Evolution Scientifically Disproven

[Prodigy]

The link below scientifcally disproves evolution.

http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

Case closed.

 

[Tenacious-D]

Lambert Dolphin links are not worth even commenting upon.

 

[grmorton]

Lambert Dolphin links are not worth even commenting upon.

I own a copy of William Williams book, which is what the link takes you to. That is a 1925 book which was out of date the day it was published. If this is the best that YEC can offer--79 year old blatherings of a guy who didn't even understand the arguments he was tring to refute--then YEC is truly in sad shape.

 

[Vance]

I love the intro, even Dolphin won't endorse it (and that is saying something!).

 

[Singing Bush]

Any disproving of evolution you'd like to do in your own words?

 

[TwinCrier]

How about an actual rebuttal rather than snide remarks? Should you all be posting scientific eviedence with lots and lots of really bit words?

 

[Vance]

We have found that scientific evidence is almost always ignored, no matter how plainly stated, if it conflicts with a YEC's personal interpretation of Scripture. No thread is so lonely and barren of replies as one which sets out the scientific evidence for an old earth or in favor of evolution.

My point was that the very link given was not even subscribed to by the peson who hosts the site (and who is a YEC). He calls the ideas expressed in the article as "quaint" and obviously believes otherwise. So, if that YEC does not even believe it, why would we need to rebut it?

 

[tryptophan]

A book from 1925? That is way too out of date to trust. Would something a little more recent be available?

 

[TwinCrier]

The bible is far more 'out of date' then that.

 

[Vance]

Good thing it is not meant to be read as a science book, then!

The messages in the Bible are timeless because they are about our relationship with God, not about science or even a detailed account of history.

 

[TwinCrier]

Amen for that! It's far more accurate and truthful.

 

[Vance]

Yes, since God is speaking not of historical details, or scientific processes, but providing His messages to us about how we relate to Him, His creation of and control over everything and how we are to live for Him, NOTHING discovered about God's Creation itself, or HOW or WHEN God created can contradict Scripture.

 

[artofwar]

Hmm intersting
What about Adam and Eve? Im sure if we came from Monkeys God would have put it in his word.
I just find it funny when Someone has a decent argument against evolution a few years later evolution "evolves" and a part of the theory is changed . Thats the problem with it. how can you argue against someone that says something is 3 billion years old? you know its not true but you cant argue against it cause it is too long ago and too ludeicrus to bother with. Th etheory is so full of mumbo jumbo that the people that made it up to date are the only ones who understand it, then they write a bit of it in a scientific mag and other people recite it, then when no on argues it cause no one understands it they think they won and evoloution is correct. Geez

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Hmm intersting
What about Adam and Eve?

What about 'em? I see them in the mirror every time I shave.

Im sure if we came from Monkeys God would have put it in his word.

Why? Why would He do that? God didn't write the Bible you know; men wrote about their revelation of God. And God had other fish to fry than teaching science.

I just find it funny when Someone has a decent argument against evolution

And this last happened when, exactly?

a few years later evolution "evolves" and a part of the theory is changed . Thats the problem with it.

All scientific models do this. Every last one of them. Why is this criticism valid of evolution and not of germ theory or relativity?

how can you argue against someone that says something is 3 billion years old? you know its not true but you cant argue against it cause it is too long ago and too ludeicrus to bother with.

I put it to you that you "know" no such thing, and that even if you could spell "ludicrous" it would be no more than Argument by Mockery, aka Handwaving.

Th etheory is so full of mumbo jumbo

Rubbish. Just because you don't understand something does not make it "mumbo jumbo". It's a shame that like most creationists you can't be bothered to actually understand what you are so sure is nonsense, but that's par for the course.

that the people that made it up to date are the only ones who understand it, then they write a bit of it in a scientific mag and other people recite it, then when no on argues it cause no one understands it they think they won and evoloution is correct. Geez

No. We understand it very well. And unless you are collossally stupid, which I don't think you area, you could too if you could be bothered to learn a little background and actually read the papers you are handwaving away here.

Peer-reviewed articles are criticised and discredited time and time again. Your problem here is you seem to think that scientists are still trying to prove evolution. They aren't. It's so well evidenced it's taken as a given, like the heliocentricity of the solar system or the existence of protons. What people are researching, publishing, arguing about and discrediting each other about are the details - how significant punk eek is compared with gradualism, for example. That both occur, and that evolution happens, is taken as a given. It was settled over a century ago. Could it be beneficial for you to find a current area of dispute to apply your attentions to?

 

[notto]

Hmm intersting
What about Adam and Eve? Im sure if we came from Monkeys God would have put it in his word.
I just find it funny when Someone has a decent argument against evolution a few years later evolution "evolves" and a part of the theory is changed . Thats the problem with it. how can you argue against someone that says something is 3 billion years old? you know its not true but you cant argue against it cause it is too long ago and too ludeicrus to bother with. Th etheory is so full of mumbo jumbo that the people that made it up to date are the only ones who understand it, then they write a bit of it in a scientific mag and other people recite it, then when no on argues it cause no one understands it they think they won and evoloution is correct. Geez

Then I suggest you reject the theory of gravity as well as it has been modified and adjusted quite a bit and is still under revision. That's how science works.

http://www.latimes.com/la-sci-pioneer21dec21.story