Letters to a Mocker: Response to Scientism, Part 1
Edited 8-28-2021
This is a different kind of article, mostly written by someone else. His material appears further down the track. The was originally sparked by a militant anti-creationist who insists on spamming people. My associate asked to be removed from the list, and there was additional correspondence. I was given permission to use his material, but I am not using the letters to which he is responding, as most are unnecessary and tedious.
Many anti-creationists pretend to be brilliant. However, their material is full of emotional language, ad hominems, straw men, repeated assertions, lack of science comprehension, double standards, circular reasoning, and many other misuses of logic.
Many anti-creationists pretend to be brilliant. However, their material is full of emotional language, ad hominems, straw men, repeated assertions, lack of science comprehension, double standards, circular reasoning, and many other misuses of logic.
Also, it's amazing that these owlhoots want to call someone "evil". Okay, so what if we were? Why can't we act like atheists? After all, they have no foundation for morality. We are just bundles of chemicals acting in accordance to their dictates. Misotheists have no basis for calling anyone evil!
Atheism is incoherent, lacking the necessary preconditions of intelligibility. In addition, the religion of evolution has the same failings as atheism. Biblical Christianity has the necessary preconditions of human experience.
The way many anti-creationists "refute" the evidence and reason we present is to simply say, "That's not true", and then paste evolutionary propaganda links. Then the scoundrels claim to have dealt with whatever item was under discussion. Ironically, they often cite outdated or even erroneous material that knowledgeable creationists can refute. When they get obnoxious, many get banned from sites, forums, groups, and so on. Then they resort to childish tantrums like, "I regularly expose their lies and evasiveness", "they can't handle logic", "afraid of the truth" and other jaw-droppingly bad assertions.
The way many anti-creationists "refute" the evidence and reason we present is to simply say, "That's not true", and then paste evolutionary propaganda links. Then the scoundrels claim to have dealt with whatever item was under discussion. Ironically, they often cite outdated or even erroneous material that knowledgeable creationists can refute. When they get obnoxious, many get banned from sites, forums, groups, and so on. Then they resort to childish tantrums like, "I regularly expose their lies and evasiveness", "they can't handle logic", "afraid of the truth" and other jaw-droppingly bad assertions.
Many anti-creationists disingenuously equate "evolution" with "science", but deny that they make logical fallacies. Whether they are hopelessly deceived, unable to discern between historical and operational science, maybe something else, I can only speculate.
Those people loathe presuppositionalists. I reckon it's because we not only presuppose the truth of the Bible, but most of us won't compromise on it — God means what he says. The irony is that atheists and evolutionists are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves, what with most of them being materialists and all.
They assume that our beliefs are wrong, and reject them out of hand, often with mockery. But they can't justify their own belief systems and worldviews, nor can they account for knowledge or even the laws of logic, which they disregard through misrepresentation, ad hominem attacks, false dilemmas, unsubstantiated assertions, circular reasoning, presupposing evolution is true, and other logical fallacies.
They "know" we are wrong, but believe in things that are unobserved, unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable and so on. Both atheism and evolution are arbitrary, irrational and self-refuting.
Atheists, evolutionists and other anti-creationists are so wrapped up in their presuppositions that evidence threatening to their worldviews is viciously attacked; they cannot accept the fact that evolution is a subjective belief system that tries to use scientific methods about what is observed in the present, then speculates backward to explain the past. These people also display their inability to understand science, and don't seem to give a hoot that assertions are nothing without support.
The challenges below apply to many anti-creationists since bad thinking is common among them. I have edited the material by removing items that were specific to the issues at hand (though they were sparked by an article from Creation Ministries International), having left intact principles that people like this need to address — but are disinclined to do so. Also, I edited some wording. Bold text is in the original.
— Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Atheists, evolutionists and other anti-creationists are so wrapped up in their presuppositions that evidence threatening to their worldviews is viciously attacked; they cannot accept the fact that evolution is a subjective belief system that tries to use scientific methods about what is observed in the present, then speculates backward to explain the past. These people also display their inability to understand science, and don't seem to give a hoot that assertions are nothing without support.
The challenges below apply to many anti-creationists since bad thinking is common among them. I have edited the material by removing items that were specific to the issues at hand (though they were sparked by an article from Creation Ministries International), having left intact principles that people like this need to address — but are disinclined to do so. Also, I edited some wording. Bold text is in the original.
— Cowboy Bob Sorensen
You have stated that my repeated claim that distant past events are "unobservable" are "meaningless mantras about the 'unobserved' past". This bizarre statement pretty much sums up why Sorensen and creationist scientists cannot take you seriously.
In order to prove it is "meaningless" I request that you provide me and others with "the" testable and "verifiable" scientific method you use to empirically observe "unobserved" past historical events. Thus we can all repeat your experimental method and make the very same observations for ourselves.
Just like you, Dawkins also claims he can observe unobserved past events. So, maybe you could check with "Dawk" to find out exactly what testable and verifiable experimental scientific method he uses to "observe the unobserved", More important, ask Dawk if he has taken any pictures of these observed unobserved historical events that he and you can share with us.
If you do provide us with direct observations of unobserved past events we need never again rely on purely SUBJECTIVE opinion based evolutionary presuppositions, assumptions, inferences, contrived 'explanations, conjecture, and purse speculation as to what supposedly happened in the unobserved past. No! We will all have real "experimental" science and "direct observational" evidence go by — I wait with bated breath!
This is you big moment of truth. Let's us all see what real testable and verifiable empirical science you "actually have" to substantiate that you can observe unobserved past events. Along with testable and repeatable scientific evidence to substantiate each and every stage of the "hypothetical" evolutionary continuum. As we all need to see that evolution is "in fact" based on experimental and observable science. And is NOT based on mere subjective OPINIONS as to what SUPPOSEDLY happened in the distant past. So, give us testable and verifiable science for the origin of the universe, the DNA double helix, complex genetic coding, life, consciousness, and every other essential stage of the evolutionary continuum. We want to see what testable and verifiable science you actually have to substantiate all these "evolution did it" subjective assertions and assumptions.My associate received yet another response. Since this article is rather long, click here for the conclusion.
Here's the rub! If you fail to do this, it will be reasonable to continue to conclude that you're nothing but "hot air", and that your hypothetical evolutionary worldview is founded on a huge number of "vastly improbable" undirected chance events for which there is "no known observable or verifiable scientific answer". Of course, this blind faith hypothetical evolutionary premise actually turns out to be the definition for "magic and miracles". Namely, "vastly improbable" events for which there is no verifiable scientific answer. You also need to know that another name for this godless "metaphysical" evolutionary premise is SCIENTISM.
I am well aware that you are among those who have an absolute "blind faith" commitment to evolution and scientism. And that no evidence against evolution would ever persuade you otherwise. As such, all evidence presented on creation.com is thus rejected from the outset. This blind faith commitment to evolution and scientism is why you repeatedly make bizarre claims you cannot possibly justify, and therefore regularly trip yourself up. Meaning, you have yet to discover that your feet are planted firmly in midair. Thus, my suggestion is that you broaden your perspective beyond the "unproven" narrow atheistic framework of "metaphysical" naturalism and scientism. Get a copy of the new CMI DVD titled: "Evolution's Achilles' Heels". I brought 30 copies a week ago and they went like hot cakes, with people waiting for delivery of the next batch.