Evolution Cruncher

Anybody out there still believe in evolution?

I suggest you read "Evolution Cruncher"

http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm

Originally posted by dj2becker
Anybody out there still believe in evolution?

I suggest you read "Evolution Cruncher"

http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Can't you just paste it?

ES

[b]Edit! Paste is a bad idea. How about you read it, and give us insights. If we agree or don't, we can read your link if we feel like it.

[/b]

Originally posted by jimmyb270
You're joking aren't you? This is dj2becker - his head is too full of other people's thoughts to process any of his own.

Originally posted by Starrman
I just love the way he produces pages of this creationist drivel and then argues that there is so much proof for it, but the only proof he produces is more drivel. It's like a never ending carousel ride. The joke is he is flouting other peoples opinions without any understanding or knowledge of the scientific experiments himself and then claiming the knowledge of others is unsubstatniated. He's like the automaton megaphone of creation.

Who wants to have to deal with punching down all these lumps in the pillow.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html


edit ,,,one example of the use of that site:

Claim CA100:
It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.

This argument, also known as the argument from ignorance or "god of the gaps," is implicit in a very many different creationist arguments. In particular, it is behind all arguments against abiogenesis and any and all claims of intelligent design.
Response:
Really, the claim is "I can't conceive that (fill in the blank)." Others might be able to find a natural explanation; in many cases, they already have. Nobody knows everything, so it is unreasonable to conclude that something is impossible just because you do not know it. Even a noted antievolutionist acknowledges this point: "The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results" (Behe 2003).
The argument from incredulity creates a god of the gaps. Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.

Originally posted by Starrman
I just love the way he produces pages of this creationist drivel and then argues that there is so much proof for it, but the only proof he produces is more drivel. It's like a never ending carousel ride. The joke is he is flouting other peoples opinions without any understanding or knowledge of the scientific experiments himself and then claiming the knowledge of others is unsubstatniated. He's like the automaton megaphone of creation.

Originally posted by Starrman
I just love the way he produces pages of this creationist drivel and then argues that there is so much proof for it, but the only proof he produces is more drivel. It's like a never ending carousel ride. The joke is he is flouting other peoples opinions without any understanding or knowledge of the scientific experiments himself and then claiming the knowledge of others is unsubstatniated. He's like the automaton megaphone of creation.

Originally posted by dj2becker
It seems maybe you don't understand the experiments yourself. So, for starters, do you believe that macro evolution is possible?

Originally posted by bbarr
I have no idea what you mean by 'macroevolution'. If you mean 'evolution resulting in speciation', then I believe in macroevolution. If you mean 'evolution resulting in a change in kind', then I need to know your definition of the term 'kind'. What property or properties must two organisms have in order to belong to the same kind?

Originally posted by dj2becker
O.K. Before we get into macroevolution, let me start off at the begining with this question, How do you believe we all got here? Do you believe that Big Bang occured?

Originally posted by jimmyb270
Okay, one last time, pay attention okay, I'm not going to say this again. You ready? Right then

The Big Bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Nothing, zip, squat, nada. Completely unrelated.
Nor does the creation of l ...[text shortened]... ironment. That's it. Nothing else. Do you hear me? NOTHING ELSE!!

Originally posted by dj2becker
Anybody out there still believe in evolution?

I suggest you read "Evolution Cruncher"

http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm

Originally posted by xxxenophobe
Whell after reading no more than half of the first article.. i can allready see afew mistakes.. obveously written gy a bible thumper not understanding science... once case in point .. how the universe was created.. "Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, ...[text shortened]... d" quick fix the flatness problem when some one got to "the edge" that whole site is crap....

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you believe everything that some scientist tells you? From your own example you gave you should see that they are not always right. The earth is round. But scientists that did not believe in the Bible professed the earth was flat. Only ...[text shortened]... und out that the Bible had been right all along. (Isaiah 40:22)