Interesting anti Evolutionary website, Darwinismrefuted.com

[Kev]

www.darwinismrefuted.com

It's quite unique amongst sites I've visited in that it concentrates purely on the science and doesn't appear to bring God into at all which is an instant turn off for so many people.


Some interesting stuff on there, good prima reading for those interested in learning more about evolution and how scientifically proven it really is..........

[VictorCharlie]

Man I remeber the last thread on this topic...WOW that was a long one

[smashup]

And a boring one!!
Does anyone give a flying f*ck about anti Evolutionary stuff?

[Kev]

And a boring one!!
Does anyone give a flying f*ck about anti Evolutionary stuff?

Only intelligent people Smash

[smashup]

I had racists down as thick cunts Dildo

[X]

Man I remeber the last thread on this topic...WOW that was a long one

Yes, but the subject matter and discussion at the end was quite different to that at the beginning.

Take that, you anti-Darwins

[Kev]

Man I remeber the last thread on this topic...WOW that was a long one

Yes, but the subject matter and discussion at the end was quite different to that at the beginning.

Take that, you anti-Darwins

haha cc

[Kev]

I had racists down as thick cunts Dildo

Not all of us

[Punisher136]

I have one problem with this website: It doesn't say what really happened. It just goes on to disprove macro evolution, quite handily I may add, but yet offers no explanation on what happened. I have no problem with one scientist disproving another but coming up with a right answer is more important than just disproving somebody else's idea.

I got an idea from a video game (its called E.V.O. and its for the super nintendo). Basically you start out as a tadpole/fish and end up evolving up into alien form. Its a great game (wheather you believe in evolution or not) but the scientific basis for it is non-existant. You are the same creature and you evolve thru species after species, time period after time period (fish, amphibian, reptile, mammel, etc.).

Why it gave me an idea is because it focuses on a single lifeforms adaption, variation, or evolution w/e you want to call it. Because we didn't live back then, we have no idea what the life expectance of a dinosaur was. The golapogos island turtle can live to be 150 or more years old (they are reptiles and to date the longest living species of any animal we have discovered). Because their environment remains constant, there is no need for adaptions. If these things (dinosaurs) were capable of living for centuries (i'll say why i think this may have been possible alittle later on), they would've had numerous chances at adapting/variating chracteristics that some of their own species hadn't which would give the illusion of evolution and quite possibly the illusion that a species was different than another when in fact it was an old acclimated dinosaur that died. Its believed that none of these acquired characteristics from an old dinosaur would transfer to its young. That may be true, but whens the last time you've heard about a persons apendix working like it used to?

Its been theorized that at one point earths gravity was less than it is today (not extremely less but enough to be significant). The idea for this comes from the fact that plants and animals back then were much bigger than they are now. There was also more oxygen and co2 in the atmoshpere than there is today. With more oxygen, less gravity bearing down on a skeletal frame, and notoriously slow metabolic rates (which almost all reptiles possess), living was easier so it would be safe to assume that these things were "built" to be around for a while. There would then be many generations coming from a single mother dinosaur. They say that parents acquired traits don't pass on to their young but yet there's humans whose childrens inheirit their bad eyes when their parents parents eyes were fine and no such previous trait existed.

I can't provide a theory on how things would macro jump from being dinosaur one year and bird the next but something had to happen.

[Kev]

I have one problem with this website: It doesn't say what really happened. It just goes on to disprove macro evolution, quite handily I may add, but yet offers no explanation on what happened. I have no problem with one scientist disproving another but coming up with a right answer is more important than just disproving somebody else's idea.

I got an idea from a video game (its called E.V.O. and its for the super nintendo). Basically you start out as a tadpole/fish and end up evolving up into alien form. Its a great game (wheather you believe in evolution or not) but the scientific basis for it is non-existant. You are the same creature and you evolve thru species after species, time period after time period (fish, amphibian, reptile, mammel, etc.).

Why it gave me an idea is because it focuses on a single lifeforms adaption, variation, or evolution w/e you want to call it. Because we didn't live back then, we have no idea what the life expectance of a dinosaur was. The golapogos island turtle can live to be 150 or more years old (they are reptiles and to date the longest living species of any animal we have discovered). Because their environment remains constant, there is no need for adaptions. If these things (dinosaurs) were capable of living for centuries (i'll say why i think this may have been possible alittle later on), they would've had numerous chances at adapting/variating chracteristics that some of their own species hadn't which would give the illusion of evolution and quite possibly the illusion that a species was different than another when in fact it was an old acclimated dinosaur that died. Its believed that none of these acquired characteristics from an old dinosaur would transfer to its young. That may be true, but whens the last time you've heard about a persons apendix working like it used to?

Its been theorized that at one point earths gravity was less than it is today (not extremely less but enough to be significant). The idea for this comes from the fact that plants and animals back then were much bigger than they are now. There was also more oxygen and co2 in the atmoshpere than there is today. With more oxygen, less gravity bearing down on a skeletal frame, and notoriously slow metabolic rates (which almost all reptiles possess), living was easier so it would be safe to assume that these things were "built" to be around for a while. There would then be many generations coming from a single mother dinosaur. They say that parents acquired traits don't pass on to their young but yet there's humans whose childrens inheirit their bad eyes when their parents parents eyes were fine and no such previous trait existed.

I can't provide a theory on how things would macro jump from being dinosaur one year and bird the next but something had to happen.

Glad you find the website interesting. Actually I'm pleased they don't offer any alternative explanations because thats where most wesbites lose me and many others.

They have taken the route of sticking 100% to scientific method and evaluating evelotionary theory on a scientifici basis only without any recourse to religion, philosophy or outlandish ideas and such seems to be quite a unique sit on the web.

Regarding the atmosphere in times past you are absolutely correct, there was a massive increase in oxygen present in the earth's atmosphere in the past.

This was always one of the most convincing aspects of the bible for me in that it says that in the beginning that giants lived on the earth and people lived for hundreds of years.

Scientists have uncovered gigantic species of many types of animal. There were millipides over 6 ft in length, dragon flies with wingspans bigger than most modern birds and sloth's over 25 ft in length! Even horses, reindeer, kangeroo, rats etc were all massive sometimes over twice the size that they are today.

It is biologically impossible for animals to grow so big now as there is not enough oxygen in the atmosphere to support them.

It is also true in the case of reptiles that they keep growing their entire lives so a huge crocodile is a very old crocodile, over 100 years in the case of the biggest ones. Well there are ancient fossils of crocodile twice the length of modern crocs suggesting they must have been twice the age (200 years) and of course fossil finds are very infrequent so we can assume they got even bigger.

The largest dinosars must have been in the hundreds of years old and it wasn't just them, most mammals were gigantic as well.

It is also interesting that many ancient cave paintings depict a massive disparity in size between the painters (cavespeople) and the game they were hunting (reindeer, horses etc).

[Punisher136]

I have one problem with this website: It doesn't say what really happened. It just goes on to disprove macro evolution, quite handily I may add, but yet offers no explanation on what happened. I have no problem with one scientist disproving another but coming up with a right answer is more important than just disproving somebody else's idea.

I got an idea from a video game (its called E.V.O. and its for the super nintendo). Basically you start out as a tadpole/fish and end up evolving up into alien form. Its a great game (wheather you believe in evolution or not) but the scientific basis for it is non-existant. You are the same creature and you evolve thru species after species, time period after time period (fish, amphibian, reptile, mammel, etc.).

Why it gave me an idea is because it focuses on a single lifeforms adaption, variation, or evolution w/e you want to call it. Because we didn't live back then, we have no idea what the life expectance of a dinosaur was. The golapogos island turtle can live to be 150 or more years old (they are reptiles and to date the longest living species of any animal we have discovered). Because their environment remains constant, there is no need for adaptions. If these things (dinosaurs) were capable of living for centuries (i'll say why i think this may have been possible alittle later on), they would've had numerous chances at adapting/variating chracteristics that some of their own species hadn't which would give the illusion of evolution and quite possibly the illusion that a species was different than another when in fact it was an old acclimated dinosaur that died. Its believed that none of these acquired characteristics from an old dinosaur would transfer to its young. That may be true, but whens the last time you've heard about a persons apendix working like it used to?

Its been theorized that at one point earths gravity was less than it is today (not extremely less but enough to be significant). The idea for this comes from the fact that plants and animals back then were much bigger than they are now. There was also more oxygen and co2 in the atmoshpere than there is today. With more oxygen, less gravity bearing down on a skeletal frame, and notoriously slow metabolic rates (which almost all reptiles possess), living was easier so it would be safe to assume that these things were "built" to be around for a while. There would then be many generations coming from a single mother dinosaur. They say that parents acquired traits don't pass on to their young but yet there's humans whose childrens inheirit their bad eyes when their parents parents eyes were fine and no such previous trait existed.

I can't provide a theory on how things would macro jump from being dinosaur one year and bird the next but something had to happen.

Glad you find the website interesting. Actually I'm pleased they don't offer any alternative explanations because thats where most wesbites lose me and many others.

They have taken the route of sticking 100% to scientific method and evaluating evelotionary theory on a scientifici basis only without any recourse to religion, philosophy or outlandish ideas and such seems to be quite a unique sit on the web.

Regarding the atmosphere in times past you are absolutely correct, there was a massive increase in oxygen present in the earth's atmosphere in the past.

This was always one of the most convincing aspects of the bible for me in that it says that in the beginning that giants lived on the earth and people lived for hundreds of years.

Scientists have uncovered gigantic species of many types of animal. There were millipides over 6 ft in length, dragon flies with wingspans bigger than most modern birds and sloth's over 25 ft in length! Even horses, reindeer, kangeroo, rats etc were all massive sometimes over twice the size that they are today.

It is biologically impossible for animals to grow so big now as there is not enough oxygen in the atmosphere to support them.

It is also true in the case of reptiles that they keep growing their entire lives so a huge crocodile is a very old crocodile, over 100 years in the case of the biggest ones. Well there are ancient fossils of crocodile twice the length of modern crocs suggesting they must have been twice the age (200 years) and of course fossil finds are very infrequent so we can assume they got even bigger.

The largest dinosars must have been in the hundreds of years old and it wasn't just them, most mammals were gigantic as well.

It is also interesting that many ancient cave paintings depict a massive disparity in size between the painters (cavespeople) and the game they were hunting (reindeer, horses etc).

You can't completely rule out the significance of "missing links" if they were found to be living at the same time as their genetic ancestors or descendants because of that. Its possible that three fossils showing genetic "evolution" are actually just 3 of the same species. If one was around for 100 years when it died it wouldn't be as variated as one around for 200 years and so on. I can't tell you how a reptile became a mammal but the developement of the mammal brain in living creatures is one of the most important events in the advancement of earth life evenly ranking with gaining the ability to walk on land..

[Von Milash]

It's interesting to read how many scientists think that evolution happended because science can't proove anything else. I, as a scientist myself, don't rule out evolution. Sure, I think things evolve over time, and I ask Christians all the time, "so you think that Adam and Eve looked exactly like us?" Almost all answer NO, and that they were likely a little harrier. Then I say, well that in itself is an evolutionary process. So I do think we've come from a primitive form, and as a Christian I think it's ok to think that.. because "somebody up there" maybe wanted it that way. So, I believe in God, but I also think that evolutionary processes did occur. You're thinking, "WTF Von? How can you think both.?"

Ok, I didn't read that site. I hate to read, but as a guy with a master's degree in chemistry I don't think I have to read it to already know what they're gonna say, and I agree.

See, things because more random over time. A fart doesn't keep to itself. The molecules spread to the table next to you where the old hag is sitting eating her t-bone. This is one of the he most basic of all scientific laws. Entropy. Randomness. Molecules don't "come together" for any reason... unless you make them do it. I "made molecules come together" as a career as a synthetic organic chemist. It aint easy.

The fact that the big bang theory says that molecules came together one day and formed primitive life, well, that's jut stupid. That's like winning the state lottery every week. Bricks don't line up to form a skyscraper themselves. The wind doesn't give a woman a beehive hairdo. Impossible. Then, what happened over the however many trillions of years is even more ridiculous.. that live evolved just because. In science, that doesn't happen. Things never get more complex on their own. DNA forming randomly and giving life doesn't happen. That's like little specs of metal coming together and forming an intricate pattern like a perpetual time piece or something. And to thin that the processes that we have.. DNA unwnds and protein enzymes do their thing to repicate the unwould anti-paralle l double helix... ugh. It's like cars building themselves or something even though humans never designed them. We are so complex, to think that we just happened over time based on whatever principle, like survival of the fittest, is absurd. That's not how science works. In this sense, evolution is impossible since it violates all the scientific laws of thermodynamics...... UNLESS.....somebody or some THING...ie, the man upstairs... had a hand in it...wanted it that way.


Basically, evolution on it's own, the formation of DNA and it's ability to self replicate, etc, is like throwing ten decks of cards in the air and having them land in the shape of a Frank Lloyd Wright house with a two car garage and a jacuzzi out back.

[Kev]

cc I completely agree with all of it, expect the part that Adam and Eve were hairy :P

The second law of thermodynamics is indeed one of the fundamental laws of the universe with seemingly no exceptions.......except for evolution.......ermm right ok so evolution actually runs counter to the most basic fundamental law of the whole universe but it doesn't matter because evolution must be true and there must an explanation somehow

It's always puzzled me why scientists have a problem with Jesus being raised from the dead seeing as evolution itself manages to defy the universal law of entropy and death and run the other so why not the Son of God?

It's funny but I've yet to meet anyone who has ever really studied evolution, (and by studied I mean look critically at evidence against it not just accept it as fact a priori like most 'scientists' do) who continues to believe in it.


Evolution reminds me of the Hans Christian Anderson tale about the Emperor's New Clothes. The emperor who was a naturally greedy man was approached by two con men who told him they were master tailers who had designed an amazing magical outfit that would only be visible to intelligent people and anyone stupid and dumb would not be able to see it.

The ruler sent two of his most trusted men to view the garments, and seeing as they didn't exist they obviously couldn't see anything. However they certainly didn't want to be seen as stupid so they pretended they could see the outfit and that is was beautiful to behold and extrememly stylish.

The emperor was completely sold, the tailors bought the clothes to him and he tried them on. He marveled at how wanderous they were and was convinced to make a procession through town to let everyone admire him.

The crowd already knew the story about how only intelligent people could see the clothes so when he appeared naked on a horse they all cheered and admired and shouted out how wonderful the new clothes were.

All that is except one little boy. Too young to understand anything about the ridiculous tale he simply asked his mummy why the fat man on a horse was wearing no clothes?

She tried to silence him but not before another child overheard and said even louder 'That man's not wearing any clothes!'

All of sudden all the children were pointing and laughing at the man with no clothes and a few of their parents began to agree and laughed as well. Within a few minuted everybody realised it was all a hoax and laughed and jeered at their foolish emperor who now looked completely ridiculous.





The theory of evolution is exactly like this. When Darwin 'invented' his theory he said in his book 'The Origin of Species' that were the fossils not found to prove his theory then all of his ideas would be proven wrong.

Well the fossils have never been found, and most evolutionists are now of the belief that evolution left no trace in the fossil record because it occurs too quickly in isolated populations so you couldn't expect a fossil record of these events..............does this sound a bit like stupid people won't be able to see these clothes?

Of course the people of Darwins day, and Darwin himself knew nothing of genetics and DNA. Molecular biology has proven conclusively that things can't just change for no reason and that even the smallest single celled organism is more complicated than anything man has ever invented. That something with more internal workings than a whole factory full of supercomputers could simply appear out of thin air (or out of a rock) is completely absurd no matter how many years you wait for the 'pop' to happen


Still I know my words won't convince anyone but the already converted but hopefully someone at least would be interested enough to study it for themselves as I personally think it's shameful to be fooled into believing such a transparent and stupid lie as evolution.

[Sharla]

I look at this website and I see it saying things are invalid but not really proving anything. I haven't read it thoroughly because a lot of it is just a run down of the history of theories saying they are crap rather than actual evidence as to why. You'll have to point me in the right direction if there are particular points in that worth reading.

I don't think the theory of evolution is about how things were created but how they have evolved over time. You can believe what you like about how life was initially created but it doesn't mean it hasn't been subject to micro and macro evolution over time.

I keep reading bits and pieces about how people think that an ancient animal existing at the same time as a more recently evolved creature somehow disproves evolution.

It doesn't.

The way animals are influenced over time depends on their form, their behaviour including migration patterns and how that is or isn't suited to survival in their environment.

If their environment changes but they don't it could be that they were pretty robust in surviving different conditions in the first place. Say something like a cockroach doesn't die easily and flies reproduce so damn quickly that they are not very vulnerable.

Still if you could examine a living specimen of one of these creatures from a few thousand years ago and compare it with one existing now you'd find they probably still differed in some ways for example disease resistance, exact diet would have changed etc etc. They have evolved just in ways which are less visible.

Scientists in my lab often use rice synteny to track down the location of genes on the barley or wheat genome. They do this because the rice genome has been fully sequenced and barley and wheat have not. As rice and barley are both cereals the idea is that you get the sequence of the barley or wheat gene and find a close match in the rice genome. The genes are normally slightly different but the proteins are similar in form and function - not exactly the same but similar.

They were looking for a gene in barley and sequenced the region they expected to find it in according to the rice sequence and found that a whole segment of DNA was in a different position than they would have predicted from rice synteny. Rice is more ancient than barley and somewhere along the way a cross over and inversion event occurred. They share similar genes but in different parts of the genome, some are completely inverted which makes for a very different plant.

That's just one specific example I know of and it's not random shuffling of DNA is a specific stage in meiosis and cellular replication. Cancer is started by mutagenesis of cells. It's lethal because it makes cells function differently and it's often caused by things like UV light, radiation etc. The difference is when a person gets cancer the DNA in a differentiated cell is effected.

If a non lethal mutation occurs in an embryonic cell you have a genetically modified organism. We know cancer is common and a product of loads of environmental influences (carcinogens) so why does it seen so absurd to people to think that an embryo can't be genetically modified.

Dramatic things happen in nature like ice ages etc. If you have a population of say 2 million people and theres an ice age. Some decide to stick it out and some migrate. They eat different food as their environment changes, they have different behavioural patterns, their hormones are effected. Lets say it's a really brutal ice age, it lowers their immune system, they get a few viruses which are different in different places and wa la their populations are now down to 2 remote camps for 200 or so. Few survive and their gene pool is narrowed to particular groups with more or less body hair and tolerance to specific diets and disease - they become DIFFERENT.

It's a big change because the selection pressure is harsh for them - not necessarily all animals as some might have already been better able to tolerate the cold.

Macro evolution can just be microevolution under a harsher selection pressure.

You can still say god is behind it. No one can disprove it.

Also if you were god speaking to people thousands of years ago you'd know these people who don't even get that the earth is round yet would understand that. You'd dumb it down for them. "You'd say I created all these other things and then along you came, now I'm gonna rest for a bit and leave you to it have a nice life." - you wouldn't bother trying to explain evolution as your tool for creation would you!

[Kev]

I look at this website and I see it saying things are invalid but not really proving anything. I haven't read it thoroughly because a lot of it is just a run down of the history of theories saying they are crap rather than actual evidence as to why. You'll have to point me in the right direction if there are particular points in that worth reading.

I don't think the theory of evolution is about how things were created but how they have evolved over time. You can believe what you like about how life was initially created but it doesn't mean it hasn't been subject to micro and macro evolution over time.

I keep reading bits and pieces about how people think that an ancient animal existing at the same time as a more recently evolved creature somehow disproves evolution.

It doesn't.

The way animals are influenced over time depends on their form, their behaviour including migration patterns and how that is or isn't suited to survival in their environment.

If their environment changes but they don't it could be that they were pretty robust in surviving different conditions in the first place. Say something like a cockroach doesn't die easily and flies reproduce so damn quickly that they are not very vulnerable.

Still if you could examine a living specimen of one of these creatures from a few thousand years ago and compare it with one existing now you'd find they probably still differed in some ways for example disease resistance, exact diet would have changed etc etc. They have evolved just in ways which are less visible.

Scientists in my lab often use rice synteny to track down the location of genes on the barley or wheat genome. They do this because the rice genome has been fully sequenced and barley and wheat have not. As rice and barley are both cereals the idea is that you get the sequence of the barley or wheat gene and find a close match in the rice genome. The genes are normally slightly different but the proteins are similar in form and function - not exactly the same but similar.

They were looking for a gene in barley and sequenced the region they expected to find it in according to the rice sequence and found that a whole segment of DNA was in a different position than they would have predicted from rice synteny. Rice is more ancient than barley and somewhere along the way a cross over and inversion event occurred. They share similar genes but in different parts of the genome, some are completely inverted which makes for a very different plant.

That's just one specific example I know of and it's not random shuffling of DNA is a specific stage in meiosis and cellular replication. Cancer is started by mutagenesis of cells. It's lethal because it makes cells function differently and it's often caused by things like UV light, radiation etc. The difference is when a person gets cancer the DNA in a differentiated cell is effected.

If a non lethal mutation occurs in an embryonic cell you have a genetically modified organism. We know cancer is common and a product of loads of environmental influences (carcinogens) so why does it seen so absurd to people to think that an embryo can't be genetically modified.

Dramatic things happen in nature like ice ages etc. If you have a population of say 2 million people and theres an ice age. Some decide to stick it out and some migrate. They eat different food as their environment changes, they have different behavioural patterns, their hormones are effected. Lets say it's a really brutal ice age, it lowers their immune system, they get a few viruses which are different in different places and wa la their populations are now down to 2 remote camps for 200 or so. Few survive and their gene pool is narrowed to particular groups with more or less body hair and tolerance to specific diets and disease - they become DIFFERENT.

It's a big change because the selection pressure is harsh for them - not necessarily all animals as some might have already been better able to tolerate the cold.

Macro evolution can just be microevolution under a harsher selection pressure.

You can still say god is behind it. No one can disprove it.

Also if you were god speaking to people thousands of years ago you'd know these people who don't even get that the earth is round yet would understand that. You'd dumb it down for them. "You'd say I created all these other things and then along you came, now I'm gonna rest for a bit and leave you to it have a nice life." - you wouldn't bother trying to explain evolution as your tool for creation would you!

Hey Sharla, cc for another good response but again you are talking only about adaptation or changes within a species or kind.

Nobody to my knowledge disputes changes to an organism due to natural selection, genetic modification or other enviromental pressures to my knowldege but all these changes are strictly limited and confined to slight alterations of already preexistant lines of code.

Barley and wheat may share a common ancester and maybe adapt to become different over time, but they will always remain plants, they will never become insects or some other form of animal because the necessary information just isn't there.

No matter how much time is allowed, or how much enviromental or laboratory pressure is put on these organsims they will never turn into an animal simply because there are no instructions within the DNA to tell it how to do so.


Changes such as size, colour, body dimension, behaviour etc can all be easily manipulated by slight alterations in the genes but new appendages, wings, eyes when there were no eyes etc simply cannot happen as there isn't any preexistant material to be manipulated.

And if you want to insist that such change could be possible providing there was a big enough timeframe then it only contradicts other things we see in nature, for example a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. How on earth would a caterpiller, gradually over millions of years evolve the ability to turn into a butterfly?

It would have to get it right the very first time else there would be no future caterpillars. But you yourself as a biologist would surely know that the immense amount of instructions required to turn a caterpiller into a butterfly could not appear instantly in one generation!

There is nothing that you describe than cannot be seen simply as being an inbuilt (I'd say by God) survival mechanism in all organisms to be able to adapt to fit their changing enviroment. If they could not then all of life would have died out a long time ago.

The evidence for natural selection, adaptation, genetic variance etc is overwhelming and irrefutable, nobody denies this, but to draw a conclusion from it that these relatively tiny changes within an organism can lead to whole new creatures evolving out of them given enough time is a conclusion that neither molecular biology or the fossils themselves offer no support for whatsoever.

It's a catch 22 for evolutionists. If you argue that changes are so gradual taking millions of years then you are left trying to explain how the fossil record has managed to cover up every stage of evolution for every living organism on this planet. If evolution were true we'd have more transitional fossils than we would fully developed species fossils yet we have none.

If you argue that evolution happens so quickly that it will leave no trace in the fossil record then you are suggesting something that is surely biologically impossible as it cannot be possible for the amount of information needed at the molecular level to induce massive change, dinosaur to bird for example just could not appear in such a short time. Knowing what we now know about the complexity of even the simplest molecule this as idiotic as suggesting like our forefathers did that flies and low level insects sponataneously appeared.