Evolution, that which teaches as fact that dogs produced non dogs and cats produced non cats etc...

by it's very definition

Em-pir-i-cal:

–adjective

1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.

3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

So by it's very definition, evolutionist do the same exact thing that Christians do. Has any evolutionist directly observed evolution occurring? Were they there at the beginning? When they find a dinosaur bone in the ground, how does this bone tell them that the animal even had offspring, nevertheless different or mutated ones?

What's amazing is that Playd76 and I are both using the same exact evidence available for everyone. The only difference is our presuppositions. I hope as I have been opened minded over the years (9) when studying this topic, so Playd76 will also set aside his/her presuppositions and consider the Christian message which is both resonable and rational. I'll respond point by point until comments are entered in the comment section and will then return dialogue from that section on. Anyone is welcome to add input as well.

Playd76's comment-

1 - No 'empirical' evidence? lol, you're going to need some paper pants if its true about ignorance being bliss. We have evidence from every branch of science supporting it, it's been biologically proven as i mentioned previously, what part of that didn't you understand? Are you now going to really show us your level of ignorance by telling us 'it's just a theory'? lol To call 'evolution' a religion is a joke. Firstly, this suggests you have problems with religion when you clearly 2 - don't being as you accept bronze age beliefs that would normally result in somebody being certified mentally ill under any other circumstances, (as Sam Harris say's "it seems like there's sanity in numbers" whilst we have the support of the entire scientific community as well as the colossal amount of evidence you're obviously oblivious too. Evolution simply describes part of nature & the fact that this part of nature is important to many people hardly makes evolution a religion. 3 - Religion explains ultimate reality whereas evolution ends with the development of life AFTER it had already began. Evolution also doesn't deal with the 'supernatural' in any way, shape or form. Creationism begins with a preconceived conclusion (making it biased from the outset) & desperately tries to find facts to support it (failing miserably as EVERY shred of empirical evidence supports evolution) unlike evolution that takes the facts then comes to an IMPARTIAL conclusion using 3 - ONLY the evidence available. Evolution is also open to revision or even abandonment as new evidence comes to light unlike the stagnant & bigoted nature of creationism. Look up 'Tiktaalik' if you have trouble accepting there are any transitional forms between marine & land animals. Again, we have this wonderful thing called evidence, you people should try it."your faith is much much greater than any Christian"How many people do you know of that have killed in the name of evolution?

My point by point reply;

"No 'empirical' evidence?........We have evidence from every branch of science supporting it, it's been biologically proven as i mentioned previously, what part of that didn't you understand?"

Well, could you be more specific about the "evidence" you speak of? What exactly was the evidence that put it over the top for you? What is the absolute evidence you saw that convinced you macro evolution is true and that all of the life we see today came from one single organism. Where did the "information" come from to change one animal into another animal? And it's funny you say it's been "biologically proven" Speaking of biology, could you demonstrate how the flagellum cell which has been demonstrated that it could not have evolved because all of it's components are required to be fully present or it doesn't work? So if this organism cannot be broken down any more without it falling apart how could it have evolved gradually since all of it's parts have to be present for it to work? I think you underestimate this little machine. This irreducibly complex motor can do some extraordinary things. You want me and others to believe that this could have come about by random chance and mutation without anything guiding it whatsoever? Natural selection doesn't work here alone because as mentioned before this did not gradually evolve. Darwin himself said "If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."




My friend, biology is certainly not on your side - http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/7/7b/Bacterial_flagellum_diagram.png

"whilst we have the support of the entire scientific community as well as the colossal amount of evidence you're obviously oblivious too"

Wow - the entire scientific community believes in evolution? This is a major assumption on your part as not every scientist believes in evolution. But if I were to give you that, would evolution be true because every scientist believes in it? The obvious answer is "no". In Copernicus's day all scientist taught that the earth was the center of the universe, where they all right? It was once taught by all scientist that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects etc... Did this mean they were right? No, we now know that objects fall at the same speed when accelerated by gravity when there is no air resistance. So just because the majority agree on something doesn't mean they're right. However, I would like to return to my point that your statement is false to begin with because not every scientist believes in evolution. For instance, there are many professionally trained scientists who do not believe in the theory of evolution and are available to speak for groups or churches. Multiple speakers have Masters Degrees and PhD's. Some speakers include: Don DeYoung, who has a PhD in physics; Michael Oard, who has a Masters in Atmospheric Science; Eugene Chaffin, who has a Masters in Physics; David Kaufmann, who has a PhD in Human Anatomy; Kevin Anderson, who has a PhD in Microbiology; Mark Armitage, who has a Masters of Science in Biology. So are these men not scientist by your standards?

"Evolution simply describes part of nature & the fact that this part of nature is important to many people hardly makes evolution a religion."

No, what makes it a religion is that your belief in evolution requires faith because the origin of life and the production of new information through mutation has not been demonstrated under any conceivable circumstance.

consider some quotes from your own evolutionist's:

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal", 1975, p. 101-102.


[Evolution]“…a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” Michael Ruse. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post (May 13, 2000). pB-3.


“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin (1971 edition),


"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].


“This evolutionist doctrine is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity…a system destitute of any shadow of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech….Now no one pretends that they rest on facts actually observed, for no one has ever observed the production of even one species….Let the reader take up either of Darwin's great books, or Spencer's ‘Biology,’ and merely ask himself as he reads each paragraph, ‘What is assumed here and what is proved?’ and he will find the whole fabric melt away like a vision….We thus see that evolution as an hypothesis has no basis in experience or in scientific fact, and that its imagined series of transmutations has breaks which cannot be filled.” Sir William Dawson, The Story of Earth and Man. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1887, pp. 317, 322, 330, 339.


"Religion explains ultimate reality whereas evolution ends with the development of life AFTER it had already began"

Of which you are unable to explain how it began, and when you're asked about it you say "evolution and abiogenesis are two different things". Mere dodge ball in my opinion.

Creationism begins with a preconceived conclusion (making it biased from the outset) & desperately tries to find facts to support it (failing miserably as EVERY shred of empirical evidence supports evolution)

As does evolution. I have yet to debate any evolutionist who has not assumed right off the bat that the earth is millions of years old despite the contrary evidences. (ask, and I will be more than happy to provide you with evidence for a young earth) Even when soft dinosaur tissue and blood cells are presented to the skeptics, rather than say maybe dinosaurs aren't 65 million years old, they are busy trying to figure out how blood cells could have survided for millions of years??? And the latter portion of that statement is another assumption as EVERY shred of empirical evidence does not support evolution. The fossil record alone is of great embarrassment to your theory. Gary Parker said;

"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation." (Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D., Biologist/paleontologist and former Evolutionist)

Article; What does the fossil record teach us about evolution? - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html

"Evolution is also open to revision or even abandonment as new evidence comes to light unlike the stagnant & bigoted nature of creationism"

This statement, yet again, is another one blindly stated by yourself. If this statement is true why are such information like Haeckel's Embryo drawings which were disproved in 1868 as fraudulent and even his own University held him on trial, still in text books? And what about Piltdown man and other supposed missing links that are still being portrayed in text books.? And Archeopteryx which was proven to be a bird from the beginning obtaining all the necessary components for flight already present. Why aren't these being "abandoned" once disproved? It seems as though your evolutionist just don't want to let them go.

Piltdown Man
A piece of skull bone was found in 1912. Later, a jawbone was discovered nearby and said to be from the same creature as the skull piece. Evolutionists claimed that the skull had human features and the jaw was apelike, showing “proof” that apes evolved into man. Actually, the skull was human, but the jawbone was from an orangutan. The teeth had been filed down to make them look more human! Yet it took over 40 years before this hoax was disproved.

Archaeoraptor
This more recent discovery was used to prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds. A Chinese farmer dug up pieces of fossil in two separate places, then pasted the pieces together. It was supposed to look like a dinosaur that was developing feathers. National Geographic magazine published this as proof of the evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds. Later, the fossil was shown to be from two different animals.

"Look up 'Tiktaalik' if you have trouble accepting there are any transitional forms between marine & land animals"

The fact that you believe Tiktaalik to be a transitional form shows you are parakeeting information. This is a fish, it has gills, not lungs. Your faith is evident, you need to use your "imagination" to turn Tiktaalk into any other thing than a fish.

consider what Dr. David Menton stated regarding this special fish

Many species of living fish are known to breathe air as well as slither on their bellies, with the help of their pectoral fins, across large expanses of land (evolutionists call this “walking”). For example, the northern snakehead and the “walking catfish” (Clarias batrachus) are air–breathing fish that can travel overland for considerable distances. The mudskippers are fish that breathe oxygen through their skin and “skip” along on land with the aid of their fleshy fins. The climbing perch (Anabas testudineus) not only breathes air and “walks” on land but is even capable of climbing trees! Yet none of these curious fish are considered by evolutionists to be ancestors of tetrapods—they are simply interesting and specialized fish.

Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. In a review article on Tiktaalik (appearing in the same issue of the scientific journal Nature that reported the discovery of Tiktaalik), fish evolution experts, Ahlberg and Clack concede that “in some respects Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic.”

Without the author’s evolutionary bias, of course, there is no reason to assume that Tiktaalik was anything other than exclusively aquatic. And how do we know that Tiktaalik lost its gill cover as opposed to never having one? The longer snout and lack of bony gill covers (found in many other exclusively-aquatic living fish) are interpreted as indicating a reduced flow of water through the gills, which, in turn, is declared to be suggestive of partial air-breathing—but this is quite a stretch. Finally, what does any of this have to do with fish evolving into land dwelling tetrapods?

"......we will see that there are no known fish with true “legs” (and certainly no feet), and none capable of actually “walking”—except in the most trivial sense of the word. "

"How many people do you know of that have killed in the name of evolution?"

For Starters,

Eric Auvinen:

Just before last year’s shooting, killer Pekka-Eric Auvinen claimed online he would act as a “natural selector” to “eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race, and failures of natural selection.” He concluded, "I am prepared to fight and die for my cause. . . . I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection. No, the truth is that I am just an animal, a human, an individual, a dissident

. . . . It’s time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks!" [emphasis in original]. He also called himself a “social Darwinist” and, during the massacre, wore a shirt that read, “humanity is overrated” in all-caps.

Matt Juhani Saari:

Shot and killed 10 people at a vocational college in the town of Kauhajoki, Finland. Cornered in by police, he shot himself and died later at a hospital. In all, Saari killed eight female students, one male student, and one male teacher, and also wounded a female student. Der Spiegel reports that Saari “was apparently fascinated by the American students who shot up Columbine High School in 1999” in an article explaining how Saari had planned the shooting since 2002

Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold (Columbine Shooters):

The boys killed 12 students and a teacher, and wounded 23 others. Eric Harris wore a t-shirt that read "Natural Selection" on it. The boys made a video about a year or so before the shooting. In the video one of the boys, speaking of Isaiah Shoels, an african america athelete. "look for his jaw (Isaiah Shoels) it won't be there, he doesn't deserve the jaw evolution gave him" (paraphrased) The boys did the shooting on April 20th purposely because it was Hitler's birthday.

Hitler:

Hitler was full of evolutionary thinking. In his book "Mein Kampf" you can read all about his racist philosphy. Hitler also valued both Darwin’s and Nietzche’s books. When Hitler killed 6 million Jews, he was only doing what Darwin taught.

*Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) was chancellor of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. He carefully studied the writings of *Darwin and *Nietzsche. Hitler’s book, MeinKampf, was based on evolutionary theory (*Sir ArthurKeith, Evolution and Ethics, 1947, p. 28). The very title of the book (“My Struggle” [to survive and overcome]) was copied from a Darwinian expression. Hitler believed he was fulfilling evolutionary objectives by eliminating “undesirable individuals and inferior races” in order to produce Germany’s “Master Race” (*Larry Azar, Twen-tieth Century in Crisis, 1990, p. 180).

Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion: ‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’

So though evolution is not to be blamed as the direct cause of these actions, it is to be noted for the influence it gave to these individuals.

Joe