Noel Singleton's piece, "Buddhism is compatible with science," is fraught with logical fallacies and misinformation. While it is easy to see why Singleton's Buddhism is "compatible" with the pseudoscientific mythology of evolution, his piece lacks any scientific credibility.

He credits evolution with the dream of developing fusion energy or putting a colony on Mars, but evolution has helped nothing in the development of the electric light, nuclear energy, the I-pad, or any other practical scientific advancement.

On the other hand, his assertion that creation science has no findings could not be further from the truth. The early founders of almost every scientific field were creationists who believed they could discover the laws of nature because nature had a Creator who was a lawgiver: Newton, Kepler, Lister, Morse, Maury, Babbage and Pasteur, to name just a few.

Noel blindly accepts abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) which was disproved scientifically by Louis Pasteur's scientific Law of Biogenesis in 1863; just as the discovery in 1953 of the DNA code for all living things shows that Noel's belief in evolutionary transmorphism is equally impossible.

Noel claims to believe that inherent in atoms themselves is the blueprint for life. This long ago scientifically disproved foolishness was called "Chemical Predestination." Such is the belief that 3.5 billion years ago inorganic mud spontaneously — hocus-pocus, alakazam — became a living cell with intact DNA, protein machinery, and organelles, that could find food, defend itself, repair itself, replicate itself, and that by untold trillions of replication errors of that first DNA, all other living things including man were produced.

Evolutionists and Creationists do agree on one thing: Men came from mud. To help you better understand Noel's position, spontaneous generation would claim, for example, that there was no author for this article. The letters in these sentences and the sentences themselves were brought into being simply by the interaction of the atoms in the paper itself.

The most basic law of science is that the effect can never be greater than the cause. So you have to decide which you think is more scientific: that there is a Creator, whose breathtaking intelligence and power we are just beginning to understand, who, as the Bible says, "created everything that is visible from that which is invisible," whose existence is clearly seen in the things that he has made, or that 15 billion years ago there was nothing, and a quantum fluctuation brought into being out of nothing all the matter and energy in the universe in a space the size of a marble, and this marble blew up, and violating every known law of physics, formed the vastness of the universe and, violating the laws of biology, gave rise to the incredible variety and complexity of living things we find on earth, all by random collisions of atoms and billions of years of birth defects.

Nobel Prize-winning evolutionist Dr George Wald of Harvard repeatedly made the statement that he and other evolutionists, having chosen not to believe in a Creator, were left with the unenviable position of having to believe the impossible.

reesescups posted:

---

I am beginging to look at Religion as just a form of trolling...

---