Evolution — It's Against the Law Part 3
It has become a sort of occupational hazard for those of us who present scientific, philosophical and logical material against evolution that we must deal with ridicule and abuse. It comes with the territory. What becomes startling is the intensity of attacks from Darwin's cheerleaders. (Personally, I believe it is because evolution is a foundation for atheism, so they feel that they must protect it at all costs.) Another startler is the lack of logic that the evolution thought police employ. Earlier in the day that I am writing this, a friend and I encountered the genetic fallacy, ad hominems, straw man fallacies, "moving the goalposts", appeal to motive, appeal to majority, appeal to ridicule and more. As well as simply wasting our time.
Not only do these evolutionists fallaciously assume that people deny evolution because they do not understand it, but in the midst of their vituperative railing, they try to prove evolution by citing bad science. (Also, "You're wrong because I disagree" is not a refutation.) Using logical fallacies, abuse and then misunderstood scientific principles while attempting to straighten out creationists does not impress anyone.
I have noticed many times that when someone realizes that the atheistic, materialistic worldview is shown to have flaws, they simply resort to ridicule as well as greatly exaggerating their knowledge of science. Attacking the person who presents the truth may make them feel better, but it does not change the facts. For that matter, I have challenged people who were attacking me to debunk the science in the articles cited. All I heard was a cricket concerto until the personal attacks resumed. And my experiences are nothing compared to people who are more prominent in scientific creationism and Intelligent Design!
But enough of my ramblings.
In a response to the article linked in Part 2 of this small series, a misotheist attacked the author — and humiliated himself in the process.
Click here to read "Entropy At Work: Skeptic Blunders on Thermodynamics".
Not only do these evolutionists fallaciously assume that people deny evolution because they do not understand it, but in the midst of their vituperative railing, they try to prove evolution by citing bad science. (Also, "You're wrong because I disagree" is not a refutation.) Using logical fallacies, abuse and then misunderstood scientific principles while attempting to straighten out creationists does not impress anyone.
I have noticed many times that when someone realizes that the atheistic, materialistic worldview is shown to have flaws, they simply resort to ridicule as well as greatly exaggerating their knowledge of science. Attacking the person who presents the truth may make them feel better, but it does not change the facts. For that matter, I have challenged people who were attacking me to debunk the science in the articles cited. All I heard was a cricket concerto until the personal attacks resumed. And my experiences are nothing compared to people who are more prominent in scientific creationism and Intelligent Design!
But enough of my ramblings.
In a response to the article linked in Part 2 of this small series, a misotheist attacked the author — and humiliated himself in the process.
Click here to read "Entropy At Work: Skeptic Blunders on Thermodynamics".