The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved [Finally!]

Website ^ | 1928 | REV. WILLIAM A. WILLIAMS

[Cruising Speed]

"Gravitation is proved a true theory..."

Obviously written by a non-scientist. Science doesn't give a hoot if a hypothesis is 'true', only if it is useful or not.

[VadeRetro]

The records, as far back as they go, prove that the original condition of man was a state of civilization, not savagery. Man fell down, not up.

The record of my life, as far back as it goes, proves I have always existed.

[Ashamed Canadian]

Ok, how this one.....what if God created evolution?

[Modernman]

The record of my life, as far back as it goes, proves I have always existed.

Therefore, you have always existed.

How's immortality working out for you?

[LiveBait]

I couldn't read much beyond this:

If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common.

[DesertSapper]

"Homo sapiens as a species, however, are descended from apes..."

I suppose I'm should believe you know this to be true through some extra-sensory perception or "evidence" visible to only you and I'm to swallow this statement as "fact"!?

Come on, you know this is FR. You cannot think this mush would go without a flaming.

[-YYZ-]

The point was creationists then were using bad and/or pseudo-scientific araguments to "prove" that evolution was false or that the bible is correct, and they're still doing it today.

As to this:

"I can't trust humans not to justify starving to death a woman based on hearsay testimony of a dishonorable spouse . . . and you want me to believe Darwin and his ilk? You are nuts!"

It's a non-sequitor. The one has nothing to do with the other.

[Modernman]

I suppose I'm should believe you know this to be true through some extra-sensory perception or "evidence" visible to only you and I'm to swallow this statement as "fact"!?

Is this your first time on a crevo thread?

The evidence of common ancestry between humans and the other apes is pretty darn solid. Why, exactly, do you not agree with this conclusion?

[headsonpikes]

This guy must not know that the Earth is a sphere. If a mountain is eroded down in the northern hemisphere, the dirt accumulates in the southern hemisphere; eventually, the accumulated weight will cause the Earth to flip its poles (proven by the reversal of magnetic lines on the ocean floor.)

Thanks for clearing that up - I've always wondered about them magnetic lines!

[Cicero]

Darwin's General Theory of Evolution has so many scientific holes in it you could drive a truck through it.

But this article offers no proofs.

Whether or not you subscribe to Intelligent Design Theory, it uses scientific methods. Creationism employs religious declarations. This article is written by someone who doesn't understand the difference between these two approaches.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...I've always wondered about them magnetic lines!

Botox is supposed to smooth those out; at least one failed presidential hopeful thought so.

If you really meant magentic mines, those are easy. You cut the red wire, then the white wire, then the blue wire, in that order; you then remove the contact lever to the trigger mechanism, but first, you must unplug the Prickelnleitung.

[atlaw]

"If a mountain is eroded down in the northern hemisphere, the dirt accumulates in the southern hemisphere..."

Does this mean that all my missing socks are in Argentina?

[Modernman]

Does this mean that all my missing socks are in Argentina?

I'm guessing you've never seen the Twilight Zone episode that explained where your socks and missing car keys end up.

[Hunble]

All this had done, is to support the reasons why Creationism should never be taught in our schools.

FACTS people, FACTS!

[Doctor Stochastic]

On another thread, someone pointed out that socks are really coat-hanger larvae.

[furball4paws]

Methinks this was a little too subtle for the oversensitive.

[razoroccam]

Finally, a winner. Don't be ashamed anymore.

[DesertSapper]

Again not true. I don't have to "prove" anything to an evolutionist as I don't believe their theories - they must prove them to me. Supposedly macro-evolutionary theory is based on scientific process so I expect a logical, scientific explaination. Creation by God must, at least at its base, be taken as a matter of faith. I don't have to, nor am I able to "prove" a matter of faith. That's why it's called faith. You don't have to agree with my faith and I don't have to agree with shoddy science (like a great many scientists).

Again, my comment is not "non-sequitor" as it fits very nicely with my assertion that darwinism is based on faith in humans. I cannot trust humans to make the most logical of decisions; to protect human life - who in their right mind would base biological science on such fallible humans? Especially when we have numerous records of the intentional fraud perpetrated by these "scientists" in the past. Why would I trust them now? Especially when their ever-morphing thories are, in many cases, in direct opposition to my faith and my own deductions.

[razoroccam]

I'd be interested in your response to post 43.

[Diamond]

The next time you bang your secretary and your wife catches you, blame it on the theory of evolution.

Evolution provides no basis at all for blame of such activity, or ANY activity for that matter.

Cordially,