|email - December 2012|
|by Do-While Jones|
These are the times that try men’s souls.
Jeff sent us this series of emails, which are (sadly) typical. Here’s the first.
I know you probably keep stats on your website visitors. I'm going to evolutionists’ YouTube videos and posting, "If you want to read a website that destroys evolution with science and never mentions God or Jesus or the Bible, go to ScienceAgainstEvolution dot info." I will be doing this for 30 days between 10-12 videos a day. Please let me know if this has any impact at all on your website visitation. If there is no increase, I'll try to think of a better way to steer people to your site – it is the best answer to honest truth seekers who don't want religion involved in the answers.
We do, in fact, keep track of visits to our home page. We gave Jeff our blessing, and told him we would tell him if his efforts are bearing any fruit. Two days later, he wrote,
Well it sure didn't take long. A guy by the name of "Reptillian [sic] Freemason" is going behind me on all my posts and putting this up.
“It may not blatantly talk about Jesus but it is CLEARLY a religiously motivated website who's [sic] conveniently unnamed author/s are OBVIOUSLY creationists. It's a creationists [sic] website that refuses to admit it in the desperate attempt to deceive.”
Also, I am part of a discussion forum website. It's Bible-based and concerns Ultimate Reconciliation VS. eternal torture. One of the members made disparaging remarks about Genesis because of evolution and the "myth" of the flood. I recommended your website and 2 came back and told me it was hard to navigate, and it was in HTML, and looked like it was designed a long time ago.
Anyway, thought you might appreciate the input. Some people will think of any excuse not to read anything that is different than what they believe.
What kind of person chooses the pen name, “Reptillian Freemason?” Apparently, one who doesn’t know how to spell “reptilian,” doesn’t know the difference between “who’s” and “whose,” and can’t click on the name of the “conveniently unnamed author/s” at the top of the articles to find out more about them.
Since they can’t find anything factually wrong, they complain that the website looks “like it was designed a long time ago.” Yes, it was initially designed a long time ago, and retains that same design style so that it loads quickly over a dial-up connection, and prints correctly on any printer.
The next day, Jeff sent us this email:
I'm sorry but my experiment is being brought to an end. For every YouTube post I put out I got 2 responses calling me names, and repeating the mantra of “evolution is fact and evolution has been proven science” even “evolution has been the most studied of all the sciences and has more absolute proof than any other discipline.”
I felt if I didn't respond, readers would take that as they were right and I was wrong, so I replied asking for what it was specifically at the website they didn't agree with or thought was in error. This brought another barrage of insults to my intelligence and moral character. Answering these poor misguided buffoons took way too much time so maybe when they get out of ninth grade and see the real world they may be more amenable to at least looking at contrary evidence. I even commended one of the respondents for actually forming a coherent sentence and not calling me a name in it.
Jeff has discovered what we learned many years ago. This is why we do not participate in forums. Specifically, here is what we have learned:
Fear trumps reason. Someone who is afraid of God is never going to listen to reason. That’s a fact that we have learned to accept. That’s why we don’t go to forums trying to convert evolutionists.
Instead, we provide information to people who really want to know if evolution is true or not. We put the facts out there. Take it or leave it. We don’t argue.
It certainly is true that when one stops believing in the myth of evolution, it leaves a hole that needs to be filled. That hole can be filled with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, or any one of a number of other religions. It can also be filled by Superstring Theory or Quantum Physics or some other non-theistic theory.
Debating whether or not Christianity, Buddhism, Quantum Physics, or any other alternative is a better explanation for the origin and diversity of life than Darwinian evolution is counter-productive. It simply gives the evolutionist the opportunity to turn the discussion away from the scientific evidence against the theory of evolution, and talk instead about Jesus, Buddha, or multiple universes that pop in and out of existence depending upon whether or not someone is looking. That’s why we don’t offer an alternative explanation for how life came to be on this planet.
A few days later, Jeff sent us this email:
In answering responses on YouTube, it seemed every time I'd respond to one person, 2 more would respond to my response like a hydra. Easily 30+ post responses a day. … I have to quit responding to responses.
I can't understand how in 3rd grade we thought we'd never be able to write 500 words on a subject and now I reach the 500 word limit (per response) almost before I even get started.
I thought you might be interested in the most typical responses. (Name calling left out.) I know you've heard it all before but this is somewhat cathartic for me since I sure get no sympathy "out there."
1.) Evolution is a scientific fact.
and my favorite:
14.) You f..., why don't you just f...in kill yourself?
They all seem to think evolution is a proven scientific fact. That ALL of science is tied into the truth of evolution, and that creationists (normally referred to as creatards or creanderthals) don't understand the first thing about science.
One insisted on the horse evolution as proof positive. I quoted from a book that said it had been refuted in 1961. Unbelievably, he said that didn't count because the book I had quoted from was 20 years old and that a lot has changed since then.
Abiogenesis either doesn't count, or one of Miller's students (Jeff Bada) went on to complete his work and they have created self replicating molecules.
When asked to explain how invertebrates became vertebrates, one answered, "R U that f... stupid? invertebrate---> vertebrate."
I asked if anyone could explain to me how any of the three types of flight or even feathers developed, only one took a stab. He said, "escaping from predators, a squirrel like creature would jump from the tree and some were able to survive the drop and then because they were able to survive this quality was passed on." I said, "You explained how creatures can survive jumping down out of trees. Can you answer my original question about flight or feathers?" I got back, "You just don't understand how anything can happen given enough time." My response was the only time I wasn't cordial, as I had had an exceptional amount of name calling yesterday. I wrote, "...and you evolutionists call ME stupid??"
Anyway, I've stopped answering posts and it's starting to die down.
It was an interesting experience, thank you for letting me vent.
The traffic on our website increased about 30% right after Jeff started posting his comments. Our hate mail did go up slightly, including an email from William about ape fossils in the Devonian, which prompted this month’s feature article. There was no noticeable increase in the amount of fan mail during that period.
Traffic has slowly returned to normal now that Jeff has ended his experiment. We presume the temporary increase in traffic was due to visits from the militant evolutionists who patrol the web, attacking anyone who dares to point out the scientific impossibility of abiogenesis and macroevolution.
We are grateful to Jeff for trying to steer more visitors to our website, and we encourage you to do the same. However, we need to warn you that your experience will certainly be the same as Jeff’s. You will be personally attacked. No matter how hard you try to keep the discussion scientific, the evolutionists will change the topic because they can’t win a scientific debate—science is against their theory.
They will try to bring religion into the discussion because (1) evolution is their religion, and (2) they can eliminate scientific arguments by talking about religion. It is all about religion to them, so they assume it is all about religion to you.
They believe in evolution, not because of science but in spite of science. Therefore, they assume you believe in religion not because of science, but in spite of science.
They have been indoctrinated by the public school system to equate evolution with science. They believe anyone who is against evolution is against science.
Later, Jeff got some responses about atavism.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month