Does this website prove Creationism?
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-07-2011, 06:34 PM
Does this website prove Creationism?

They're trying really hard by using maths and science to somehow disprove macro-evolution. I haven't had the time to check their sources, could someone point out the flaws(if any) on this website regarding its science?

Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2011, 07:40 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
To be honest, until someone puts forth a better scientific model, then why should they try to disprove evolution? Numbers can easily be manipulated as well, but I'll wait for a biologist on this one.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2011, 08:08 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
Any particular points, because so far the claims I've read are that atheist evolutionists are conspiring across the world to disprove the god that they hate so that they can freely sin. It all seems like mainstream stupidity.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2011, 08:13 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
Any argument based on the "probability" of whatever the presenter wants to disprove are highly suspect. If they aren't making them up as they go along, they can arbitrarily come up with ridiculous figures in a number of ways. I'd make up a silly example, but I'm a little too tired to think of one right now.

Remember, figures never lie but liars always figure. Or something like that. I need some sleep...
Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2011, 01:27 AM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
Well I know one thing for sure, they don't know a lot about paleontology.

It's another site claiming that there's very little transitional fossils:

"In general we do not see fossils of transitional forms between different species of plant and animals."

Relative to the amount of species that probably lived on the planet, there's still a lot left to be found, but relative to what Darwin was expecting, we have found things that he only dreamed of finding.

They also fail to recognize what the 'Cambrian Explosion' means, since it didn't take place 'abruptly' like they say. Relative to geologic time, yes, it did take place abruptly, but in geologic time, a few million years can seem like 'overnight.'

Not only that, but the animals during the cambrian explosion were mostly hard-bodied animals that could have probably fossilized easier than their ancestors. Other transitional fossils tend to be like this as well like with birds and dinosaurs, since bird bones are hollow and delicate, so it's very rare to find fossilized birds.

Also, where the hell are their sources for the paleontology page?

"Science is interesting, if you don't agree, you can fuck off."
Go to my youtube channel and subscribe please!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleo's post
12-07-2011, 03:15 AM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
I really don't want to bother >.> I have work to do.....

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2011, 10:45 AM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
Quote:Imagine putting the pieces of a million fine wrist watches in a paper bag (a big bag). Now shake this bag for 6 billion years and expect the watches to be running and on perfect time when you are finished. Preposterous, isn't it?

Like every Pro-Creationist they know nothing of science or what others believe. They assert a conclusion and try to find facts for it.(and do it poorly) Paranoid uneducated idiots best describes them.

Oh, and like every other theist they argue points that would only be in favor of deism and claim it proves their theist God exist.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2011, 11:19 AM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
Allow me to list the flaws.

-Right off the bat, you'll notice that this site is plastered with terms such as "accurate summary" and "honestly show each side" in a very Fox News manner. If it was accurate and honest, the evidence presented would show such and there would be no need to try and present your case as the "honest" version.

Quote:treating the "Theory of Evolution" as fact even though it has been proven scientifically impossible.

-Proven scientifically impossible? So doesn't that mean that scientists would be the ones to prove it impossible? And then 99% of them decided to ignore the proof because of their atheist hidden agendas?

Quote:It takes more faith to believe in the absence of a divine hand than it does to recognize the intricate balance of all things physical and appreciate the scientific reasoning that it could not have happened by chance, that "Intelligent Design" had to be involved.

-Use of the "it takes more faith" assertion, use of the term "chance" and a conclusion already put forth before any evidence has even been shown. You know already that it's just another creationist site parading as science.

Quote:Imagine putting the pieces of a million fine wrist watches in a paper bag...

-Another version of the "airplane pieces in a tornado" argument, demonstrating that this site clearly doesn't understand evolution or natural selection.

Quote:Secondly, today's humanistic science of Evolution (Macroevolution) and Natural Selection as slanted toward Darwinism (Microevolution and Natural Selection in themselves are valid sciences) was devised with the intent of finding a replacement for the science of Intelligent Design.

-Another creationist nonsensical argument: Macro isn't possible while Micro is obviously possible. Plus the term "science of Intelligent Design" is laughable. The site author acts like there was some conspiracy to uproot ID, rather than just better evidence presenting itself.

Quote:Thirdly, when man denies the existence of a supreme being, a creator of all the miracles of life, it is many times done to release himself of all responsibility to the creator.

-This is supposed to be a scientific rebuttal to evolution, right? So where's the science in saying, "evolutionists just want to sin more?"

I stopped reading after I got to the Bible quotes as "proof" and the age old fallacies that creationists somehow still try and use.

Carbon dating isn't accurate...
What caused the Big Bang?
The global flood has been proven true multiple times in unbiased studies.
Quote mining from Dawkins and Einstein.
DNA mutation only ever results in harmful and worthless attributes.
"Mouse trap" fallacy.
We should be able to observe living organisms spawning from chemicals today.

So not only does this site provide not a single statement that could be described as scientific evidence, you get the feeling it was authored by a 4th grader. Every paragraph has been laughed off and demonstrated why it's completely wrong by the scientific community. I'm surprised they didn't include the "the banana is perfectly made for our hands!" drivel.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Buddy Christ's post
12-07-2011, 11:32 AM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2011 11:39 AM by sy2502.)
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
Where to begin???
Here I guess:

Quote:Imagine putting the pieces of a million fine wrist watches in a paper bag (a big bag). Now shake this bag for 6 billion years and expect the watches to be running and on perfect time when you are finished. Preposterous, isn't it? Yet we are to have faith that our intricately designed universe came about by a "Big Bang," a feat that is statistically impossible without "Intelligent Design" as part of the equation.

This statement is "not even wrong".
1) That the universe as we see it today is statistically impossible is wrong. To make statistical statement you need a statistically significant population to draw data from. How many universes do we have to make a statistical analysis? One, our own. Drawing any statistical data from a population of one shows lack of knowledge of what Statistics is in the first place.
2) The universe doesn't function randomly, it obeys physical laws. Quarks can't avoid coming together to form hadrons (protons and neutrons) for the simple reason that the strong force pulls them inexorably together. If you have quarks and you have the strong force you can't not have hadrons. The positive charge of protons then pulled in the negatively charged electron for the simple reason that electromagnetic force leaves them no choice (I am using "choice" here as a metaphor obviously). And so on and so forth. While it is true that if we "run the tape" many times we would get some slightly different result each time, the basics (formation of hadrons, formation of atoms, formation of stars, fusion of stars, etc) would have to happen because the laws of physics work a certain way only.
3) It is true that some constants in the universe have specific values which seem to determine what the universe looks like today. Nevertheless, it is premature to say that the fact they have one value instead of another is proof of a creator. First of all, we don't actually know if different values of those constants are in fact possible. Second, the anthropic principle can be invoked just as easily. Third a multiverse hypothesis can be invoked.
4) Last but not least, the article then proceeds to bash those pesky Darwinists without realizing that Darwinism has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang, and putting the 2 in the same sentence is the most obvious red flag of any creationist argument that they don't actually know what they are talking about.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sy2502's post
12-07-2011, 12:00 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
"The Theory of Evolution (sometimes referred to as macroevolution) states that all living things – all species – have come from a single ancestor through a process of natural selection of small variations or descent with modification over a long period of time."

Since when is the Theory of Evolution referred to as macorevolution? Macro and Microevolution are both within the theory of evolution!

"Biologist Richard Dawkins, in commenting on the Cambrian Explosion in The Blind Watchmaker, said, that “It is as though they [these species] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.” This mystery has caused some scientists to modify parts of Darwin’s theory and adopt a new theory called punctuated equilibrium (or “punk eek”). Punk eek suggests that most transitions happened quickly in small isolated groups of animals so there never were transitional forms."

I love it when creationists cherry pick quotes from atheists. And I have started a thread on Punctuated Equilibrium but even in a Punc Eq (not punk eek you ignorant fuck) scenario it is microevolutionary processes that lead to macroevolution.

" According to zoologist Percival Davis, Darwin did not cite a single reference to fossils in support of his belief in human evolution. Clearly his original idea of human evolution did not grow out of a study of human fossil evidence, but out of a previously held opinion about the origin of man."

Darwin did not know of any human fossils because we had not yet found them. Darwin predicted what we should see and wouldn't you know it...we found it!

"Paleontologist Stephen Gould writes, “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” Gould says further, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. . . . . The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Heribert Nilsson writes, “The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks.” "

No one in the paleontology community believes the linear trees that are proposed in textbooks. They are simplifications of the overall evolutionary trajectory. There are few (if any) cases where the progression is strictly linear from ancestor to descendant. Instead it is much more likely that there were multiple offshoots and that only one survived to dominate. The lineage of horses is the perfect fossil group to look at for this example. We find several of the ancient horses living at the same time as their ancestors. The ancestor then dies off at a later time and the ancient horse breeds multiple descendants but not all of these descendants made it to the modern day. Descendants of Propaleotherium (one of the first horses from ~50 Ma) include the modern horse, mules and Zebra. All different but all similar. All are descended from a common ancestor but branched off at different times and all live TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME!!!!!!! The other part of the Stephen Jay Gould quote about the rarity of transitional fossils is about how we are lucky to have ANY fossils at all, much less ANY transitional forms. The amount of individuals that are buried in such a way so as to become fossils is pretty small (maybe 1%) and the conditions for fossilization are rare, and the types of animals that get fossilized almost always have to have hard parts (some soft bodied organisms do preserve but are EXTREMELY RARE). The total number of species alive today is ~3 million. Imagine the sheer number that has ever existed (30 million? 300 million?) and the odds of fossilizing and preserving anything! They are small and the total number we preserve during any one time period is small so we only ever catch a glimpse of the fossil record...and even that glimpse is enough to demonstrate evolution and tell us what the Earth was like during geologic time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: