If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution. Time is the evolutionist's magic wand. Fairy tales come in many forms!

We often hear that science has proved Darwin's theory of evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. You see, people often confuse scientific fact with scientific theory. Current scientific theory regarding the evolution model does conflict with the creation model. But the facts of science do not! There are many scientists who fully accept the creation model of origins. Surprised?

Darwin's theory of evolution says that over millions of years simple life forms (one celled creatures) slowly evolved into complex life forms (fish), and that one kind of animal evolved into another kind (ape to man).The creation model, on the other hand, says that all life forms were created in six, 24 hour days. If the creation model is wrong and man actually did evolve in small graduations over a long period of time, we should find ample fossil evidence of links in intermediate stages of transition. For decades, evolutionists have searched for fossils of these links to prove the creation model wrong. Although millions of fossils have been unearthed, even evolutionists acknowledge that the links have not been found.

Darwin taught that many little changes over a long period of time will add up to big changes. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would either prove or falsify his theory. Darwin realized the difficulty the fossil record (missing links) gave his theory when he said, "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Today, top evolutionists know that Darwin's predictions of what the fossil record would reveal have failed.

It is a well guarded fact that many evolutionists rejected Darwin's theory of evolution over 20 years ago. Stephen Jay Gould, a professor at Harvard University and one of the foremost authorities on evolution in the world said, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms (missing links) in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists,...we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study". Natural History, Vol. 86. Gould is still an evolutionist, he just rejects much of Darwin's theory.

Mark Ridley, another evolutionist from Oxford University said in The New Scientist magazine in June 1981 p 831, "a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Because the fossils simply do not support many small changes between kinds over a long period of time, many evolutionists have at least been honest enough to admit this and have come up with a new theory called, "punctuated equilibrium" or the "hopeful monster theory". From the fossil record, they know that change didn't take place in small gradual steps, so they assume that the change took place in quick "quantum leaps" over long periods of time. In Darwin's theory, the changes were so slow and gradual that science cannot observe the evolution. The new theory says the change takes place so quickly it that too cannot be observed. Unobservable science? What a contradiction!

Link (new window)

101 ways the buy-bull got it wrong. (new window)

Oh good grief. Not this shiat again.

Green? Really? Why? There is nothing new here. Same flamewar, different thread.

I love how creationists try and pick apart a theory published in 1859, as opposed to the 150 years of refinement and revision. Yes Darwin got a lot wrong, thats why science works, you don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Guess what folks, Newton got some things wrong, does that mean were all going to believe that we are going to float away, no.

Oh no you di-int.

I predict a reasoned and productive debate in this thread.

I went into this open-minded, willing to listen. I'm sure Darwin is wrong on many points. Any theorist, scientist, psychologist, etc will be wrong on many of his/her points, and will be constantly working to learn why and publish the new information.

And then I read #10:

Yet instead of the data accumulated during the next 150 years pointing toward blind and random causes of nature doing the creating, we now see it, based on molecular, chemical, biological and astronomical evidence, pointing to a supremely intelligent Designer of all.

This didn't end up nitpicking some things about Darwin, this is someone trying to refute him entirely, and then they sneak in religion at the end so that you think this is a purely scientific examination.

Author is basically just trying to say "Darwin is wrong," in a very verbiose fashion.

TF2_Pyro: This didn't end up nitpicking some things about Darwin, this is someone trying to refute him entirely, and then they sneak in religion at the end so that you think this is a purely scientific examination

At the end?

TF2_Pyro: This didn't end up nitpicking some things about Darwin, this is someone trying to refute him entirely, and then they sneak in religion at the end so that you think this is a purely scientific examination.

Author is basically just trying to say "Darwin is wrong," in a very verbiose fashion.

And it's nothing new, this same sort of material has been around as long as I can remember.

But one thing I just noticed. Article has the `amusing' tag. Perhaps it was just greened for lulz.

My husband's name is Darwyn so I'm getting a kick out of these replies. I'm starting my own list of how he got it wrong
1. Married me
2.

and so on

2009-11-07 09:12:24 AM  
My husband's name is Darwyn so I'm getting a kick out of these replies. I'm starting my own list of how he got it wrong
1. Married me
2.

and so on

2. Lives in Canada :P

As a Christian, Creationism offends me. It is not a theology but a tactic trying to preserve dogma and simplicity. It ignores metaphorical truth in the Bible which is more often the greater truth than any literal or historical truths that the Bible may contain. Jesus' parables, fictional stories, often resonate with people more often than his miracles in my opinion.
The Tactic of Creationism loses sight of what effects it has on faith in the blind goal of protecting one interpretation of creation. How else can you explain the use of Intelligent Design which opens the door to teaching about many other types of creators, from aliens to flying spaghetti monsters.
I am saddened that other Christians are so narrow in their view that they lose the beauty of a living faith clinging to dogma which is an interpretation of scripture. They don't understand that science's only dogma is the process of refinement through the scientific method. They continue to chop at what they perceive as the root of evolution, Darwin's Theories, in the vain effort to topple the tree of evolution, not realizing that scientists themselves have already removed the tree from those roots, transplanted evolution into many different fertile grounds and it has become a sequoia of ideas that has been nurtured, pruned, shaped and continues to grow.
I am a Christian. I believe in God who sent his son Jesus. I believe that evolution in a far more elegant process that God pulling the universe out of hat, or creating a man from mud.

missmarsha: My husband's name is Darwyn so I'm getting a kick out of these replies. I'm starting my own list of how he got it wrong
1. Married me
2. Canadian

and so on

I'm just gonna help you out a bit here.

Science: Well if you'd just have a look at this data that actually shows how -
Creationists: LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU

Gawd, there are still people that actually think magic made all the animals and plants?

Christians from what I can tell,are just apes with the ability to speak, and no ability to think.

I love how they quote a 1979 newsletter. Wow.

Look, if God is the Supreme Being and ruler of everything, then he's kinda like the ultimate boss, right? Isn't it better to think God created a dynamic, living system that can continually (if jerkily) improve itself? Or would you rather your Ultimate Boss be the universe's greatest micromanager? I never figured out why the ultrareligious don't adore evolution, instead of loathe it.

missmarsha: Your husband didn't make you change your name to mrsmarsha? =)

Haven't used this one in a while:


"Times ten!"

stucka:

missmarsha: Your husband didn't make you change your name to mrsmarsha? =)

I brought my low fark id into the marriage. It was like a dowry.

others
Canadian

2. Canadian

All creationists should be sterilized.

I love #10. the best argument ever against evolution. yep. ever.

Jesus. That starts out bad and gets worse.


1. The "warm little pond" theory

1. Yes, because abiogenisis is held as incorrect amongst biologists today. Oh wait, it's still the most widely accepted theory for the beginning of life amongst scientists. We'll see this line of reasoning a loth through the list; "I disagree with it, therefore it is wrong. No, I don't have any evidence."


2. The supposed simplicity of the cell

2. Cells are complex now, that doesn't meand the first cells had to be complex. There's this theory you may have heard of called "evolution".


3. His ideas about the information inside the cell

3. Make up a claim, attribute it to Darwin, prove claim wrong. All in a days work for a lying creationist douchebag.


4. His expectation of intermediate fossils

4. More blatant lies. Our understanding of the fossil record is very good - not perfect, but considering how rare it is for an animal to become a fossil and how fragile they are, we're lucky to have as many good ones as we do.


5. His failure to see the limits of variation of species

5. Yet more blatant lies - species getting differentiated has been observed both in the fossil record and in the lab. As an example, sheep are a separate species (can no longer be interbred) with a mouflon, which they were descended from.


6. His discounting of the Cambrian explosion

6. "there is still no evolutionary mechanism that can satisfactorily explain the sudden appearance of so many completely different life-forms" - Sure, if you discount punctuated equilibrium, which explains exactly that. Also, expecting Darwin to have an answer for something which wasn't really understood until after his death is double douchebaggery.


7. His theory of homology

7. I'm just gonna let this failure of logic stand on its own: "Darwin says similarities between animals is evidence for evolution, but I think it was because God was lazy".


8. His theory of human beings evolving from apes

8. Again, just stating a part of the theory of evolution and then saying "I disagree with that" is not an argument, unless you can show why you think it was wrong. Also, both apes and humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, humans didn't evolve from modern apes.


9. His theory of the tree of life

9. Speciation again. It's as wrong as it was in #5. What, you couldn't think up ten lies, so you just used one of them twice? that's pretty goddamn pathetic.


10. His rejection of biblical creation by God

10. Again; "I disagree with Darwin, therefore he was wrong. No, I don't need any evidence to support my views."


A weak list even by the lax standards of creationism. Not that I was really expecting something rational or intellectually honest. There's this undercurrent of "If I can prove Darwin was wrong about something, I've demolished evolution!" running through the whole list, which just increases the amount of fail. Why would it matter even if he was wrong? how would that disprove 150 years of scientific discovery that back up evolution?

WTF? I read a few more articles on the site and am left wondering the same thing as in my 3rd grade bible studies class. Who believes this farking shiat?

/Baptist School for 4 yrs.

Cog: 101 ways the buy-bull got it wrong. (new window)

Oooh, thanks Cog I love this!

Gunther: A weak list even by the lax standards of creationism. Not that I was really expecting something rational or intellectually honest. There's this undercurrent of "If I can prove Darwin was wrong about something, I've demolished evolution!" running through the whole list, which just increases the amount of fail. Why would it matter even if he was wrong? how would that disprove 150 years of scientific discovery that back up evolution?

Yeah, I think that article just trolled you hard bro.

Damn. I started this article thinking "Hey, this sounds neat. I didn't realize there were 10 things he did wrong, although I know he did make some errors...for instance, not figuring out about how genetics results in the transition of traits from one generation to the other. He didn't apply Mendels book!

Then I got to the part about homology...and starting thinking WTF?

I didn't even finish reading the damn thing. I scrolled down and saw number 10. What a way to ruin my morning. More idiots posting ridiculous claims and fake facts trying to prove their sky fairy exists. I just wish there was a comments section on that article so I could harass them with logic.

What about the guy who determined the earth is 6,000 yrs old? What was his credentials. It's like some guy who was prolly at most an intern pulls up some number. And now it's gospel. Where's the nitpicking in that research?

The bible says people lived to be hundreds of years old. Was that fact or euphemism? The flood wiped out the earth population yet the Ark's crew found people to procreate with. Or we again descendants of incest. If people are going to treat the Bible as a science book then it should be wholly critiqued as one.

You can't pick and choose which parts you want to believe and discard others. That would be silly. Yet of course it's only a few Christian denomination that does this and seemingly only in these here United States.

Gunther: A weak list even by the lax standards of creationism. Not that I was really expecting something rational or intellectually honest. There's this undercurrent of "If I can prove Darwin was wrong about something, I've demolished evolution!" running through the whole list, which just increases the amount of fail. Why would it matter even if he was wrong? how would that disprove 150 years of scientific discovery that back up evolution?

It's how they perceive the world and are projecting. Show that Darwin wasn't an infallible prophet, that his books aren't innerent. Point out just one thing wrong from the High Priest of Evolutionism's Holy Word and the whole system falls apart and is not worth the ink it's written on. Unfortunately, Science does not work that way.

e5wsf: Who believes this farking shiat?

Almost half of Americans.

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/talk-children-about-evolution.htm


Those poor farking kids.

Luckily Darwin is not a worshiped deity, Origin of the Species in not gospel, and changing Darwin's theory doesn't mean we have to deny what we observe of the real world to force it into our dogma.

Smart
Honest
Creationist

Choose two

In before Bevets quotebots...

/Got nothin....

I don't know about you guys, but I am TOTALLY convinced.

So Darwin's theories on cell structure and complexity were wrong, which he formulated before any technology existed to give us a better view of the inner workings of a cell, so that must mean everything else he theorized was wrong as well? I'm pretty sure trollmitter saw the same faulty logic, but someone had to believe what they were writing in this article.

odinsposse: Luckily Darwin is not a worshiped deity, Origin of the Species in not gospel, and changing Darwin's theory doesn't mean we have to deny what we observe of the real world to force it into our dogma.

Smart
Honest
Creationist

Choose two

As long as they don't include the third one?

Dear subby,

I read the article and come away unimpressed. These are old canards that have since been refuted OR our ability through science has since refined the theory.

I fail to see the point of the article other than creationists continue to fail to evolve their arguments to meet new evidence. Preying on the wholesale ignorance of those reading the article to disprove the theory of evolution is very unChristian-like. For shame.

Subby gave it an amusing tag. I think they were probably submitting it for the retard factor.

"Notice that the first reason for writing his book was religious-for he sought "to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." In other words, he had no room for a religious version of origins involving the Creator God of the Bible."

Um. No. Saying "In other words" is not a magic formula that allows you to completely change the subject's intent.

Author is a disingenuous farktard.

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/celebrity-pictures-betty-white-sick -bull.jpg

So, I sort of skimmed it. I found the usual lies, distortions, illogical arguments, and appeals to authority (scientists now agree...) likely involving the two professors in the biology department at Bob Jones University. But then I got to number 10 and I realized they weren't even trying anymore.

From teh fine propaganda: We eagerly await that day when people will throw off this pernicious lie of, as Romans 1 describes, exalting what has been created and will instead return at last to acknowledge and worship a loving Creator!

if it makes you rage it is not amusing!

Who the hell seriously still uses the Boeing 737 argument? Evolution involves modification of existing parts; not adding new ones on.

Whoever read this article apparently doesn't know much about the citric acid cycle, Gunter Wachtershauser's Iron-Sulfur World theory, the RNA World hypothesis, and the work of Jack Szostak (who just won a Nobel Prize).

beaverteeth92: Whoever read this article apparently doesn't know much about the citric acid cycle, Gunter Wachtershauser's Iron-Sulfur World theory, the RNA World hypothesis, and the work of Jack Szostak (who just won a Nobel Prize).

This surprises you?