Evidence Disproving Evolution

myself | 10/11/02 | gore3000

[gore3000]

Evidence Disproving Evolution

The basis of a valid scientific theory is that it be able to explain all the scientific data in the field it is concerned with and that no evidence contradicting the theory be true. This is a harsh test, but one which all legitimate scientific theories must pass. This is a test which the theory of evolution has failed in spades as the following abundantly shows.

Religion and Science:

Access Research Network Discovery Institute -- Origins -- Creation Science -- Creation/Evolution Sites -- Creation & Evolution Links from the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club -- True Origins -- Answers in Genesis -- Faith Facts -- Center for Renewal of Science and Culture -- Center for Scientific Creation -- Creation Research Society -- Biblical Creation Society -- Christian Apologetics -- Institute for Creation Research

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows evolution." From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Intelligent Design:
Darwin's Mistake by Stu Pullen -- Rebuttals of Criticisms of Darwin's Black Box -- Dembski - Another Way to Detect Design -- Behe, Michael J. - ARN Authors Page -- Leadership U. Designer Universe: Intelligent Design Theory of Origins -- Flagellar Structure and regulated transcription of flagellar genes -- Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max -- Intelligent Design Research Community -- Intelligent Design Theory Resources -- Intelligent Design. The bridge between science and theology. (William Dembski). -- Evolution vs Creation (Intelligent Design) WorldView -- Detailed defense of "Icons" by Wells -- Dembski on Intelligent Design -- Dembski: No Free Lunch -- Behe's Book -- A True Acid Test:Response to Ken Miller : Behe, Michael -- Intelligent Design Articles -- Phillip Johnson's Page -- Ohio Science Standards - IDN	A Moment in History... That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton?s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences. Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My! What an exquisite thing this is!? he exclaimed. "Who made it?? Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody." Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!? the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is." Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?" From: Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story, "The Truth: God or evolution?" by Marshall and Sandra Hall

Biology Disproving Evolution
Alternative Splicing -- Scientists snap first 3-D pictures of the "heart" of the transcription machine -- Molecular Biology Book -- Cell Interactions in Development -- Oldest Living Plant -- Fruit Flies Speak Up -- The Nature of Nurture: How the environment shapes our genes -- Nanobes (Nanobacteria) are crystals -- Regulation of the Cell Cycle 2001 Nobel Prize -- Amniota - Problems with the Philogeny of -- Basic Principles of Genetics Mendel's Genetics -- Photosynthesis -- Population Variability and Evolutionary Genetics -- Fossil Hominids mitochondrial DNA -- Genetics Glossary AB -- Genomics and Its Impact on Medicine and Society 2001 Primer -- The molecular clock -- Cell Signaling: The Inside Story on MAP Kinases -- Protein Synthesis -- Watching genes at work -- Cell snapshot spots cancer -- Development protein atracts and then repels muscle tissue -- Evolution of the Genomes of Mammals and Birds -- Gene Silencing - Study shows plants inherit traits from more than gene sequence alone -- Gene silencing - Environmental Stress reactions -- Bio-Tech Info - Gene Silencing Articles -- Advances In "Micro" RNA Exploring Process Of Life -- Monkeys and Men - gene expression -- Chimps, Humans and Retroviruses -- Gene activity in human brain sets us apart from chimps -- Pros and Cons of Inbreeding -- Inbreeding and desth of species -No Need to Isolate Genetics -- How Organisms Protect Themselves Against Transposons -- Uses of transposons -- Cell Suicide -- Protein Transforms Sedentary Muscles Into Exercised Muscles, Researchers Report -- Gene insertion in Transgenic Animals -- "50,000 Genes, and We Know Them All (Almost)"	While evolution continues to tell us that species transform themselves in a simple almost magical manner, modern biology shows this not to be the case. Organisms are so complex that for them to transform themselves into different ones would require a theory of COevolution. The random processes assumed by evolutionary theory deny such a possibility. Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves. David Baltimore, Nobel Prize Winner

Mutations:
A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution -- Evolutionist View of Evolutionary Biology -- Creation, Selection, And Variation -- Population Genetics, Haldane's Dilemma and the Neutral Theory of Evolution -- Haldane Rebuttal -- Point_Mutations -- Inbreeding and Population Genetics -- Introduction to Evolutionary Biology -- Neutral Mutations -- Computational Geneticists Revisit A Mystery In Evolution -- Mutations - organisms fixes them itself -- Mutations	Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species. In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

Junk DNA:
The Human Genome Project -- Junk DNA in man and mouse -- Junk DNA - Over 95 percent of DNA has largely unknown function -- JUNK dna and transpositions -- Junk DNA Tips Off Tumor Comeback -- Transgenics, Junk DNA, Evolution and Risks: Reading Through Rows	Evolutionists are always making assumptions. They assumed that the tonsils and the appendix were remnants of previous species from which humans had evolved and were totally useless. They were wrong about that. When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself.

Abiogenesis:
RNA World: A Critique -- Evolution and the Origin of Life -- Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life - Part II -- The Mystery of Life's Origin -- Message Theory/Remine -- Bruce Lipton, Insight Into Cellular Consciousness	There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem). The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.

Darwin and His Theory:
Charles Darwin - The Truth -- Darwin's Racism -- Darwi n's Family -- Malthus and evolutionists -- Darwin's Environment -- Darwin, Racism, Evil -- Ascent of Racism -- Talk.Origins and the Darwin/Hitler Test -- Darwin's finches Evolution in real time -- Effects of the 1998 El Niño on Darwins finches on Daphne -- Punctuated Equilibrium at Twenty -- Homology A Concept in Crisis. Origins & Design 182. Wells, Jonathan -- Darwin's Creation Myth -- David Berlinsky 'The Deniable Darwin	Evolutionists try to paint Darwin as a quiet scientist working hard on writing his theory. However, this is a totally false statement. Yes, he was a recluse. However, he was neither a scintist not a very nice person as the following quote shows: With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. From: Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.

Evolutionist Censorship:
Scientists Censored for Publicly Exposing Flaws in Evolution - Suite101.com -- Science and Fairness -- Duane Gish Responds to Joyce Arthur's Critique -- Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? -- Censorship of Information on Origins -- Professor Rigid on Evolution (must "believe" to get med school rec)	Evolutionists almost since the start have tried to silence opponents. While they constantly claim to be scientists, it seems that instead of following the principles of science - questioning, discussion, and challenging of existing theories, they follow the principles of ideology - silencing and destroying opponents.

Species Disproving Evolution:

Morphology of the Archaea -- Humans Are Three Percent Puffer Fish -- JGI Fugu v2.0 Home -- Cyanobacteria not changed in 4 billion years -- Platypus -- Platypus Web Sites -- Eosimias ankle bone proves human descent! -- euglena -- Textbook Fraud: Hyracotherium dawn horse eohippus, mesohippus, meryhippus -- - On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds - -- Fruit Flies Disprove Darwin -- Hymenopimecis Wasp: Parasite's web of death -- Haploid False Spider Mites -- Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang -- Cambrian Explosion: Origin of the Phyla -- Kangaroo and platypus not related

Top: Euglena, Hymenopimesis Wasp, Butterfly, Platypus Bottom: Bat, Fugu, Cambrian species

Various Topics:
A Critique of '29 Evidences for Macroevolution' -- Blind Atheist -- Freeper Views on Origins -- Freeper Views on Origins - Patriarchs -- Creation/Evolution Debate -- Homology -- 15 Answers to John Rennie and SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN's Nonsense (by Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub> -- Sir Karl Popper "Science as Falsification," 1963 -- Pope John Paul II: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth (Statement on Evolution - 1996) -- Evolution Shams -- A Critique of PBS's Evolution -- Evolution of a Creationist -- Evolution, Creation, and Thermodynamics -- God, Humanity and the Cosmos Book Section Evolutionary Biology and Theology -- The Revolution Against Evolution -- Sexual Reproduction A Continuing Mystery to Evolutionists -- Splifford FAQ (How talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution really work -- Mathematics vs Evolution -- Evolution vs Logic -- Natural Selection an Agency of Stasis, not Change -- Evolution as Anti-Science -- Critique of Gould -- Radiocarbon dating things which should not radiocarbon date... -- Evolution or Christianity -- Funding for Evolution -- Scientists find biological reality behind religious experience [Free Republic] -- Doctors increasingly find introducing prayer helps calm patients and speeds recovery -- The healing power of prayer. -- There is power in prayer [Free Republic] -- Micro vs Macroevolution -- Science Design Kit -- 50 Reasons to Leave Evolutionism -- The Evolution of Truth -- Fossils and dating -- - Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission -- Talk Origins - FAQ or Fiction? -- McCluskey, E. S. --- Which Vertebrates Make Vitamin C? -- Vitamin c Pseudogene -- Snapshots of God -- Critics of Evolution - Book Reviews	While evolution claims to explain the descent of one species from another, it has never been able to do so. The original explanation for how evolution transforms species, natural selection, has things backwards. Natural selection kills, it does not create anything. For evolution to be true it needed to propose a creative force which would have been able to add new traits, new functions to the simplest creatures and gradually transform them into more complex ones. The original proposal by Darwin, the melding of features from the parents, did not answer this problem, nor does the more modern version of the exchange of genetic information that occurs in procreation. Such methods do not add any information either, they just reshuffle the information which already exists in the species. Clearly this cannot be the source of increased complexity either. With the re-discovery of genetics in the 20th Century, the Darwinists finally accepted the incorrectness of the melding theory and proposed mutations as the agent of creation of new information. They ran into the problem that with individuals receiving half their genes from each parent and half the genes of each parent being passed on to the progeny, the chances of a new mutation, even one which might be favorable, had not only a very small chance of surviving more than a few generations, but also had an almost impossible chance of spreading throughout a species. They therefore proposed that most mutations were neutral ones and by gradual accumulation they would change the species. This explanation did not even solve the problem of how difficult it was for any mutation to survive, let alone spread throughout a species. The discovery of DNA made the above possibility, already quite unlikely and totally unproven, just about totally impossible. The high complexity of a gene and more importantly experiments showing that changing even one of the thousand DNA bases of a gene are likely to destroy functioning completely and are extremely unlikely to enhance it, presented another serious problem for evolution. This was 'solved' by proposing that gene duplication would create new functions without destroying necessary functioning. Of course, as before, this was only theory and no experimental proof of it was found to support it. The same problem of it being hard to change a gene favorably applied to such genes, the only explanatory gain was that incorrect mutations would not be deadly. Even then, this was insufficient explanation for the transformation of species. Similar genes, which are fairly common, only accomplish similar functions. The vast changes required for complete species transformation, are unexplainable without the creation of totally new genes. With the discovery that genes themselves are just factories and are controlled by other DNA in the organism, and that a single gene often produces many proteins, this explanation was rendered inadequate. Now a new function, which was already known to most likely require more than a single new gene, would require a whole complex of DNA outside the gene to make it work when and if needed. This makes the evolutionary explanation of random, non-directed species change totally untenable and indeed biologists are beginning to call the developmental process of an organism a program. Like all programs, those for life are not made at random.

[gore3000]

At best, you have shown that religion is useful for keeping people moral. (A debatable position.) You have not shown it to be true.

I think history shows it to be true. Look at what has been going on in Africa since independence. The numerous amounts of mass murders that have occurred just about everywhere there. Look at the actions of Communist governments, at the actions of Nazism, at the actions ot the French revolutionaries, at the actions of the savage hordes from Asia, at the actions of the followers of the evil prophet Mohammed. Look at the total disregard for life shown by all the above and you will have your proof.

[Junior]

The adaptation of the frogs to their environments through mutation and natural selection disproves evolution as do all scientific observations and discoveries over the past 150 years. So sayeth Pope Gore MMM, whose bull is infallible on all subjects spiritual and temporal.

[Junior]

Indeed, one could claim the Spartans created the concepts of Eugenics and Master Race more than 2300 years ago. Spartan children deemed inferior were "exposed" so their blood would not weaken the Spartan race. Unfortunately, to a small fundamentalist cabal on these threads eugenics is a completely 20th-century, Darwinian-based philosophy. To me such beliefs are indicative of the depth of their educations.

[PatrickHenry]

In the current issue of Scientific American (not yet up on their website) there's a section in the "letters to the editor" regarding responses to the "Creationist Nonsense" article from a few months ago. It reads like one of our threads.

[gore3000]

To keep things in perspective, here's some information for the discussion on democide: Murder by Government.

The front page of above site by R.J. Rummel Freedom: Democracy, Peace; Power: Democide, War makes the telling point that "Power kills; absolute power kills absolutely." He clearly demonstrates through tons of evidence that philosophical theories which denigrate life have the consequence of destroying life.

[PatrickHenry]

Unfortunately, to a small fundamentalist cabal on these threads eugenics is a completely 20th-century, Darwinian-based philosophy. To me such beliefs are indicative of the depth of their educations.

Consider the evils the creationoids -- in their supreme ignorance -- attribute to Darwin's work: communism, racism, eugenics, Hitler, Stalin, etc. You've already pointed out the example of the Spartans and eugenics. We've long been showing that Stalin opposed Darwinian teaching. And I've recently given clear authority (in Mein Kampf itself) that Hitler was a creationist.

As for racism, one must be a genuine moron not to realize that it's as old as humanity. Indeed, if you want to deal in historic sequences as if they were cause and effect, we should consider that Darwin's scientific career was remarkably timed to coincide with the English and American drive to end slavery and ultimately to end the legalized institution of racism. Amazing what scientific enlightenment will do.

And then there's communism. I've previously given examples of pre-Darwinian communism, from the Spartans (what a useful group!) to the Mayflower passengers. Notwithstanding all these clear historical examples, the creationoids will continue to repeat their mantra -- thus demonstrating not only their educational deficiencies, but their intellectual and ethical deficiencies as well.

[gore3000]

The adaptation of the frogs to their environments through mutation and natural selection disproves evolution as do all scientific observations and discoveries over the past 150 years.

Still misrepresenting my statements eh? Must be that you and your evolutionist friends cannot refute the challenge I have posed to you many times to disprove the following statement:

ALL BIOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES OF THE LAST 150 YEARS HAVE TENDED TO DISPROVE EVOLUTION

I have posted some of the major ones which support the above: Mendellian genetics, DNA, and the complexity of the human genome. If you wish to refute my statement not your misrepresentation of it, you are welcome to do so. I know however that you will not, because my statement is accurate. In fact, in the article above you will see much scientific evidence disproving evolution. I note that you and your friends are not even attempting to discuss it.

[gore3000]

Unfortunately, to a small fundamentalist cabal on these threads eugenics is a completely 20th-century, Darwinian-based philosophy.

Nobody is saying that Darwin invented eugenics. What is being said is that Darwin was a promoter of and tried to give scientific legitimacy to that despicable practice. It should also be noted that like the German 'master race' which Hitler was trying to construct with his eugenistic practices, the Spartan 'master race' was defeated by those who did not indulge in such barbarism. So much for Darwin and the benefits of eugenics.

[gore3000]

We've long been showing that Stalin opposed Darwinian teaching.

You point to Stalin as if he was the only Communist that ever lived. Communism did and still promotes materialistic evolution. Stalin's attack on Darwinism was the passing fancy of an insane man who killed not just Darwinians, but religious people. A man who killed not only those of other nationalities, but his own Georgian people. A man who killed not only those opposing Communism, but also his own Communist friends who fought side by side with him in establishing that atheistic doctrine on his nation.

[Junior]

As for racism, one must be a genuine moron not to realize that it's as old as humanity.

Indeed, the idea of "the children of Ham" was used to justify slavery for centuries before Darwin was born.

[gore3000]

In the current issue of Scientific American (not yet up on their website) there's a section in the "letters to the editor" regarding responses to the "Creationist Nonsense" article from a few months ago. It reads like one of our threads.

The article on 'Creationist Nonsense' by the editor of Scientific American has been thoroughly refuted in 15 ANSWERS TO JOHN RENNIE AND SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN’S NONSENSE . Rennie's article is a shamefully UNscientific diatribe on opposition to evolution. It shows to what extent the ideologues of evolution have to go to in order to support their faith. They have to totally discredited themselves to do so.

[DWPittelli]

As I have said: "At best, you have shown that religion is useful for keeping people moral. (A debatable position.) You have not shown it to be true."

You constantly reiterate your point that civilisation has gone downhill due to atheism, equating religion's utility with its truthfulness, and ignoring my point (e.g., Santa Claus may be a useful myth for keeping children nice, but that does not make Santa real). If you propose that any version of science and prehistory that is useful must also be true, please do so explicitly, else accept that your arguments about the decline of civilisation have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of evolution.

Further, you have continually refused to propose any specific Creationist version of prehistory, knowing, I suspect, that there is no possible such Creationist version which is not many times more problematic than the reigning evolutionary paradigm.

I kick myself for wasting my time in the belief that you actually might care to debate the nature of prehistorical reality, as opposed to what you want to be true, or what some authority (Newton, the Bible) stated is true. If I do so any longer, it is not in the hope of having an actual debate with you Creationists, who appear to be postmodernist nihilists (the truth is whatever you want it to be), but so that those in the middle will not be swayed by an absence of a response to your continuing idiocy.

[PatrickHenry]

Intellectual inconsistency award:

After I mentioned that Stalin (who used to be a big creationoid poster-boy) was opposed to Darwin's teachings, a certain blue-posting creationoid said this:

You point to Stalin as if he was the only Communist that ever lived. Communism did and still promotes materialistic evolution. Stalin's attack on Darwinism was the passing fancy of an insane man who killed not just Darwinians, but religious people. A man who killed not only those of other nationalities, but his own Georgian people. A man who killed not only those opposing Communism, but also his own Communist friends who fought side by side with him in establishing that atheistic doctrine on his nation.
290 posted on 10/13/02 9:41 AM Eastern by gore3000

How often in the past, when the creationoids would try to smear evolution by bringing up Hitler, did we say that Hitler was a nutcase, and that his occasional references to the struggle for survival prove nothing at all. Yet the creationoids continued to bring up Hitler, as if his crimes actually proved something about evolution. Now, however, they use the exact rebuttal we used, only this time they use it for Stalin. Intellectual dishonesty?

We should also mention that Hitler -- also a favorite poster-boy of the creationoids, is no longer mentioned much, now that he's been exposed as a creationist.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

I agree with you that the website makes a compelling case that philosophical theories which denigrate life have the consequence of destroying life.

Hugs!

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

We should also mention that Hitler -- also a favorite poster-boy of the creationoids, is no longer mentioned much, now that he's been exposed as a creationist.

He has? I have been doing some reading on this and I haven't seen anything stating that he was a Creationist. Sure, from time to time he tossed a few quotes around to appease the religious folks. But remember, above all he was a liar and propaganist, telling people what they wanted to hear. And considering 90% of the people, just as they are now, were religious -- well, you figure it out. Here's an article that may help to clarify:

Evolutionists

And an excerpt from that article: Dr. Bergman’s conclusion: “The evidence is very clear that Darwinian ideas had a tremendous impact on German thought and practice.... In fact, Darwinian ideas had a tremendous influence on causing WWII, the loss of 40 million lives, and the waste of about 6 trillion 1945 dollars. Firmly convinced that evolution was true, Hitler saw himself as the modern savior of mankind.... By breeding a superior race, the world would look upon him as the man who pulled humanity up to a higher level of evolution.”

Why someone would coin the greatest mass-murderer of modern times as a Creationist is beyond me. It truly shows just how far atheists will go in order to advance their pseudo-scientific theory. What a sad, sad world you people live in.

MM

[Alamo-Girl]

If I may, I'd like to add a comment to your remark, DWPittelli: so that those in the middle will not be swayed by an absence of a response to your continuing idiocy.

IMHO, because the various sides are well settled on their points of view --- it is the Lurkers (general public, parents, school boards) who are the target audience to this and similar debates. In that regard, you may find VadeRetro and my ongoing discussion of methods helpful.

In the end, my prediction was and is that neither Young Earth Creationism nor Evolutionary Biology will win the hearts of the Lurkers - instead, Intelligent Design will win "hands down" because they know how to win.

The Intelligent Design debaters approach the conflict as if they were in a court of law. They never badger the witness, they embrace the good ideas of the opponent, they don't try to impress the jury with their superior credentials, they keep it simple and appeal to common sense.

The juror-Lurker is only half listening to what you are saying (especially if you are being technical) - but they are observing closely how you say it. The stronger, louder, faster and more angry the reply - the less weight they will give it, i.e. if counsel "protests too much" - what is he hiding?

Just my two cents ...

[PatrickHenry]

I have been doing some reading on this and I haven't seen anything stating that he [Hitler] was a Creationist.

Why someone would coin the greatest mass-murderer of modern times as a Creationist is beyond me. It truly shows just how far atheists will go in order to advance their pseudo-scientific theory. What a sad, sad world you people live in.

A repeat of a prior posting, in case anyone missed it the first time:

Here's the rebuttal for all those creationists who keep blaming Darwin for the evils of Hitler. It turns out (verifiable by footnotes linked to the text of Mein Kampf), that ol' Adolph was a creationist.
Adolf Hitler's Religion.

Unlike the creationists who always raise the spectre of Hitler to bash evolution, I shall not play that game. It was an illogical argument when used against evolution (although that never stopped the creos from endlessly using it); and now it would be similarly illogical to use Hitler as an argument against creationism. However, when some whack-job of a creationist uses the Hitler ploy, this link is coming out of my archives and into your face.

For those who want a "better" source for the proposition that Adolf Hitler was a creationist:

"For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."
Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler, Volume 2, Chapter 10.

[balrog666]

If I do so any longer, it is not in the hope of having an actual debate with you Creationists, who appear to be postmodernist nihilists (the truth is whatever you want it to be), but so that those in the middle will not be swayed by an absence of a response to your continuing idiocy.

Well said - nice job so far.

Oh, and welcome to the funhouse.

[VadeRetro]

As I've mentioned, I'm basically arguing the underlying truth and not handicapping who is going to win politically in the short term. So far, the trend has been for the scientific truth to come out in the long run, even where locally repressed by Luddite movements (e.g, by Lysenkoism under Stalin).