Wow, it amazes me how lame this propaganda is. I would at least expect it to be slightly difficult to refute, but the blatant errors are glaring.Is evolution really scientific?
The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?
Astronomer Robert Jastrow says:“To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged:“After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.
According to New Scientist:“An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists ... argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all.... Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.
Physicist H. S. Lipson said:“The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.
First, one does not come up with a theory, they come up with a hypothesis. Any scientist would not have written this crap. Clearly it is someone alien to science.
Second, the astronomer obviously has no idea what the theory of evolution covers. Because what his grief is, has nothing to do with evolution. He is arguing abiogenesis.
Seeing as how evolution and astronomy have nothing to do with each other, I can see why he could be so ignorant. Do you go to the chiropractor to get your teeth fixed?
Not that I think you will even respond, much less debate this. Now stay in that delusion your propaganda is perfect, or even accurate at all.