Topic awaiting preservation: Hey Evolutionists...

...Rebut This!

<.~ - - - - :!: - - - - ~.>

You are not special.
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake.
You are the same decaying
organic matter as everything
else.

<.~ - - - - :!: - - - - ~.>

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 12-15-2002).]

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 12-15-2002).]

*sigh*

This (and all the other 'facts' listed there)...have been 'rebunked' many times...it's all humbug.

I actually encountered all this 'stuff' as I was researching the first formal debate...and most of the real evidence...

You'll have to try a little harder than that...

Ok, Sorry about that. This one contains information that was not discussed in the debate. It's right here.

Ok dude, CFB, let me make a suggestion. It's great to see that you are still looking up ways to back up your beliefs and all. But before you post these links, think of what we might say in response to them. You should know by now that we are going to have something to rebut.

That set aside, here are some contradictions I see:

1.

quote:

---

The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

---

Yes, yes it could have. As the same as life has existed for 8000 years. You'd think that after 8000 years there would be some significant change in climate and weather? Not counting El Nino and other natural disasters.

2.

quote:

---

The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.

---

Once again in the 8000 years of recorded history, the earth would have already been massively deformed and daylight would last longer as so would darkness. But since the Romans established time as 365 days a year, and it has lasted over 2000 years, the Earth surely could have existed billions of years ago. And FYI the muyans actually came up with a time system more perfect than the romans, it didn't even require a leap year, the muyans were the underated, latin american, mathmatical, genius's. I am wondering if these people/person actually think about what they are saying.

3.

quote:

---

Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created. In denying this we call God a liar. And so you can see how evolution theory undermines the omniscience and even the existence of God. And if there is no God, why not do our own thing? Or if God is not all-knowing, indeed, a liar, why put our trust in Him? Evolution theory logically leads to these humanistic ideas. Christians must take a stand for the Word of God, or be accountable on that judgment day for the souls of those whom we did not warn.

---

First let me say, that was the most asininely ignorant comment disproving evolution I have heard anyone say this year. I do deny that, but I am not calling God a liar, considering that facts that first of all I do not believe in god. Second, I am calling the writer of Genesius a liar. And I do my own thing, and I am pretty sure most of the atheists/agnostics in this world do. And I don't put my trust in him; was it Lord_F that found all those contradictions in genesius about how God created the universe (for those who interpret the bible not metaphorically).

Just to name a few.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

InSiDeR, I was debating as whether to leave out some of the information in there, and just post some of the more relevant facts, but from what I remember, Lord_F's condradictions in Genesis have already been proven false by Biblical scholars, as shown here.

good point insider! I like your idea!

#1: There are trasitional and intermediate forms in the fossil record, If they're aren't, what is he trying to discredit in #5 and #6?

#2: Blantantly wrong. If bacteria are exposed to an antibiotic the ones that are resistant to the antibiotic are the only ones that survive. So then you have a new strain of bacteria which are higher evolved. This kind of evolution, microevolution, happens in our lifetime! The number of changes possible in the history of the world has to be tremendous.

#3: First off, there is evidence of matter just poppin' out of no where, however it is for very very brief amounts of time and also very very small amounts of matter, but it does happen. The more obvious problem with this argument is the fact that Creationism, the argument the author is defending, even says God created the world from nothing. So if this argument were true then not only would evolution be proven wrong, but creationism as well.

#4 The evidence is there the author just states its not good enough for him. This doesn't prove anything.

#5 & #6 You can take those 12 homonoid species and either classify them as human/ape, or classify them along a timeline of evolution. Either way the point is moot. How the homonoids are classified has nothing to do with evolution, creationism, or the price of tea in china.

#7 I really don't know what he means by this. I think around this point hes just lookin' for filler material so he can fufill the top 'ten' requirement butt still fell short =) His argument that the powerful domenate the weak is barbaric and therefore must not be possible is absolutely luney! Its not like religions that believe in creationism have never done anything barbaric. The crusades, the inquisition for example. And there are probably trillions of other examples of barbaric behaviour exhibited by living creatures for no reason at all or reasons that don't pertain to this argument. The idea that something can't exist because it is barbaric shows that the author is blind to the real world around him. How can I expect him to know anything about the begining of the human race if he knows nothing about the human race? And on top of all of that his interpretation of evolution is completely bunk. The term fittest realy has nothing to do with being physically fit. It has to do with staying alive and reproducing. If some monkeys were able to outsmard the predators and all the stupid ones got eaten then the smart ones got to reproduce and you've got a lot more smart monkeys and a lot more dead stupid ones. Thats evolution, and yes it is barbaric.

#8 This is like saying evolution is wrong because evoltion is wrong. I read his list of logical inconsitencies and in everone of them he twists around the truth to suit his own arguemnt. But even if any or all of them are true, compared to the logical inconsitencies of creationism, evolution remains a hell of a lot more practical.

#9. So there was a flood. Big whoop. =)

#9

Ok everyone, I'm really sorry for posting. I'll think it through next time.

I think that the problem with these arguments, even though I just brought one up, is that both sides can not be proven right or wrong, because there is evidence surround both.

CFB...give it up, man. The evidence...clearly better supports Evolution, than Creationism currently. Why don't you try this exercise. Try to dis-credit creationism. Compare all the evidence, that you can dig up. Make two charts...one for evolution, one for creationism. Go through all the evidence. See which one holds up better.

Then do the same for Evolution...dis-credit it. Add up all the evidence.

Now, see which one comes up looking better...

And one more thing...be careful of what you consider evidence. Evidence are things that can be proved...not just suggested, or 'right' because something else is said to be wrong. If something is wrong, then why is it wrong...not just 'well, it's wrong'. If it is not a fact, than it is not good evidence...

Also, be careful when making connections...for example a + b suggests c, is not the same as a + b = c.

And quit digging up those old 'creationism' pages...they are all bunk. New proof, and evidence is surfacing all the time, as Science progresses...these old sites don't have a chance against them...

So get busy!

these topics are always a fun house of never-ending hilarity.

I'd just like to point out the simple fact that by discrediting a biblical account of something, nobody is "calling god a liar".

cfb: A list of tired old statements - not really worth a rebuttal as Talk Origins (esp. the Fossil Hominids FAQ for points 5 and 6).

How about rather than seeking rebuttals to points that have been rebutted back to the Stone Age (which did happen) you actually take some time to read the evidence and look into the arguements in more depth? You will learn quite a bit that way. Feel free to call back in to discuss any points on anything you aren't clear about.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1366/lapointe.html

Here is a link by some guy who claims to prove all this stuff wrong.

For every theory there is a counter-theory.