[_ Old Earth _] The Complete Evolution Refutation Part 1

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu:

Sure, let's continue there.

Sounds good. I moved it to the Evolution 101 post.


Peace

 

[reznwerks]

Alleged chimp similarity:

98% Similarity? I think not!

Are we really that similar?

Dinosaurs:

A number of evolutionists including Richard Dawkins have stated that a human and dinosaur coexisting will shatter the theory of evolution (from its already ever-increasing decrepit state)

Dino bones, just how old are they? - Bones do not have to be “turned into stone†to be fossils, and usually most of the original bone is still present in a dinosaur fossil.

T-rex blood cells

Sad attempt of discredit by evolutionists - Their only basis that these weren't red blood cells was because they HAD to be millions of years old.

A living dinosaur

Are dinosaurs alive today?

Australian Aborigines and Dinosaurs - Australian Aborigines have stories of encounters with huge, sometimes frightening monsters which range from what sound like dinosaurs to giant marsupials, also believed to have long become extinct.

Messages on Stone

Archaeopteryx:

Not a hoax, but not a missing link either

Fallacy of Bird evolution

More anatomical examinations of the impossiblities of bird evolution

Radiometric dating:

Carbon 14 - It does work, but not for millions of years.

A Dating Conflict - Alleged 20 million year old wood? How can that be when Carbon 14 detects at most 100,000 years. (No this doesn't mean that the Earth is at least 100,000 years old reznwerks)

Alleged Millions of years - Carbon Dating disproves 225 million years.

Again, alleged millions of years - A magma deposited crust from 1975 is dated by "reliable" dating methods as hundreds of thousands of years old.

How radiometric dating methods work

Dating Flaws of Old Age Earth

Unconstant radiometric decay

Young Earth Creationism a Heresy? - An inspired person took up a crusade on an all-scale attack on Young Earth Creationism (YEC). In short, his claims are that radiometric decay is absolutely constant, and that there is an 'abundance' of 'left overs' as opposed to a lack of usage of Potassium-40 which has an alleged half-life of 1.4 billion years.

RATE - True measuring of the age of the Earth.

Radiometric acceleration demonstrated

Radiometric Decay

Nuclear Decay: Evidence for a Young World

Helium Diffusion Rates - They support accelerated nuclear decay rate

Starlight:

The Star mystery

How can starlight be billions of lightyears away? - It's quite theoretical, but it's theoretically sound. As a former big banger, the evidence I used to support the big bang can quite comfortable, and maybe even more precisely fit the new creationist cosmology.

Continental Drift:

Millions of years?

For the more skeptical minded, perhaps a blow to dinosaurs being millions of years old with photos:

800B.C.-200A.D. Mexican Dinosaur Figurines - Yes, you read that.

Ancient Peruvian Dinosaur Art

Dino Art by Native Americans again!

Just when you thought the above three links were a south/central american conspiracy, the prize winner with solid proof for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs in ancient times:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm

I mean, I haven't jumped out of my seat like that since I read in Job and Isaiah about the earth being round. Anyone who still thinks there is some hope for evolution, and that somehow someway that dinosaur was made after the 1830's, the discovery of dinosaurs, and placed in the Cambodian temple, then how about from a friend of their midst!:

Antony Flew, renown atheistic evolutionist, denounces atheism and takes theism as, quote: "had to go where the evidence leads.â€Â

www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf+Antony+Flew&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4]Dawkins is next I tell you![/url]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any further rejection of the above affirms that your upholding of evolution is dogma, not science, and as such it is a religion.

Those advocating the theory of evolution on behalf of scientific truth should confront these findings and question the presumptions they have so far held. Refusal to do this would mean openly accepting that their adherence to the theory of evolution is dogmatic rather than scientific...

WOW ! With all these"facts" why is it so hard to get this information published in any notable scientific journal? You can find the answer here:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

 

[Khristeeanos]

WOW ! With all these"facts" why is it so hard to get this information published in any notable scientific journal? You can find the answer here:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

That is funny. :

It is like saying:

"Why are there no Bibles in the home of Osama bin Laden?"

 

[reznwerks]

WOW ! With all these"facts" why is it so hard to get this information published in any notable scientific journal? You can find the answer here:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

That is funny. :

It is like saying:

"Why are there no Bibles in the home of Osama bin Laden?"

That should answer the question for you. This is not the middle east and freedom reigns supreme. There are those for fame and money that would love to prove other scientists in error. Could you imagine the rewards for someone who could show evidence to the contrary and prove the bible correct? Who knows, there might even be eternal life for him or her.

 

[Vanaka]

I love how he calls it a refutation when all it is is a bunch of links to answers in genesis articles.

1: Your refutation should be based in indisputable facts, answers in genesis is biased to say the least, I would even venture that they are a poor source for information in general, except perhaps for that page of arguments creationists should not use.
2: Your refutation should show that biology is not well explained by evolution, which by nearly all accounts of biologists it is. And all those biologists who disagree do so for religious reasons.

well, Most of the links you evolutionists bring up are biased-to say the least.


I know you guys hate AIG because some Creationists got smart and accualy know as much, or more then you guys, but thats no reason to act like a little kid about it :wink:

 

[jwu]

AiG statement of faith:

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Talk about bias...

 

[ArtGuy]

AiG statement of faith:

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Talk about bias...

At least they're honest about it, I guess.

 

[Khristeeanos]

WOW ! With all these"facts" why is it so hard to get this information published in any notable scientific journal? You can find the answer here:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

That is funny. :

It is like saying:

"Why are there no Bibles in the home of Osama bin Laden?"

That should answer the question for you. This is not the middle east and freedom reigns supreme. There are those for fame and money that would love to prove other scientists in error. Could you imagine the rewards for someone who could show evidence to the contrary and prove the bible correct? Who knows, there might even be eternal life for him or her.

You missed my point.

The people who control what gets printed in these journals are staunch evolutionists and refuse to print articles that contradict their religious view.

 

[ArtGuy]

The people who control what gets printed in these journals are staunch evolutionists and refuse to print articles that contradict their religious view.

Could you please provide a specific example of a peer-reviewed article contradicting evolutionary theory that couldn't find a non-Christian publication to print it?