Letters to a Mocker: Response to Scientism, Part 2

This is the promised conclusion of the last article (I recommend that you read Part 1). To recap, I was included in some spamming, and received permission to show replies to the anti-creation spammer. Last time, I made some introductory comments and presented the first part of his responses. I have edited both of them a little, but the substance is intact. Note that the spammer is dodging the important matters and attacking the person.

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Your response affirms my statements, including the fact that no one can "observe" the unobserved past events. Thus, this is not "meaningless mantras" but a repeated statement of scientific "fact". 

I further note that you have addressed none of issues I raised, and provided NO "testable" and verifiable "experimental" science to substantiate any of the necessary stages of the "hypothetical" evolutionary continuum. Nor have you provided any "directly observable" scientific evidence for your godless religious beliefs. So, it is you, and not Bob or any other creationist, who mischievously engages in disinformation and attempts avoid providing science to substantiate your assertions.

As such, I could well conclude that you mislead others by misrepresenting and embellishing the facts. You mistakenly, or knowingly, promote a evolutionary theory as science when you have no real testable and verifiable science to support ANY aspect of your hypothetical "historical" theory.

You misrepresent and embellish the facts by mistakenly, promoting godless "metaphysical" religious beliefs as science. So I remind you that many scientists, including the Nobel Committee, have openly acknowledged that evolution is a "hypothetical" historical theory that has nothing to do with "experimental" or "observational" science. Principally because verifiable "empirical" science and the scientific method plays no part in the evolutionary historical framework.And, moreover, has no place in the "metaphysical" religious beliefs on which evolutionary theory is founded. Namely, that of "metaphysical" naturalism and godless materialism, better known as Scientism.

As such, there is no empirical science available to "learn a fair amount about the unobserved recent or distant past from the evidence that past natural events leave behind". And no testable, verifiable science to support your godless evolutionary worldview.  Meaning, evolutionary theory is nothing more than a historical theory founded entirely on SUBJECTIVE opinions and interpretations of unobserved past events — all of which operate on unverifiable godless presuppositions, assumptions, inferences, invented 'explanations', contrived interpretations, conjecture, and sheer speculation as to what SUPPOSEDLY happened in the unobserved past. None of these can be substantiated by the scientific method or real testable empirical science.

If you can prove otherwise provide me with the testable and verifiable science that I have asked for, and never got.

You falsely state, "Science can highlight with confidence that certain things happened and eg date rocks that are associated with certain fossils including animals or plants that are now extinct. It can also rule proposed past events out due to the necessary evidence not being found anywhere."  

Yet again misrepresent and embellish the facts, by"deliberately blinding yourself" to the reality that "testable" or "verifiable" empirical science plays no role in this subjective "opinion" based hypothetical evolutionary framework. So yet again I must remind you that all evolutionary "historical theories" about the unobserved past all involve SUBJECTIVE opinions and interpretations which operate on unproven godless presuppositions, assumptions, inferences, invented 'explanations', contrived interpretations, conjecture, and sheer speculation as to what SUPPOSEDLY happened in the unobserved past. None of which can be substantiated by the scientific method or real testable empirical science, and thus have no experimental or observational basis. This is also true of the many assumptions underlying dating methods.

In reality there is that there is no instrument know to science that "directly" measures the age of any historical relic. Thus,  every method used by science to measure age involves "untestable" and "unverifiable" assumptions and inferences, without exception.

He asks, "Why don't you address the evasiveness of Jonathan Sarfati?" [Note the loaded question, he said "evasiveness", which is not proven. -CBB] 

I have already addressed this issue but you again failed to notice. I plainly stated that "no scientist" was there to observe what actually happened, nor were you. As such, it all comes down to untestable and unverifiable "opinion" as to how it happened. 

Your rambling and garbled statements reek of  misrepresentation, misinformation and embellishment. Again I have yet to see any testable and verifiable scientific evidence to substantiate your many assumptions.

Then you glibly state "That Achilles Heel promotion video is also stuffed full of lies and half-truths. I could elaborate."

Please do elaborate. But when you elaborate we expect you to provide "testable" and verifiable science, not your usual assumption-based opinions. I have already asked you to provide this and you have failed to do so. In this regard you state, "You ask for perfect knowledge of the past from your opponents - and then want to crow "I win" when they admit they cannot provide it. As indeed I cannot - and have never claimed."

I have never asked for perfect knowledge, only testable and verifiable science to substantiate the multiple stages of the evolutionary continuum. Which you repeatedly claim is based on science. However, you now openly admit you have not provided real experimental or observational science because you cannot.  Thus you have again "tripped yourself up" by making claims you cannot substantiate. Thus again substantiating that your claims are purely 'subjective' and just 'hot air'.

Your misguided attempt to falsely equate evolution with "eyewitness testimony" also warrants comment. As someone who has been to Law School and studied criminal law, I can tell you that "Eyewitness testimonies" of past events are based on actual "observations" by witnesses of these past events. They are records of what people observed, not what SUPPOSEDLY happened in regard to unobserved past events. Archaeologists and historians likewise observe recorded inscriptions and messages left by observers and people of that time. None of this can be equated with evolutionary theory. Fossils and all other such relics from the unobserved past have "labels" describing what actually happened. As such, scientists operate on presuppositional "assumptions" as to what SUPPOSEDLY happened in the unobserved past. And therein lies the problem for evolutionists.

There is an ocean of difference between "observed" past events, and "unobserved" past events: A reality that must be faced by you and all evolutionary minded advocates in the international scientific community who actively embrace and promote godless "metaphysical" naturalism and scientism.

Moreover, as a strong advocate of BCSE [The ironically named British Centre for Science Education, an evolutionary indoctrination group. -CBB], you well know that the atheist and Humanist spawned censorship, suppression and ridicule is being done by evolutionists.  Nonetheless, I can assure you that in spite of all this censorship, creationist scientists will not only endure but eventually prevail. Indeed, the rapidly growing impact of creationist scientists affirms that the future belongs to the "science of Theism", as was the case with the pioneers of modern science. The writing is already on the wall for the currently entrenched "Scientism of atheism",  for reasons CMI's new production Evolution's Achilles' Heels well demonstrates. 

I won't comment on the rest of you opinion based comments as they are merely your subjective opinions based on "hot air", I have made my point so will leave it at that. I cannot waste any more time on people who misrepresents creationists, refuse to provide scientific evidence to substantiate their claims, embellish the facts supposedly supporting evolution, cannot discern the ocean of difference difference between evolutionary "history theories" and testable and verifiable science, and cannot discern the decisive difference between science and scientism.

Nonetheless, you are entitled to your own misguided opinions and I don't begrudge you that. My advice is that you need to stop lying to yourself, and join the real world.

I believe that these two articles provide a strong challenge to anti-creationists: We don't need rants and opinions asserted as facts. Try using real science, and understand how science operates. Something that they utterly reject is that God has given us revelation in his written Word, not only for spiritual guidance and salvation, but about the age and creation of the universe.

Yes, Haywire did reply to those letters, but again, I did not seek permission to reproduce them, and all they did was prove my friend's points. Haywire has been a tremendous source for my illustrations of logical fallacies, bigotry and hatred, as you have seen.