01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massive mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution.
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
The foregoing Is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 18].
"A foolevolutionist has said in his heart, there is no GodCreator."
After reading the paragraph above in the original article, I didn't need to read any more. The fossil record is one of evolution's biggest “problems”, and the idiot who wrote this "final debunking” article uses it to say why it is a law and not a theory.
No need to waste time going any further...
Science is a way of observing things, then codifying a theory that explains the observations. However, the same thing can be observed in several ways: such as electrons as both waves and particles.
Scientism, however, insists that only science can define what is true, and that everything outside of science is untrue. However, holding this supposition as absolutely true in itself is an unprovable supposition.
Until you guys get to the underlying RELIGIONS behind creation, you won't be able to discuss the pros and cons of the theory of evolution.
Hey, evolutionists and atheists: We'll just concede that you're smarter than everybody else. We can't touch you intellectually. Okay? Any chance you'll stop posting the man-descended-from-monkeys crap?
I doubt it.
No different from the dozens who believe that the U.N. is an impartial body dealing in promoting international civilization and justice...
"The fool has said in his heart . . . "
And eventually, foolish is as foolish does and shows up on prime time. . . in God's timing, that is.
It ain't over until it's over and it's far from over in terms of your arguments carrying the "final" say on the "final" day.
I believe God created evolution to serve His ends. That means the absolute hard core on both sides despise me (I have been accused of "theological Satanism" by one creationist, and a hard-core evolutionist likened me to a bone-in-the-nostril bushman who'd been taught how to wear a suit. IIRC, both of these folks are "No current Freeper by that name."
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
The above is false. The fossil record, and in particular the Cambrian explosion, disproves evolution. That 90%of the phyla ever known should appear within a mere 5 million years without trace of any descent from any previously known species is a hammer blow to evolution. That no new phyla have appeared in the last 600 million years is another hammer blow to evolution. One also must take into account the numerous scientists who have denied that gradual evolution takes place due to the tremendous gaps in the fossil record still existent after 150 years of digging including evo heros Gould and Eldredge.
Many Experts Quoted on FUBAR State of Evolution
"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."
Jeffrey Dahmer, noted Evolutionist
Given standard theories wrt the history of our solar system and our own planet, nobody should be finding cities and villages on Mars, 2100 feet beneath the waves off Cuba, or buried under two miles of Antarctic ice.
I see why rebuttals were omitted to save space, if they are all like this one.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galpos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances
From natural selection to adaptive fitness. Nice "sleight of hand".
When a Scientific American article opens with a sweeping, bald-faced lie such as this, then the rest of the article may safely be assumed to be a worthless polemic, not science.
Attacking Creationists is a political act, not a scientific one, and it should be well-noted that the politics are Leftist. True science takes no political position.
The Scientific American article raised more questions than answers (on the few questions I didn't already know the answers for). That's good from the point of view of scientific inquiry. If all the questions were answered the scientists could all go home and write computer games.
But the arguments till boils down (IMO) to two positions. One side can imagine natural events leading up to the current situation and is not concerned with the Origin of Life question. The other side can't and is. But imagination isn't proof in the positive or "a final debunking" and lack of imagination isn't proof in the negative.
Ultimately the question isn't whether evolution is "true" or "false". Ultimately the question is whether you know G-d. If you know G-d, you will find all your questions answered in the end. If you don't know G-d, it won't matter.
Shalom.