Merkabah

Convincing or not?

Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong

Discuss.

__________________
To find truth you must first find confusion. The path to truth is one of questions not answers. Arrogance is a blindfold.

Maximus

Not to me. It is true that the theory of evolution that we know today is a rough sketch, there are a lot of holes. But to me it's the idea of evolution that is convincing, not so much the "specifics" in this theory. We have a lot of research to do before we nail down the theory into fact, but just because there are some minor holes in the theory I wouldn't say it could be debunked that quickly. As we evolve ourselves we will know more and more about evolution as a whole.

__________________

Mr Charles Fiji

I don't have to read/click to know it's probably wrong, or at least full of errors.

But I'll check it out regardless.

Hashishi

*Kicks back, lights up, waits for the cavalry*

__________________

Merkabah

Hey, I'm not pushing an agenda, seriously. I don't know. The article uses what appears to be scientific facts. I brought it here so that people would read it, and provide scientific counterpoints. Dismissal before even reading it is useless. If you find errors or non-facts, please post them for discussion.

macphearsome

well I'm surprised you didn't start by introducing your general impressions of the reading.

As for me, I took a quick look at it and it seems to me like this is taking the approach that Richard Dawkins calls the "worship of the gaps." We have found many different stages of evolution in fossils. Have we found them all? Not by a long shot. Do we have to find every single creature between monkey and man to be convinced?

As far as the bacteria is concerned, the article seems to ignore that the bacteria wouldn't become something else unless it could fill a niche. What does the author of this article expect, that the bacteria would become a mouse? We already have mice. It seems to me like earlier history would allow new niches to be opened and dominated by new species, but we of course already have a fairly saturated diversity of species.

I'm no biologist, but the article didn't convince me. They moved past a cursory introduction and then started underlining what evolutionists don't want you to know.

So yeah, I don't buy it.

__________________
"What if I want more than the pale facsimile of fulfillment brought by a parade of ever-fancier toys? To spend my life restlessly producing instead of sedately consuming? Is there an app for that?" - xkcd

Dino image from www.qwantz.com

FreddyC

I read through it. It didn't really change my mind on anything. I don't believe in the creation of new species. I do however buy the notion from Darwin that natural selection eventually brings on change in a species. I don't believe that ape and man have a common ancestor that both branched out of.

It was interesting to go through the article you posted, but really too long to ask many people to read thoroughly and comment on. Freddy

__________________
freddy'sopenmind.blogspot.com

Creed: That, is Northern Lights Cannabis Indica.

Dwight: (sighs) No. It's marijuana.

Zil

Not convincing. The very first article he quotes and cites has been completely butchered to make it seem like it is saying something it is not. If you'll notice, FIVE WHOLE PAGES are magically condensed to a short paragraph, with only one set of quotation marks, and nothing to indicate where he is skipping from one sentence/paragraph/page to another. This would be really bad form even if he weren't completely misrepresenting the Nature article, and since he is, he's pretty much lost any credit I was going to try to give him just five paragraphs in.

This is ignoring a few other blatantly wrong statements he makes about mutations. I like the picture of the retarded looking puppy with a hammer tied to his tail though.

ctwalrus

that was incredibly dumb and horribly put together
it looks like someone was forced to wright a high school paper on it or something
and that person just cant help but put his opinions throughout their paper
then it gave horrible metaphors and examples supposedly proving their point but truthfully only made the writers look more and more asinine.

why cant anyone writing about evolution write with unbiased facts?
i would really like to see a study or even a research paper like that.

__________________
☮ ♥

Maximus

Notice the bible quote at the bottom of the home page? That's a sign right there that this may be a bit biased.