[link]



Darwin himself, whose theory has evolved into something he never said, could hardly believe how the world latched on to his speculation. He wrote, ;I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them; Good choice of words.

[ME] Yes a good choice of words indeed- too bad Chuck never said them:

[ Darwin's son Francis wrote in a letter on 28 May 1918:

Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply. My father's agnostic point of view is given in my Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I., pp. 304–317. You are at liberty to publish the above statement. Indeed, I shall be glad if you will do so."
After the story had been revived in 1922, Darwin's daughter Henrietta Litchfield stated in The Christian for 23 February 1922 in an article titled: Charles Darwin's Death-Bed: Story of Conversion Denied by Mrs. R.B. Litchfield:

I was present at his deathbed, Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. ... ...The whole story has no foundation what-so-ever." ]
[/ME]





All you need to be a believer in the religion of evolution is blind faith. Just take everything you are taught about the theory to be gospel truth.

[ME] You mean like you clearly do with the bible?[/ME]


H. S. Lipson (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK) said, ;In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to alter their observations to fit in with it.;

[ME] Somthing Christians would never dream of doing[/ME]

Look at this newspaper report:

The study of mans origins have been thrown into turmoil by the discovery that human beings are almost genetically identical to chimpanzees and gorillas. The finding made by biologists overturns the accepted idea that mankind developed separately from apes in the distant past more than twenty million years ago, and have thus developed into very different creatures. The biologists say that the separation took place far more recently—about 5,000,000 years ago. Our ancestry is dramatically shorter than we once supposed, they believe. “We used to think we were cousins of the apes,” says Professor David Pilbeam, a Harvard University anthropologist. “Now it is becoming more clear that we are more like brothers and sisters.”

We are more like brothers and sisters to apes? That’s an insult to apes. Experts say that violence is unknown among the creatures. They are generally gentle. They don’t need to be continually policed so that they don’t rape and murder, like progressive man.

[ME] Yes, there are NO speices of ape that hunt down and kill other speices for food. Nope none. Moron.[/ME]



Maybe your faith rests on “scientific proof” such as carbon dating. Science magazine reported, “Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old” (vol. 224, 1984). A science article in Time (June 11, 1990) subtitled “Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off” should show you that scientific proof isn’t worthy of your trust.
[ME]
Tell me, would you say that a 25m tape measure "doesn't work" because it can't measure distances longer than 25 metres? It still works within that range, doesn't it?

Carbon dating is only used within its range, just as a tape measure is only used for objects within its range. For older objects, radioisotopes with much longer half-lives (such as uranium) are used for dating purposes, just as you would use a different kind of device to measure very long distances (eg- to the Moon).

For those of you who wish to adopt a more conciliatory approach, it is noteworthy that there is a famous line in the Bible about a day being as a thousand years to God, thus implying that timescales in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally (quite frankly, none of it was meant to be taken literally, but if you're out to convince someone without browbeating him, a certain level of pandering can sometimes be useful). In general, there is far more Christian flexibility on the issue of the age of the universe than there is on the issue of evolution itself, so instead of resigning yourself to a rhetorical battle against someone who digs in his heels and closes his mind to evidence, you should keep in mind that it is possible to convince a Christian of the validity of these concepts if you work at it.

Fallacy watch:

•Straw-man fallacy (pretends that carbon-dating is used for objects dating back millions or billions of years, when in fact it is not).


-Micheal Wong
[/ME]


If you are a believer in evolution, answer this. Did the first fish that crawled out of the ocean to become an animal have lungs or gills? If he had lungs (which were needed to breathe while on land), why did they evolve while he was underwater? If he had only gills (which were needed to survive while underwater), he wouldn’t survive on land for more than two minutes. He also has another little problem. He needs to find a “she” who likewise decided to crawl up onto the land at the same time. She too needs to have lungs or she won’t survive for two minutes. If he is the only one to make it to shore and to develop lungs, the new species of lungfish will die out when he does.

[ME] (Morbo) EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT!(Morbo)


Evolution takes place over millions of yeas and over thousands of generations. They do not occur in one individual specimen! This isnt Pokemon![/ME]

The theory of evolution would have us believe that God didn’t make the giraffe with a long neck. Instead, it evolved from a short-necked animal to become a giraffe with an extended neck to reach the leaves on tall trees. As the animal stretched to reach leaves, this stretching effort was somehow imprinted in his genes. When he and his mate had offspring, his stretch genes were passed on to the next generation, and they were therefore born with longer necks. Thus was born the giraffe species. This is supposedly the case with all of creation. Over millions of years we adapted to our surroundings.

Let me then project where evolution should take the still-evolving species of modern man. Since the advent of modern man, he has used a spoon to eat certain food. If he continues to do so, evolution will do its marvelous work. Mankind, in a few million years, will have a “spoon” evolve (grow) from his right hand (if he is right-handed). This will happen because the spoon usage will be imprinted in his genes, and the spoon genes will be passed down from generation to generation. The spoon-hand extension will make it difficult for him to brush his teeth, but evolution will no doubt solve that problem. If he can train himself to use his left hand to brush his teeth, he will brush an average of around 60,000 times over his lifespan. This will be passed through the genes to the following generations, and his left hand will (over millions of years) grow a flesh-and-blood toothbrush extension. This is no stretch of the imagination. If fish can evolve lungs and legs, and dinosaurs evolve wings, anything is possible… to those who believe.

[ME]Are you retarded? By your logic our hands should have evolved into bows and arrows and our feet into wheels. Idiot.[/ME]





If I can’t convince you of how brainless the theory of evolution is, perhaps the following people can.
Sir Arthur Keith (who wrote the foreword to Darwin’s Origin of Species, 100th edition) said, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”
Malcolm Muggeridge, the famous British journalist and philosopher, said, “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books of the future.”
Dr. T. N. Tahmisian of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission said, “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.”
Even Time magazine admits, “Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record” (November 7, 1977).

[ME] Appealing to authority eh? Yeah, I'll take the word of a journalist and an atomic physisist if I need help writing an article or building a nuclear bomb. If I wanted to talk evolutionary science I'll find someone who knows what he is talking about.[/ME]


Not too many believers in Darwin have looked closely at the theory of evolution. If they did, they would find that the structural pillars are nonexistent: Nebraska Man was “scientifically” built up from one tooth, which was later found to be from a pig. Java Man (found early in the last century) was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of thigh bone, and three molar teeth. The rest was the work of the imagination and plaster of Paris.

[ME] Science isnt perfect, scientists make mistakes. However those mistakes were later corrected. As you yourself have stated.[/ME]


Heidelberg Man was built up from a jawbone, a large chin section, and some teeth. Most scientists of the day have rejected it because it’s similar to the jawbone found in modern man. Still, many evolutionists believe he’s 250,000 years old. And don’t look to Neanderthal Man for any evidence of evolution. He died of exposure. His skull was exposed as being fully human, not ape. Not only was his stooped posture found to be caused by disease, but he spoke and was artistic and religious. After Piltdown Man celebrated his 500,000th birthday, his skull turned out to belong to a 600-year-old woman and his jaw to a modern ape. All evidence of Perking Man, who was said to have been around at the time of his friend and neighbor, Piltdown, has completely disappeared. He’s been reclassified as human. New Guinea Man dates way back to 1970, while Cro-Magnon Man is described as being “one of the earliest and best established fossils…at least equal in physique and brain capacity to that of modern man” (a small brain). In other words, there’s no difference.

[ME] More of the same. See above[/ME]

Listen to this quote from a television program on the subject of evolution:

To make any kind of judgment, one has to appreciate how little evidence there is of all our ideas of human evolution…If we were to gather all the material on early human remains, from everywhere on earth, and bring it together in one place, it would scarcely fill a single coffin. There would be room to spare…The gaps are still huge. The missing “link” is more like a missing chain, stretching back longer than the period for which we had human fossils.

Read the quote again. Look at what they are saying: “little evidence,” “ideas,” “scarcely fill a coffin.” Again, well-chosen words. Put the idea in a coffin where it belongs and bury it forever. G. K. Chesterton was so right when he said, “The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing.”

[ME] A telivision progamme is not a source of scientific evidence[/ME]

Grant R. Jeffery said, “Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated” (The Signature of God).

[ME]

One of the most aggravating things about creationists is their stubborn refusal to deal with evolution theory as it is defined in the textbooks, rather than their own cartoonish version of it.

Let us get one thing straight: evolution theory does not predict half-man, half-ape creatures. It predicts a gradual succession of creatures that look like men but are progressively more hairy, less intelligent, and less upright as we move back through time (along with other sundry reshaping issues such as foreheads sloping back etc).

When a creationist looks at an australopithecus fossil and says "that's just a hunched-over, small-brained, hairy man", he doesn't realize that this is what a "missing link" should look like.

Fallacy watch:

•Strawman distortion (paints a false picture of evolution theory's predictions so that those predictions can be more easily attacked).

- Micheal Wong[/ME]

I can hardly believe that I once was a believer in such unfounded fables. The reason I approved of the idea was that it wasn’t very important to me. As a Christian, however, the subject of origins now matters greatly to me because if evolution is true, the Bible is false. Modern evolutionary theory (as opposed to Darwin’s original theory) says that man was once an ape. But the Bible says that there is one kind of flesh for man and another kind of flesh for animals (1 Corinthians 15:39). It also says that every animal reproduces “according to its kind.” Dogs have puppies, not kittens. Cats have kittens, not chickens. Horses have foals, not calves. It doesn’t matter how many thousands of years pass, elephants don’t have giraffes, nor do monkeys have men.

[ME] (Morbo) EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOODNIGHT![/ME]

It is interesting to note that pig heart valves have been used as replacements for human heart valves. Pig skin has even been grafted in humans to deal with severe burns. In fact, pig tissues are the nearest in chemical composition to those of humans. Perhaps wishful evolutionists should spend more time around the pigsty.

[ME]Wow, what a totally unfunny attempt at humour. Ever thought of working for the Family Guy writing staff?[/ME]

Try to think of any explosion that has produced order. Does a terrorist bomb create harmony? Big bangs cause chaos. How could a big bang produce a rose, apple trees, fish, sunsets, the seasons, humming birds, polar bears—thousands of birds and animals, each with its own eyes, nose, and mouth?

[ME] Dont make me quote Morbo again...[/ME]

Here’s an interesting experiment: Empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint, rubber, and plastic. Make sure nothing is there. Nothing. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. Try it. If it doesn’t appear, leave it for 20 years. If that doesn’t work, try it for 100 years. Then try leaving it for 10,000 years.
Here’s what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: leave it for 250 million years.

[ME]Creationist Argument #2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Argument
"How can something come from nothing, as per Big Bang theory?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal
There are two possible rebuttals:

•That is not what Big Bang theory says. Big Bang theory says only that the universe started from a point, which expanded outwards and is continuing to expand today (note that this last point is an observation, not a theory).

At no point does the theory state that this point came from nothing; the point could have existed for all time (in fact, it must have existed for all time according to Einstein's theory of relativity because space and time are related, and the original point therefore contained all of both).

Of course, the concept of spacetime may be too complex or alien for younger or less-educated readers to grasp, so perhaps it would be wiser to simply note that the mere possibility of the point existing for all time negates the argument that Big Bang theory calls for it to appear out of nothing.


•Alternatively, one can simply point out that the theory of evolution does not begin to take effect until the Earth has already been formed, so it is a red-herring. However, in my experience, creationists simply refuse to admit that cosmology is irrelevant to evolution theory no matter how many times you explain it to them. They honestly believe that all of the world's cosmologists, astronomers, geologists, and nuclear phycisists have tailored and deliberately misrepresented their conclusions for the past 300 years for the sole purpose of supporting evolution theory. To say that this is one of the wildest conspiracy theories in history would be an understatement.

The latter approach is simpler, but more difficult because they will often fight tooth and nail to change the subject from evolution to cosmology. And it is difficult to stop them because if you try to stay on the original subject, they will generally make a public spectacle of their victory dances when they declare that you are afraid to debate the new subject. It may help to ask why they're so determined to avoid discussing evolution theory directly, and turn their own tactics against them by accusing them of running from a fight, but their simple-minded distortions of cosmology are so infuriatingly ignorant that it is difficult to resist defending the scientific community on the subject.

Of course, it's rather obvious that their objective is to "prove" that the universe cannot be old enough for evolution to work, but the interesting thing is that even if you could somehow refute the idea of universal expansion, this would not prove that the universe is too young for evolution to be feasible. The sheer scale of the universe and the speed of light necessitates an ancient universe even without Big Bang theory, so this really is a wild goose chase on their part. Even the potential energy released by the gravitational collapse of a proto-planetary matter into the Earth (an amount equal to roughly 3,800,000,000,000,000,000 times the Hiroshima bomb) is so great that the time required simply to cool to a solid state would handily exceed the creationist timeframe by orders of magnitude.

Fallacy watch:

•Straw-man fallacy (pretends that cosmology makes a prediction which it does not actually make, in order to knock it down for rhetorical points).



-Micheal Wong


The rest of his post is standard fundie JEZUS IS TEH AWESUM!!! rhetoric that I wont subject you to. A note to Christians I am not intolorant I have respect for all faiths but you need to understand that not everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally. I know that there are going to be some Christians who think that the bible is srs bsns who will be offended by this but I really dont give a shit it is people like you who are the reason Christians are stereotyped as stupid bigots because the actions of you retards.


Oh, and I'm an agnostic BTW.[/ME]