Here at TomatoBubble.com; we love all of our readers, including the Atheist / Evolutionists. From time to time an E-mail that reads something like the following will arrive in the inbox:

"Mike. I love your work but you really need to stick to history and current events. You do not understand the science behind Evolution and are only harming your credibility when you attack Darwin."

Though this type of feedback is certainly more cordial and tolerable than the occasional, "You are a stupid ignorant deranged 'Nazi' extremist who believes that a giant spaghetti monster created the universe in 7 days. Ha ha ha" - it is still a variation of the condescending you-do-not-understand-science ad hominem logical fallacy that Evolutionists always resort to. This rhetorical device is a weaponized trick that we shall now disarm.

First of all, the lack of any extensive "scientific background" does not necessarily disqualify a logical thinker from expressing an opinion on Evolution or any other matter related to science. If a man observes a rapidly darkening sky on a brutally hot and humid summer afternoon; followed by a sudden temperature drop and distant rumbles of thunder; would his lack of a "background in meteorology" invalidate his opinion that rain is forthcoming?

If a man opts to take the elevator downstairs instead of simply jumping out of a 40th floor window and into his waiting convertible; would his lack of a "background in physics" invalidate his fear of jumping out of skyscrapers?

This idea that any matters pertaining to science, or alleging to pertain to science, can only be discussed by those with the right "qualifications" is a clear example of another classic logical fallacy; the 'Appeal to Authority'. Every great philosopher from Buddha, to Confucius, to Plato, to Socrates, to Marcus Aurelius, to Jesus, to Schopenhauer and so many others specifically warned against the inherent errors associated with this type of boot-licking, group-thinking worship of authority figures. Buddha expressed the key to right thinking very well when he stated:

"Do not go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought."

In other words, "To hell with those diploma-decorated fools. Use your own reason and observation!" And with that, let us dispense with this puffed-up patronizing rubbish about "lack of a scientific background" once and for all. You see, it doesn't take a "scientific background" to understand the basic and timeless principles of what is known as "The Scientific Method". Ironically, it is the hallowed Scientific Method which dooms the "theoretical science" of Darwinian Evolution to the toilet bowl of pseudo-scientific error.

Had Darwin studied Greek or Buddhist philosophy, he would never have made such a monkey of himself.

What is the Scientific Method?

The Scientific Method consists of the flow-chart steps shown in the following chart:

image

Each step must logically flow into the next step until the process is complete. No skipping steps! As soon as the standards of any given step cannot be met, the game ends and the hypothesis goes into the garbage. Now, let's plug "Evolution" TM into the step climber and see what we get.

Step 1: Ask a Question

OK. This one is easy. Anyone can ask a question about anything. Here it goes: "How did we all get here?"

Step 2: Do Background Research

Gather data and observe it carefully. If you detect a pattern that suggests a plausible conclusion, then move onto the next step. What Darwin "discovered" during this step is that all living creatures share many common traits; and that the differences among them adapt them perfectly to their natural environment.

Step 3: Construct a Hypothesis

Based on your data mining, make an educated guess as to what the truth is. Not just any ole guess; not a wild and baseless guess; but an educated guess based on a compelling pattern of data. Here, at a very early stage of the Scientific Method, Darwin has already gone off the rails. In his own words:

"The real affinities of all organic beings, in contradiction to their adaptive resemblances, are due to inheritance or community of descent. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

What Darwin observed is nothing that a retarded 8 year old, living 10,000 years ago, could not have easily noticed on his own; namely, that all creatures have much in common. For example, a lizard has two eyes, a mouth, teeth, a tongue, four limbs, a spine, a skeleton etc; and, a human being also two eyes, a mouth, teeth, a tongue, four limbs, a spine, a skeleton etc. And from that, and nothing more, Darwin "hypothesizes" that all living things came from an original "single-cell" organism? Really Chuck?

Darwin himself even admits that there is no data to support his hypothesis; which means that the hypothesis itself should never have been put forth in the first place. Again, from his own mouth:

"On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life?

We meet with no such evidence. and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections used against my theory."

That's right Chuckie. The MILLIONS of "missing links' flowing from single-cell pond scum to modern man did not exist in the 1800's, nor have they been pieced together to this day. In fact, as even prominent Evolutionists openly admit, the fossil record actually appears to show that new life forms came on to the scene very suddenly.

Nonetheless, in spite of the fact that the standards of the 'Hypothesis Step' of Scientific Method have, by Darwin's own admission, not been met; let us, purely for the sake of argument, cheat a little and give the Evolutionists a "free pass" to the next step.

Step 4: Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

I don't even know where to even begin with this one. How does one construct an experiment to "prove" that great-great-great grandma^[x] was a piece of algae that spontaneously appeared in a pond, and "mutated" into millions of transitional species, culminating in what we are today. In the absence of any experimentation, one could conceivably skip this step and jump to an intense observation of unfolding natural processes; a "natural" experiment, so to speak.

But here again, there is nothing to observe. The reality is that trans-species evolution is not observable and has never been observed, neither in nature nor in the fossil record. Sorry Evolutionists, but a non-definitive skull fragment of some creature purported to be an "ape ancestor" does not meet the standard of observation; let alone constitute evidence that great-great-great grandma^[x] was single-celled pond scum. The same goes for your desperately hyped-up finches, peppered moths, 'super rats', platypuses etc.

And speaking of "simple" single-cell organisms (which we now know are more complex than nuclear submarines and space shuttles!), a single-cell organism has NEVER been observed to "mutate" into a new species of two-cell organism. My God! The Evolutionists cannot even validate, neither in nature nor in a laboratory, the jump from one-cell bacteria to two-cell bacteria; yet they call us "stupid" for doubting that our common one-celled pond scum great-great-great grandma^[x] "evolved" into the modern day human, elephant, bird, bumble bee, dolphin, eagle, spider, flower, tree etc.

Obviously, steps 5 and 6 of the Scientific Method are rendered mute; but that doesn't stop the dogmatic Evolutionists and degenerate Marxists from pounding their fists on the table and screaming "Science ... science ... science!" in your face; whilst viciously denouncing you as "uneducated" for daring to question their pond scum to human scenario.

The Theory of trans-species Evolution TM is neither testable nor observable. Likewise, the theory of life blindly coming from non-life is neither testable, nor observable; to say nothing of even being sane. Heck, these ideas were never even 'hypothesizable', and that was before our understanding of the incredibly complex DNA computer code we call the genome; a mind boggling instructional code that is programmed into all organisms, including those "simple" single-cell amoebas and bacteria!

Bottom Line: According to any honest rendering of the Scientific Method, Evolution TM is NOT science!