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.