Is Evolutionism a Useless Waste?

Sandbuilder: All anyone has to do is come up with a more scientifically useful explanation for the diversification of life than the modern theory of evolution. Realistically, though, it’ll just be a better theory of evolution.

Rockbuilder: Right. What God reveals about origins is eliminated for religious reasons since the story of evolutionism is the main tenet of the religion of ungodliness, and ungodly people control the funding. Interesting that you brought up usefulness. Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with the belief in molecules-to-man evolution?

Sandbuilder: I said scientifically useful, yes.

Rockbuilder: Really? Tell me about it and why the stories about evolutionism are necessary for creating the technology. If something that’s called “science” doesn’t create any technology that’s useful, then the so-called “science” isn’t useful. I don’t mean things like toys, comic books, textbooks, museums, amusement parks, models of evolutionism, etc. I mean real products that do something that could not possibly have been developed without stories of evolutionism.

Sandbuilder: Antibiotics.

Rockbuilder: Here’s an interesting quote: “The discovery of antibiotics began by accident. On the morning of September 3rd, 1928, Professor Alexander Fleming was having a clear up of his cluttered laboratory. Fleming was sorting through a number of glass plates which had previously been coated with staphyloccus bacteria as part of research Fleming was doing.”

Sandbuilder: And we use the theory of evolution to tell us how they work and how to develop them further. Vaccines as well. Other things that we use evolution for are the many dog breeds, cat breed, and cruciferous vegetable varieties.

Rockbuilder: What made you think that the stories of evolutionism would be required for antibiotics or vaccines or breeding?

Sandbuilder: Nothing. I don’t think that. We do, however, use the theory of evolution to tell us how antibiotics work and how to develop them further.

Rockbuilder: You’re talking about extending the story. That wasn’t the question.

Sandbuilder: Then the question was too narrow.

Rockbuilder: Evolutionism, the story about one-celled organisms gradually adding new information systems over millions of years, isn’t needful or even helpful to explain dog breeding, vaccines, or antibiotics. What we observe in the switching of epigenetics is helpful, but you have to ignore the story to understand epigenetics.

Sandbuilder: No, stories aren’t required, but in order for vaccines to be useful, or as useful as they currently are, an understanding of evolution is necessary.

Rockbuilder: I sense equivocation.

Sandbuilder: How so?

Rockbuilder: Like I said, equivocation. The trick is simple. Just create a broad definition of the word “evolution.” Then, the same word means very different things. That’s why the question needs to narrow that definition. I’ll ask the question again and see if you can do better. Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with the belief in molecules-to-man evolution? Tell me about it and why the stories about evolutionism are necessary for creating the technology. I don’t mean things like toys, comic books, textbooks, museums, amusement parks, models of evolutionism, etc. I mean real products that do something that could not possibly have been developed without stories of evolutionism. I’m just looking for one answer, and I think I have it. The answer is that there is no such technology.

Sandbuilder: OK. So what?

Rockbuilder: So, the stories about molecules turning into people over millions of years have no practical value. Thank you for clarifying that.

Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with the belief in molecules-to-man evolution? Of course,  a technology is any practical application of scientific knowledge. It would include anything that’s actually helpful to humanity. It could be a cell phone, a paper cup, or a lawnmower.  This question was taken from the Nye-Ham Debate from a few years ago. Ken asked Bill, and Bill wasn’t able to answer it either. The conversation has been edited to make it understandable. For instance, Sandbuilder isn’t one person but two. Anyone who has a discussion with an ungodly thinker knows that the ungodly thinker will make every effort to confuse the issue, so RealReality.org clipped out many of the rabbit trails.

Sandbuilder became frustrated and didn’t even try to be rational. That’s common with ungodly thinkers. He went to the epithet, “Bible wizard magic stories” as his great achievement in thought. See, in a world where the mind has become so darkened that every thought is based on made-up stuff, there can be no rational thought. At that point, the best insult wins. Of course, every ungodly TV show and cartoon that Sandbuilder has watched throughout his life also confirms that the most intelligent people are those who can use epithets skillfully.

Finally, Sandbuilder went to a tu quoque fallacy followed by attempting to misrepresent what had happened in the conversation and returning to his previously failed arguments. Sandbuilder tried to turn around the question, asking what technology could only have been developed starting with belief in the Bible. Of course, this is an irrational question since no one claimed that the Bible is science. No one gets governmental funding for studying the Bible to find new technologies, but evolutionism gets billions to teach it, propagate it, and defend it.

However, Rockbuilder just answered the question in terms of divine revelation. No technology of any kind is possible without divine revelation, and nothing can be known about anything without divine revelation. The book, Reason, is all about that. A little reading of this blog will explain why that’s true, but here’s the short version. Rational thought requires a true premise. In other words, you can’t prove that one thing is true by using something that’s not true as proof. You can’t prove anything by making up stuff. That’s pretty simple. When an ungodly thinker tries to prove something, that ungodly thinker will present some proof. It may be to call you a name. It may be to throw out an insult. It may be to cite a paper that’s filled with another person’s unproved claims. Of course, that person will cite another paper of someone else’s unproved claims, and that person will also cite another, and this citing of unproved claims goes forward to infinity. It’s known as infinite regression. An ungodly thinker has no way to ever have a true premise.

So, Rockbuilder answered the question, but rather than trying to refute Rockbuilder’s answer, Sandbuilder just resorted to a summary dismissal. Then, Sandbuilder claimed that his vacuous summary dismissal was a refutation. At the same time, Sandbuilder claimed that he had given several technologies that require the stories of millions of years and molecules turning into people. Of course, he gave three attempts, and all three attempts failed. When conversations degrade to total irrationality, it’s best to leave conversations like that, and that’s what Rockbuilder did.

Ungodly thinkers are extremely religious. Many denominations of ungodliness don’t gather in temples (though many do), but they’re religious none the less. They will abandon all rational thought just to keep from acknowledging Jesus Christ. They are dedicated to darkness. God doesn’t force them to follow Him, nor does He try to coerce them. It would serve no purpose for God to do so. Rather, the Father continually reaches out to them even though they try religiously to shield themselves from Him.

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Posted in Secularist Thinking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *