This one is amazing. It’s at a website we haven’t visited before, the Jewish Press, which describes itself as “the largest independent weekly Jewish newspaper in the United States.” They’re located in Brooklyn, a borough of New York City, and they don’t have a comments section. Their article’s title is No, Evolution Is Not A Scientific Fact.
It was written by Josh Greenberger. He’s responding to a pro-science article at that website. Josh is the author of Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt (Amazon link), which has no publisher. It’s an impressive 37 pages long, and there are no reviews yet. Here are some excerpts from Josh’s article, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
There’s a long list of bona-fide scientists who discredit evolution based on science – not religion. Discovery.org [sic] alone has a list of over 1,000 scientists from top universities with impressive degrees – PhDs in chemistry, biology, astrophysics, geophysics, genetics, etc. – who don’t see evolution as scientifically viable. They released a combined statement, saying: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. …”
The very fossil record that evolutionists often cite in support of evolution actually proves that evolution never occurred. It shows that life forms appeared suddenly, fully formed, and functional looking.
Yes, fossilized organisms were fully formed, but evolutionary intermediates can easily be identified, e.g.: Tiktaalik. After that he tells us:
It’s very possible that one life form can produce another of a completely different structure. [Huh?] But such an occurrence would not be an evolutionary process, but the result of sophisticated genetic properties. [What’s he saying?] The fact that we currently have no scientific understanding to explain this phenomenon doesn’t make a completely baseless theory of evolution a viable option.
*Curmudgeon slowly shakes his head in amazement* Josh continues:
As for the age of archaeological finds: Scientists use radiometric dating to determine how old an ancient item is. When organisms die, the radioactive elements they absorbed during their lifetime start to decay and are not replenished. By measuring how much radioactivity is left, scientists extrapolate back in time to determine when the organism died. This method, though, contains two flaws: First, we don’t know how much radioactive material the organism had in the first place. [That wouldn’t affect the decay rate.] Second, it assumes, with no basis, that radioactive decay remained constant throughout history.
This thing is amazingly horrendous. We’ll just hit the highlights from now on, without rebuttals. Here we go:
According to Bible scholars, meanwhile, our planet went through a catastrophic global flood of boiling water. [Boiling?] Most – if not all – of the above events [meteor strikes, ice ages, etc.] would have greatly affected radioactive decay. [Hee hee!] Thus, the ages of fossils or artifacts are not all based on realistic science.
Great, huh? Let’s read on:
As for the age of the universe: The notion that it is billions of years old is based almost entirely on astronomical observations of distant galaxies. Since we find galaxies allegedly over 10 billion light-years away from us (one light-year is the distance light travels in one year, which is about six trillion miles), it must have taken billions of years for their light to reach us. Hence, the claim goes, the universe must be at least billions of years old.
During Creation, nature, as we know it, did not yet exist. It was certainly possible, therefore, and I believe very probable, that light was not confined to today’s “light constant,” which would only be “constant” once creation was completed. Light during the six days of creation could very well have traveled much faster than it travels today, and possibly even traversed the universe instantly.
Okay, that’s enough. Now we come to the end:
And with nature’s “constants” operating at such accelerated paces during creation, it’s certainly possible that everything we see today was created in literally six days – and I believe that to be the case.
That was very impressive. The only thing Josh left out was the Time Cube. It would have been his strongest argument.
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.