Replies

It is assumed that folks who do not believe Evolution are backward thinkers. But that in itself is an assumption.

There are thinkers who are evolutionists and there are thinkers who believe in creation or Alien visiting from long ago or whatever. The assumption that only evolutionist are thinkers is just that; an assumption. An arrogant one if you think about it, but it is an assumption.

The evolutionists also say that if you don't believe in evolution, you are not scientific. This is also an assumption, and another arrogant one. For true science is all about proofs, and standing up against testing. It's not about consensus, it's about repeatability, verifiable data, and the theory standing up against ALL questions.

One that I love to stump the evolutionists, is to ask whether Charles Darwin believed evolution took billions of years or something less. I good evolutionist will admit that Charles Darwin believed it took place in a Hundred thousand and went much less before he died.

Then they will cite Radio Carbon dating, ice cores and geology. And that at this point it is believed that Billions of years are necessary.

Then, I ask what about the Lunar Lander, when men first went and walked on the moon in 1969?

They reply, "What about it?"

Well, do you remember the probes shadow as it came down before it landed? And that if the probe did not find solid enough ground underneath, they were to immediately abort rather than to be buried in moon dust and not be able to return?

They reply, "So?"

That probe was based on the theory of evolution that the moon had been bombarded by meteorites for billions of years and could have resulted moon dust so deep the astronauts would have been buried and unable to return.

But the probe did find solid enough ground underneath the dust. But do you remember the Neil Armstrong hesitating before steeping solidly on the moon? I do.

That hesitation was also due to the theory of evolution, for maybe the probe hit a meteor under the dust, but may not have been where he was to step?

But Neil felt solid enough ground under only an inch or so of moondust and took the RISK of a short walk. As the photos later showed nice footprints as if walking in about an inch and a half of impressionable moondust.

So, my question to the evolutionist is "if there were Billions of years worth of meteorites and space dust accumulating on the moon, why was it only around an inch and a half when they were clearly expecting more?

You know the earth has a molten core, right?

Evolutionist: "Yes, so?"

Why is it not solid then after Billions of years? It's a logical question.

From either of these I expect an attack?

Evolutionist: But you are clearly a creationist. How can you say the earth is only a couple of thousand years old.

To which I reply, "Did I say I was?" Evolutionist? "Well aren't you?

"The question is logical one, why isn't the core solid?" (folding my arms across my chest and keeping silent from then on while the evolutionist flounders, At this point the audience is beginning to get my point.

That arrogant assumptions are being made and when there is any push back they DON'T answer the question and attack the person rather than defend their position.

My point is to poke holes in the theory, (of which there are many) not to disprove evolution, but to SHOW THAT THINKERS DON"T HAVE TO BE EVOLUTIONISTS and that SCIENCE IS NOT THE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF THE EVOLUTIONIONIST EITHER.