Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories

[Esquilax]

I wrote a big, long, detailed rebuttal for the other thread, which I completely lost when the thread merger happened and I tried to post it to a thread that had stopped existing while I was writing, and I'm not going to do that again, but here's the cliffs notes version:

OP, you make an enormous leap in your second paragraph between "astrophysics is corrupt," to "the entire scientific community is corrupt," and you make that leap with absolutely no justification at all. Even if you were right, your end result is still wrong, and you've tipped your hand something awful by making such an unjustified leap; it's very clear this is about shoring up your beliefs, rather than the truth.

In any case, when you say that astrophysics isn't based on empirical evidence... what the hell would you call the observations of the universe that led to those models being created?

You then move on to evolution, immediately conflating it with a second area of study called abiogenesis and committing a huge argument from ignorance by saying "evolution can't explain the origins of life, therefore it's wrong." This is not only bad science, but it's also bad research, if you submitted this for an assignment.

In fact, "argument from ignorance" is a good characterization of the rest of your essay, since you never really do more than poke holes in the current science, as though that makes your idea of an intelligent creator any more valid or rational, and it doesn't. The icing on the cake is that you referenced Michael Behe, a complete joke in the scientific community who took his irreducible complexity ideas to court, in front of a christian conservative judge, and came away with a ruling that intelligent design and everything he had to say was not legitimate science and deserved not to be taught in schools. He was rebutted on every point; you even bring up the bacterial flagellum as an example, as though Behe's opposition didn't drop a huge stack of papers showing how the flagellum had evolved and was hence reducibly complex in front of him, only to be told that Behe hadn't read them, but knew that they didn't count anyway, somehow. You can look up the court transcripts for that (Kitzmiller vs Dover) to see just how much of an embarrassment Behe is, and you an also look up the type 3 secretory system so see where the flagellum evolved from; acting as though none of that exists is an unforgivable failure of research, for a formal essay.

Ultimately, I give this essay an F, and any self respecting teacher would do the same. I also note with interest that you submitted this to an English class, which is probably for the best.

A science class would have destroyed you.