More fun with the SEB mailbag. I don’t have time this evening to respond to this fellow and most of it’s stuff we’ve covered on the site before, but I thought I’d toss it up for those of you inclined to read it:
Date: 11/28/06 7:43PM
To: Les Jenkins
Subject: Jefferson quote…
…gotta be careful, as a slave owner he no doubt held a few views that haven’t held up. By the way, you spewed a lot of vitriol at Carl Baugh, but not a lot of data. I was wondering if you, or someone like you, could provide the test results (evolution being ‘science’ and all, empirical evidence and observation should be easy to come by) that prove a ‘primordial ooze’ could produce the first living organism, how this organism survived by identifying its energy source and converting it to energy (being the first living organism, it couldn’t just go out and kill a cow for hamburger or a bug or pick a plant or fruit…they didn’t exist yet) and while you’re at it, could you provide the tests that show a molecular mutation that produces the new genetic information necessary for one specie to become another one?
I’m in an argument with a guy who says that nothing about evolution has been proven by accepted scientific standards of observability, repeatability, predictability and disprovability….that it’s all just made up. But surely it’s been proven in lab experiments because it’s science and science is what you can prove, not what you believe, right? This crazy guy says that either the universe was created by a creator or created itself and that there are no examples of self creating entities. Surely scientists have been able to reproduce a miniature ‘big bang’ to prove that it happened.
He also points out that all of the great scientists of Darwin’s time were creationists who ridiculed and rejected evolution but still made huge contributions to science and that the guy who discovered DNA rejects evolution. That of the very few genetic mutations observed that have been successful and beneficial have always resulted in a loss of information, never an increase which is what evolution requires….that the Second Law of Thermodynamics contradicts evolution. How can this be?
Surely you are smarter than the guy who discovered DNA…can you provide me with the empirical evidence, not just name calling and hate speech. This guy has asked me how the Big Bang worked? How does nothing explode and create everything? He says if all things are a product of random chance, so is the theory of evolution and therefore has no more chance of being correct than any other theory. He believes that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead but admits it’s taken on faith. I insist that he prove that could happen by raising someone else from the dead so it can be observed. He says that as soon as I prove that a big bang could produce something out of nothing and prove that a collection of lifeless chemicals struck by lightening or something and produce a living organism complex enough to become the basis of all life, then he’ll believe evolution is science not religion taken on faith.
But I know that you are so smart and can prove evolution with tests because evolution is science, right? RIGHT?
Somehow I get the feeling he’s being just a tad bit sarcastic. I’ll send him a link to this entry so he can follow along.