Evolutionists Miss the Point

  • Posted in.
  • Tagged.
  • Share it.

The thing that frustrated me most about the Ken Ham & Bill Nye debate was how Nye kept insisting that the creation model couldn’t produce predictions. He missed Ham’s point completely. This is a trend I have noticed where evolutionists won’t address the creationists points, and say things like “you can’t win against crazy,” and other discrediting statements. They say things like, “Show me one piece of evidence…” meanwhile Ham and other creationists can produce several, along with issues with the evolution model, which apparently fall on deaf ears.

The real problem comes to play, and this is why I personally don’t like to debate this topic, is that I’m PROBABLY never going to change my mind because there is no science that can magically tell us what happened in history, and like Ham, I can admit that. But Bill Nye can’t, even though he’s the same way: He will never change his opinion, and won’t admit that. He says that he would believe if you could show him the evidence, but you show him the evidence and he still doesn’t believe. This is because ultimately man cannot accept that there is God. Evolution is not fueled by science, it’s about God, or rather, attempting to disprove God. And this is why if you’re reading this incredulously, you’ll probably never change your mind even if there were compelling information to suggest evolution is inadequate, which I believe there is.

My main problem with evolution comes to this: every day things in evolution are being disproven and more and more fantastical theories need to be put in place, to where the mathematical probability to accomplish those things are impossible to happen by chance. Scientists are now suggest that infinity and the eternal exist, in fact their theories depend on it.  Even if you reject the bible, you have to see that. Furthermore, even if evolution were true, which I don’t think it is, it would not disprove that there is God. In my humble opinion, every atheist evolutionist everywhere is fighting a losing battle. You can’t disprove God as much as I can’t prove He exists.

Evolutionists also assume that they would be willing to hear evidence contrary to evolution, and my take on that is that that science is some kind of altruistic study that couldn’t possibly be tainted with things like politics, money, religious beliefs (or anti-beliefs), etc? Yet, we’ve seen over and over throughout history of the opposite. For example, Nye cites the man who discovered germs changed science forever. He didn’t cite how the doctors and scientists in that day attempted to silence that discovery because it was bad for business and went against their “mainstream” knowledge. Don’t believe me?

Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, [Ignaz] Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis’s practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist’s research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed.  (Wikipedia)

So no, I don’t trust “mainstream” science to legitimately accept any finding contrary to their original supposition, which is why, if you noticed, Nye didn’t even address Ham’s points at all. When Ham mentioned that the rock was found IN the trees after Ham rebutted Nye’s suggestion that perhaps the rock slide over/through the trees, Nye had this deer in headlights look on his face. I also found the whole dating topic was never adequately satisfied from an evolution standpoint. How can I trust the dating method if it dates something I have observed as millions of years old versus a piece of sediment in the bottom of the grand canyon? Nye looked like an idiot when he pulled up the slides with things and their ages when Ham was questioning the aging methods. Obviously if the aging methods are incorrect then you can’t accept those dates.

I also noticed that Nye kept refuting the statement that the animals were vegetarian before the flood. I don’t know what Ham’s beliefs are on that specifically, but if that were true it would have to be in the garden of Eden before the fall of man, which happened well before the flood. That makes more sense to me, and if you think about it, that seems to go hand-in-hand with all of the vegans and vegetarians that claim people are healthier on an all-plant diet, is it reasonable to think that same might be true for animals as well, if we were to think of an ideal state of being? Just throwing that out there–I haven’t noodled that one for very long.

I know there are many of you probably think that I’m nuts for believing in a Creator God, in the bible and a young earth. I can assure you, I’m not crazy. I’m a wonderfully intelligent and reasonable person who can think critically and form a rational argument. I make no apologies for my beliefs and where they come from. My challenge to you: if you REALLY love science, and REALLY have a quest for knowledge and the truth, then don’t put yourself in a box, and this goes for EVERYONE.

I do believe that there can be some middle ground here. I believe you can separate historical science and observational science. Both should be taught in schools, but historical science should be presented as theories: the creation theory and the evolution theory, and any other theory out there. More focus should be spent on observational science since that is the science that we use every day to innovate. The idea that if we do this we’ll fall behind other countries is ridiculous. We might still fall behind other countries but for other reasons (that’s an entirely new topic altogether). I personally would like to see this discussion of evolution without so much focus on God and religion.

And I leave you with one final thought: People rarely change history for going with the flow, even if there are disastrous consequences for doing so. I’m not sorry for going against the grain on this one.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Leave a Comment.