Another fake “science” website

This is a direct sequel to:

I’ve discovered another website with a false name:

On its home page it says:

Science: Knowledge and Discovery

Science is the human endeavor to discover truths about the world around us. Scientists seek out answers through observation and experimentation. As we discover more and more, we are able to apply what we’ve learned to develop new technologies and to improve everyday life. But perhaps more importantly, as we gain knowledge through science, we are able to begin satisfying our deep-felt need to know more about ourselves.

Which is absolutely true. But then you start to read deeper.

Evolution – Scientists are Fallible People
The theory of evolution is part of the scientific domain, which involves accurate observation of evidence and controlled experimentation. The scientific method “is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”2 One problem of the theory of evolution is that it has not been established using such a scientific method. Dr. Jonathan Wells says about this: “The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science.”3 Many proponents in the field of science have been selling a philosophy rather than presenting scientific evidence. The harm is done when this philosophy is proclaimed as if it were scientific fact backed by experimental or observational evidence.

Almost every book written about evolution will detail clear observational evidence to support that theory. Thus the claim above is false. As for scientists being fallible yet science itself still being reliable, look here:

Without a strong advance commitment to the philosophy of evolution, would any reasonable person ever stretch logic so far as to believe, for example, that the ponderous jaw bones of reptiles evolved into the delicate, intricately matched bones of the inner ear, whose exact length and precise hinged motion transmit sound to the inner eardrum, not even to mention the irreducible complexity of the chemical and electrical system in ear and brain that allows us to actually hear the sounds? Those who thus believe should at least refrain from ever criticizing the most unreasoning devotee from any religion for his persistence in finding explanations which fit his belief, even if his particular religion happens to be a false one.

What about the many transitional fossil forms discovered that show in detail the gradual progression of reptile jaw bones evolving into mammal ear bones? How do you explain the monotremes, which are mammals living today with many reptilian characteristics, including laying eggs to reproduce?

Intelligent Design – Machines
Intelligent Design is obvious upon close examination of any machine. The concept and design inherent in a machine, whether simple or complex, is self-evident. Whether a machine is high quality or low quality, its designer is both necessary and apparent. Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind. Even the diminished quality of a poorly constructed machine cannot obscure the necessity of an intelligent designer. Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are “purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks.” By this authoritative definition, living systems are recognized as machines. A living organism fulfills the definition of a machine all the way down to the molecular level. And yet, because of the philosophical and religious implications of life resulting from Intelligent Design, a surprisingly large portion of the intelligentsia seek to find a mechanism by which life may arise naturally by random chance. Evolutionists admit the inconsistency. George Wald, an evolutionist, states, “When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!” (“The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954). 
First, there are critical differences between living things and non-living machines. Non-living things do not reproduce by themselves, they do not have genes that can mutate, and thus they are not subject to natural selection, which is NOT a process of random chance.  Second, this reference to George Wald is an example of “quote mining”, a classic Creationist trick in which the words of a scientist are distorted and/or taken out of context, and then misused to claim something the scientist didn’t mean at all. What Wald really said was, “The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a “philosophical necessity.” It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing…….The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at least once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at-least-once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough. Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.”  Reference: 
That is hardly an admission of inconsistency, but rather a criticism of other scientists, past and present, for not taking all issues in consideration when discussing the origin of life.

Intelligent Design – Education
Evidence indicating Intelligent Design is abundant and overwhelming. Since the reemergence of evolutionary thought in the last two hundred years (popularized by Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859), evolutionists have zealously sought evidence to validate their theory. Nothing has yet to stand up under the close scrutiny of an in depth scientific evaluation. And yet, curiously, evolutionary thought prevails in the mainstream. Thus, evolutionary “scientists” have disposed of true science, and replaced it with philosophy and imagination.

What a stunning example of “turning reality upside down”! Knowing what I do about both evolution and Intelligent Design, I cannot take this wild assertion seriously. The simple truth is the exact opposite.

Now we come to a real absurdity:

Who made God?
A bright five-year-old, when his friend asked, “Who made God?” answered Richard Dawkins’ query regarding “who designed the designer.” The child didn’t miss a beat, replying “God made his self!” Of course, the child did not understand that self-creation requires existing before you exist, which is meaningless. In contrast, biblical theologians have taught for centuries that God is eternal. Let’s consider this view logically.

  1. If there ever was a time that absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now.
  2. Something exists now.
  3. Therefore, there was never a time that absolutely nothing existed.

The above three propositions comprise what is known in formal logic as a valid syllogism. A syllogism is simply a set of three statements. The first statement presents the major premise. The second statement puts forth the minor premise, and the third represents the conclusion, which necessarily follows from the first two premises in a properly constructed syllogism. The statements above represent what formal logic defines as a modus tollens syllogism. The basic format of such a syllogism is:

  1. If P, then Q.
  2. Not Q.
  3. Therefore, not P.

Another way of stating the conclusion, “There never was a time when absolutely nothing existed,” is to remove the double negative and say, “There always was a time when something existed.”


Who made God – What are our alternatives?
The question that then bears asking is, ‘Just what has always existed?’ We have only two options: the material universe comprised of space, time, matter and energy, or an eternal and spiritual God, who exists separately from the material universe. Given that well-respected quantum cosmologists, such as Alexander Vilenkin, believe that science unequivocally shows the universe must have had a beginning at the big bang, that leaves only one other option, God. Since something must be eternally self-existent (not self-caused), and the universe itself does not qualify, the only logical conclusion open to us is that a spiritual, self-sustaining God exists and has existed eternally.

The problem here is that there is a third possibility that was not even considered at all. Yes, the present universe had a beginning, but it could have arisen from the destruction of an earlier universe, without devine intervention. Why was that not considered?

And finally, we come to this:


Discover Truth
If you’ve asked your questions, discovered the answers and gone from an intellectual belief in God to a personal relationship with HIM based on heartfelt faith… then now is the time to jump in and see how to grow in your relationship with God! Check out some of these sites listed below.


Click To Discover


  • Discipleship
  • Ministry
  • Fellowship
  • Worship
  • Evangelism

What a fraudulant website! It’s not about science at all! It’s full of propaganda to promote Christianity!

One thought on “Another fake “science” website

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s