The Evolutionary Theory Is Crumbling!

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-30 01:38pm

Rather than wasting so much time defending currently accepted theory against young-Earthers' moronic attacks, why not use that time to succinctly blast their competing theory?

Young-Earthers claim that the stars were created after the planets. Since heavier elements can only be formed in stars, the stars must have preceded planets. That blows one YEC claim out of the water.

YEC's claim that the universe is no more than 6,000 years old. This flies in the face of every cosmological, Einsteinian and doppler redshift calculation ever made. Light would have to be redshifting at exponentially greater rates than those observed for the YEC's ridiculous age estimates to be true.

See how easy that was?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-30 02:20pm

Durandal wrote:Rather than wasting so much time defending currently accepted theory against young-Earthers' moronic attacks, why not use that time to succinctly blast their competing theory?

Young-Earthers claim that the stars were created after the planets. Since heavier elements can only be formed in stars, the stars must have preceded planets. That blows one YEC claim out of the water.

YEC's claim that the universe is no more than 6,000 years old. This flies in the face of every cosmological, Einsteinian and doppler redshift calculation ever made. Light would have to be redshifting at exponentially greater rates than those observed for the YEC's ridiculous age estimates to be true.

See how easy that was?

See, that is called science. Something they don't seem to understand.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2002-11-30 05:44pm

Contradictions to the theory that man evolved from simpler forms of life in the oceans. Gene mutations produce abnormalities not advancements.
More advanced forms of life do not exhibit more chromosomes.

So, what's your point? That the number of chromosomes do not determine the complexity of life?

Dolphins exhibit superior animal intelligence. Darwinian evolution claims life forms began in the ocean and more advanced forms evolved from ocean to land. The dolphin has high intelligence but resides in the ocean.

I suppose it could never have moved BACK to the ocean from land?

The "Methuselah" Bristlecone pine tree is the world's oldest living tree at age 4,765 years. (A part of "Evidence for Creation".)

The only thing that tree proves is that the Earth is at least that old. It can be older than one stupid fucking tree.

Did the dinosaurs disappear millions of years ago? This fish, called a coelacanth, is said to have lived before the dinosaurs and was found alive off South Africa in 1938. Since then hundreds of coelacanths have been sighted.

Hey, sharks lived before the dinosaurs! So did bacteria! Wow! So what?

This photo shows a plesiosaur that washed up on a beach in Monterey, California in 1935. This is evidence that dinosaurs didn't become extinct millions of years ago.

Looks like a fucking dolphin's head hooked up to a anaconda's torso. I like how they only have the head and neck in view, and that the people are not standing so one can make an accurate size comparison.

Galapagos Islands where Charles Darwin (Origin of Species 1859) observed subtle physical adaptations in bird (finch) beaks, which he mistakenly believed were evidence of changes that over time would produce new kind.

How the hell was he mistaken? I take your silence as an admission of stupidity!

The Great Barrier Reef has been estimated to be 4,200 years old. No living thing is older than about 5,000 years, which is consistent with life forms beginning after the time of Noah's worldwide flood.

OR, it could just mean that stuff dies after a while.

Picture shows ice cores obtained from deep ice formations. Rings in ice cores are not annual rings and have mistakenly been used to calculate an old age for the Earth.

Even if they are not annual rings (which they might be, given the sites track record), how does it prove that the Earth is young? Simply because one measurement is wrong doesn't mean that the Earth can't be old.

Clams are found at the top of Mount Everest (29,035 ft.), evidence that it must have been underwater at some point. Provides evidence of a catastrophic worldwide flood. Every major mountain range on Earth contains fossilized sea life—far above sea level.

Two words: Tetonic plates.

The eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 created many large canyons in a very short amount of time, similiar to the Grand Canyons formation.

Whoa whoa whoa. Didn't you say earlier that that Grand Canyon was made by a 'superflood'?

The oldest human civilizations are not dated beyond a few thousand years. Damascus, Syria, is considered to be the oldest continually inhabited city at about 6,000 years of age. The earliest known examples of handwriting date back to 3500 BC (5,500 years ago). The Cheops pyramid was built in Egypt 2500 BC. China is the oldest continuous human civilization known which only dates back to Emperor Yao and Shun in 3000 BC. Dating backwards using human mitochondrial DNA mutation rates, current estimates are that humans have only existed for 6,000 years.

And of course, the world couldn't have existed without humans.

Rate of Earth's spin is slowing. If billions of years old, earth would spin much slower today.

Why? Because it couldn't have been slowing down for billions of years?

There are short-period comets in outer space whose life expectancy is less than 10,000 years. Evolutionary astronomers mistakenly claim short-period comets originate from imaginary "Oort Cloud."

Why is the Oort Cloud imaginary? Why are their claims mistaken?

Not enough time has elapsed for light speeding at 186,282 miles per second to have traversed the entire universe. Yet light has reached the entire expanse of the cosmos, meaning light has travelled faster than the known speed of light at some time in the past. Researchers estimate light may have travelled 1069 times faster at the beginning of the universe. This means the universe is smaller and younger than most scientists believe.

OR, it could mean that light coming from more than one source (unlike your "fact", which implys light from a single source) has had enough time to 'traverse the entire universe'.

Amber (hardened tree sap) with trapped spiders inside, alleged to be milllions of years old, show no evolutionary changes from modern day spiders.

Which means that spiders haven't evolved much in a few million years. Or, rather, they have, into many different species. Of course, evolution doesn't exist, so I guess I'm wrong.

Was theorized by Charles Darwin

-Falsely believes all living things arose from a common ancestor.
-Falsely believes human origins can be traced back to single-cell life forms in the ocean (primordial soup) billions of years ago.
-Falsely believes that genetic mutations result in advanced new species, when in fact they result in defects, disease and death.
-Correctly believes that DNA strand, carries information that is transferred to offspring (eye color, etc.), but falsely assumes a new speices is generated.

Never states why the beliefs are all false, naturally.

*sighs* I would go look on more pages of the website, but I've seen enough bullshit to last me the entire week... I'll make sure to show this to my science professor come Monday though, he'll get a real hoot out of it.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-11-30 05:57pm

Dating backwards using human mitochondrial DNA mutation rates, current estimates are that humans have only existed for 6,000 years.

Bollocks. mtEve lived at least 100,000 years ago, and the scientists that most stringly support this data are the Out of Africa theorists that support a recent origin for humans.

They just changed it to 6,000 to suit their purpose.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-01 09:21pm

If anyone here is interested in real astronomy I would suggest you pick up Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan. Although a bit dated, it is an excellent book about planets, moons, asteroids and space exploration. It is currently on my reading list, and I have found it to be an excellent book. Oh yes, the many pictures are fucking awesome too.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2002-12-02 07:39am

What we are talking about is a fascinating collage of leaps in logic..... a prime example of how NOT to promote creationism.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-02 07:49am

Not to mention outright lies - they've changed all the relevant dates to suit their timescale while pretending to care about the research done.