Why do you continue to believe in such an outdated and cruel ideology? I'll be the first to say that, at the time, Darwin's theory was a brilliant attempt at explaining the diversity of life without the need of a creator. I will not state my religious affiliation because I do not think it is relevant. I'm a rational, reasonable, sceptical person and any theory that is sufficiently supported by evidence, I will believe in faster than you can say hot potato. I believe in almost all of the ones generally accepted within the scientific community. The reality is that this theory, the theory of evolution, doesn't hold up to the arguments against it.

I'm not even going to get into the fact that belief in evolution strongly correlates (and is causative in my opinion) with immorality within society, as it has nothing to do with the veracity of the claims it makes, so let's just examine the main problems with evolution.

Let's just say the history of life on earth, about 4 billion years (I don't believe the earth is that old but I'll grant it for the sake of argument), took place in 1 day. The beginning would be at 12:00AM and the present time would be 11:59PM. At 12:00AM, evolutionists claim that life arose in the form of single celled organisms. So surely the life, distributed across the planet (in the oceans, evolved proportionately, right? Wrong. You have to wait all the way till 10:30PM for life to evolve beyond single celled organisms! In the span of roughly 1 minute, BOOM!, the Cambrian explosion. All the life we see today, in their current form, evolved, from single celled organisms, in the span of 1 minute? Is that not the most ridiculous claim ever to be made?

The process of fossilization is very common, in fact, it's likely. Why, then, have darwinists never been able to present ONE transitional fossil? When I say "the" missing link, I'm being very generous. There are millions of missing links and evolutionists (should) know it. There's just no evidence in favour of this theory.

I'll give credit where credit is due, though. There are some fossils, within the record, radio-metrically dated with results that support evolution (if you get to cherry pick, which evolutionists always do). That is, IF radiometric dating was reliable. It isn't. There have been LIVE squids, otters, and other animals that carbon dated to be thousands of years old! How do scientists keep getting away with using these faulty methods?

If you look at any organ in any human or animal, you'll see that it was clearly designed. How could a nub of skin evolve into an eye or a pimple into an arm? If you came across a statue, say the statue of liberty, would you assume it evolved over time? NO! It's clearly designed and so, of course, you would ask who designed it. Why can't people use logic towards evolution like they can towards pretty much anything else?

Furthermore, the second law of thermodynamics posits that organized systems will, with time, become disorganized. This completely contradicts and refutes thermodynamics, so take your pick. Thermodynamics or evolution? Charles Darwin even admits this in a letter "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

Lastly, although these arguments aren't scientific like the rest, Charles Darwin was a bitter man his entire life who tried to fight God with his theory. On his deathbed, however, he realized the error of his ways and actually CONVERTED to Christianity, denouncing his theory, saying he got it all wrong. WHY did people keep believing in it? He even also alluded to how heinous his theory was in his own book! "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." - Charles Darwin

Sorry I seem to have rambled on a little bit but there are just mountains of evidence against this theory and it infuriates me that it keeps being suppressed by the scientific community, pushing their evolutionist agendas.

you kind of failed when you involved religion in your idea.

I strongly believe in there being some kind of afterlife because of the personal things I have witnessed...if thats even relevant O.o

very nicely said btw I read the whole thing and learned a couple things.

This post was edited by Chinlc on May 18 2010 06:07pm

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Look up your own retarded arguments and their counterpoints. I don't feel like doing it for you.

Edit: Transitional fossils: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
Radiometric dating: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC400
Second law of thermodynamics: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

And the rest of Darwin's quote on the eye, since you were talking about cherry picking:





The point is any argument made in the OP is an old and debunked argument. This website is an index of every creationist criticism of evolution along with the debunking of the claim. It must suck to be both wrong and unoriginal.

This post was edited by Sioux on May 18 2010 06:17pm

lol wow...

First of all, I'm not a creationist - and I'd like that religion not be a part of this discussion. Secondly, there are many very good arguments that absolutely refute all of your responses.



Quite to the contrary - I did the opposite of involving religion. What I did (or tried to do) was preempt any sort of discussion of religion, as it doesn't belong in this subforum.



Thank you!



I agree.

Lets hear it. You've already shown that you cherry-pick evidence and disregard scientific findings, so I'm not feeling like you've got a slamdunk case against evolution.

And you included religion by mentioning a designer. Just an FYI.

This post was edited by Sioux on May 18 2010 07:55pm

Guys, his name is "Anal_Destroyer" and his profile has a picture of swastika, he's obviously trolling.

Also see:
http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=43883078&f=125&p=292209632#p292209632

This post was edited by Aurorae on May 18 2010 09:28pm

Poe's law, etc.

Religion
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Nowhere did I put forward a set of beliefs - I merely alluded to a designer. None of what I said is opinion, but fact.

And every one of my arguments were valid - simply linking me to one of your religious Scientism websites isn't making an argument. (by the way, that website (talk.origins) is guilty of employing the same logical fallacies and inaccuracies it accuses its opponents of. I could just as easily link to a religious website that favours my side to refute your claims but I am above that and prefer making real arguments.



Ah, yes - the classic ad hominem attack. I almost forgot I was on the internet.