Very Good Creation Site

[Wilchbla]

Hi everyone. Here's a link to probably the best site I've found online with scientific information from the creationist viewpoint. Most of the stuff is downloadable. The "Evolution Cruncher" is really nice. Enjoy!

http://www.evolutionfacts.com/index.htm


Bill

Edited November 14, 2010 by Wilchbla

[Marcus2Israel]

I can vouch for this site. Excellent resources for refuting Evolution.

[Guest Guest]

Scientific and creationist are not two words that sit comfortably in the same sentence.

[tired]

:can:

[Guest Guest]

There's a point. Why would god need to make so many varieties of worms when just one or two would do. Was He showing off perhaps?

[Alimantado]

The "Evolution Cruncher" is really nice. Enjoy!

That 'Evolution Cruncher' book refutes a very distorted version of evolution. It mis-represents the theory to such an extent that it is difficult to believe it wasn't done on purpose (though I don't think it was). That's my opinion from just reading chapter 9 all the way through.

There are no doubt plenty of rebuttals of evolution that represent the theory correctly; 'Evolution Cruncher' isn't one of them.

[Wilchbla]

There's a point. Why would god need to make so many varieties of worms when just one or two would do. Was He showing off perhaps?

The site explains this. The author believes in microevolution and this would account for it.

[Wilchbla]

That 'Evolution Cruncher' book refutes a very distorted version of evolution. It mis-represents the theory to such an extent that it is difficult to believe it wasn't done on purpose (though I don't think it was). That's my opinion from just reading chapter 9 all the way through.

There are no doubt plenty of rebuttals of evolution that represent the theory correctly; 'Evolution Cruncher' isn't one of them.

Please explain yourself.

[Alimantado]

Please explain yourself.

Well, you've not given me much to go on, there!

The book explains the theory of evolution and then takes each bit to task. But the initial explanation is incorrect (at least in all the bits I've read), so the book ends up arguing against something that evolutionists wouldn't recognise anyway.

Imagine if someone wrote a book rebutting a speech made by someone, but in the book they used a different speech spoken by someone else. It might be a good rebuttal, but it would be a rebuttal of the wrong speech.

[dwayner79]

Strawman

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique?and succeed in persuading people?it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

Thanks for pointing this out Alimantado. Its a shame really because scientist are intellectual people and if you tried to use this, it would only serve to make us look like we have no clue what we are talking about.

[Alimantado]

Sure thing, though your average person who believes in evolution isn't a scientist! So a Christian armed with the 'Evolution Cruncher' could probably make a convincing case to many.

[Wilchbla]

Well, you've not given me much to go on, there!

The book explains the theory of evolution and then takes each bit to task. But the initial explanation is incorrect (at least in all the bits I've read), so the book ends up arguing against something that evolutionists wouldn't recognise anyway.

Imagine if someone wrote a book rebutting a speech made by someone, but in the book they used a different speech spoken by someone else. It might be a good rebuttal, but it would be a rebuttal of the wrong speech.

You still aren't being clear. Are you saying that the theory of evolution he rebuts is an outdated view? If that is the case please give me an example. I'm fairly familiarly with the theory (having been brainwashed with it throughout school) and most of what is said is a fair understanding of what evolutionists believe and teach. I'm sure they have had to change some of their theory since none of it works anyway.

[Alimantado]

No, I'm saying that what he is presenting has never been believed by most evolutionists. Hence, rebutting the "wrong speech."

I'll give you examples in a PM to save posting lengthy replies on here.

[Wilchbla]

No' date=' I'm saying that what he is presenting has [i']never been believed by most evolutionists. Hence, rebutting the "wrong speech."

I'll give you examples in a PM to save posting lengthy replies on here.

Now I know your fibbing. First of all the man quotes one Darwinian after another so to say they never believed what he is presenting is an outright lie. I wasn't born yesterday. I know how you evolutionist work. I've dealt with you guys for years. You are constantly changing and ammeding you positions when you get cornered. This is the nice thing about creationism. It is always consistent and the same.

[John81]

There are various "branches" of evolution theory. Some hold close to Darwin's original ideas but most don't. Some hold to the teachings of some "Darwinists" while others reject them and hold to others.

It's true the theory of evolution is constantly changing, it has to as various new facts surface which disprove old aspects of the theory. Rather than giving up on the theory they change their arguments so as to be able to incorporate the new evidence.

There used to be basically one "big bang" theory but today there are several different versions of this one theory.

While Christians have the unchanging Word of God to stand upon, evolutionists have no solid foundation. Since their theory is based upon guesses and even fantastical ideas, it's unstable; constantly changing.