15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense [THE FINAL DEBUNKING]

Scientific American ^ | 17 June 2002 | John Rennie

[Junior]

Why would the Cambrian explosion give us fits? You don't make any sense. As for your contention that no new Phyla have come into being in 580 million years, I'm not sure how accurate that is, but I do know that multitudes of species and genuses have come and gone in that time. Are you pushing "macro" evolution back to the phylum level?

[PatrickHenry]

... any person who asserts that something does not exist because science cannot prove that it does would in fact be deceiving themselves.

No one says that. The fellow's alleged "5th dimension spiritual world of God" may indeed exist, but there is no scientific evidence for it. Scientifically, nothing else can be said. Yet the poster claimed: And please pardon some of us if we can "see" that HIS "proof" of 'Intelligent Design' is clearly and overwhelmingly evident... His claim makes no sense to me. Does it to you?

[That Subliminal Kid]

I'm not a Creationist so I frankly don't care if Creationism stands or falls. I think it falls, personally. I just think current evolutionary theory is weak, extremely weak, and I do so tire of watching people pretend that it's incontrovertible fact and then use this specious claim to beat Religious people over the head with. Someone earlier claimed that ID was unfalsifiable and therefore not science. I pointed out the fairly obvious fact that evolution is an unfalsifiable fact, and is quasi-scientific- I wouldn't go so far as to call it un-scientific. That lead us up to the post you replied to.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Sure it makes sense. When I look at living things, when I consider the human mind, when I look at DNA, or ponder the amazing complexity of the universe, I see the work of an intelligent agent. Other people may see the same things I do and conclude that it 'just happened'. I think that's what he meant. I'll readily admit that I can't prove God scientifically, but then again, I can't scientifically prove that I love my dog.

[F16Fighter]

"Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable."

It doesn't stop the SCIENCE "community" from insisting and advocating it be taught in SCIENCE classes as a viable theory of life's genesis, or referred to as a SCIENTIFIC theory despite it's fairy-tale odds of it being true, or in the context of "SCIENTISTS BELIEVE"...

You're right -- "Evolution IS unscientific"....

[f.Christian]

saying things like "science is made up" and other non-sense...

I said evolution is made up...I am 100% satisfied with science/creation----

000% evolution

Tell me more...'half wit'!

Talking about yourself---mutations!

[CyberCowboy777]

Good, Billions. Do the Math. Why Complicate things, Take a compression rate of 50%, 60% across the board......

You have given a theory not fact. Most Evolution scientist do not even use sedimentary evidence or fossil evidence, it has be proven unreliable. So you found a guy who want to hold on to the old theories. Good for you, I suggest you get with the current trends in you camp. Let us just keep with the opening line of your "proof" "The truth is that no one knows for sure though there are some pretty good guesses."

[PatrickHenry]

Now that you've read the erronious creationist claim, take the time to read the article's rebuttal. Or would you rather not?

[That Subliminal Kid]

It's a widely accepted fact that no new phyla have emerged in approximately 580 million years. If you do a quick search you'll probably find this information as it's published in most college texts.

If you don't know why the Cambrian Explosion gives evolutionists fits, then you must not be aware of the bruhaha caused by Steve Gould after he put forward his punctuated equillibrium variation of evolution, and following this the evolutionary scientists basically split into two sub-groups, one with Gould, and one with Dawkins. To this day they fight like cats over the mechanisms and the rates of evolution. Steve once said "neo-Darwinism is effectively dead" and months later recanted his assertion after experiencing the full fury of the scientific establishment. These are all well documented facts. I'm surprised they're not in your "Ultimate" list.

[Diamond]

The oldest fossil footprint yet found was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister on an expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah. He was accompanied by his wife and two daughters, and by Mr. and Mrs. Francis Shape and their two daughters. The party had already discovered several fossils of trilobites
A trilobite crushed within a human sandal print Found on June 1, 1968 near Antelope Spring, Utah.	when Meister split open a two-inch-thick slab of rock with his hammer and discovered the print. The rock fell open "like a book." revealing on one side the footprint of a human with trilobites right in the footprint itself. The other half of the rock slab showed an almost perfect mold of the footprint and fossils. Amazingly the human was wearing a sandal!  The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 10 1/4 inches long and 3 1/2 inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human
detail Cordially,

[That Subliminal Kid]

you're an idiot.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I'm not going to waste my time debating "scientific facts" with another. Why? Because I choose to believe in what I read in the Bible. Period.

The Post-Modernist-Deconstructionists strike again. What one "chooses to believe" trumps evidence, experience, thought, what others may "choose to believe"; this is the ultimate in solipsism. When feelings are put above thought, it becomes difficult to decide between people's positions. Why is one person's feelings better than another's?

[Virginia-American]

since no new phyla have emerged in 580 million years

Aren't flowereing plants a phylum?

[Junior]

The fossil record is fairly consistent in the deposition of fossil remains -- everywhere in the world. I'm sorry, but that's pretty strong evidence that various organisms came and went at various times and not all at once. If you can't see the forest for the trees, that's your problem, but the fossil record is what it is and you cannot dismiss it (actually, you can, but then you'd simply be playing ostrich). Either you have some way of explaining it or you don't. Evolution does a pretty good job of explaining the fossil record as it stands, without any special intervention.

[f.Christian]

Really sublime...

you're an idiot.

491 posted on 6/17/02 1:04 PM Pacific by That Subliminal Kid

[That Subliminal Kid]

Are they?

[Junior]

There is nothing in the fossil record itself that tells how old the fossils are. Fossils do not have date stamps.

The rocks the fossils are in can be dated accurately without reference to the fossils themselves.

[balrog666]

I just think current evolutionary theory is weak, extremely weak,

What difference does it make if it's weak? Or extremely week? Or dead wrong? Like all scientific theories, it will last until a better scientific theory comes along. If you have one, propose it and win a Nobel prize. If you have nothing better, just move along and quit wasting our time.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Science assumes 1) all things are natural, and 2) events happen in a sequential order we call time

How do you propose to demonstrate otherwise?