Creation Movement Growing

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Creationism is growing simply because people are ignorant of the real facts, and have been brain-washed since birth.

Brainwashed by what? All they've gotten in the public school system from the day they began their education is evolution. Creationism is not taught in the public school system so how are they exposed to it enough be brainwashed by it?

People can be exposed to Creationism outside the classroom, in places such as Sunday school, church, family members, and books by Creationist "scientists". Also, evolution theory isn't taught well, and some school boards are voting to add "alternate theories" (Creationism) on the origins of life to the science cirriculum.

[Darth Wong]

It's not creationism itself that's brainwashing them, so much as an unscientific and at times outright anti-scientific mentality. The percentage of American high school kids who actually understand the scientific method hovers around zero. In the meantime, they are taught mindless illogical bullshit like "faith = morality" and "it's important to believe in something" and "if you don't understand something, God must have been involved".

The churches step into a hole in the education system, because kids are taught science as a collection of facts rather than a philosophy.

[TrailerParkJawa]

--Apparently the writer of this statement cannot accept the facts that logical rational thinking uncovers evolution as being false and 100% unscientific. And that maybe Creationism is growing because people are thinking for themselves when confronted with the facts and evidence

How is evolution 100% false and unscientific?

If creationism was a true science then over time we would see refinements or outright changes in their basic ideas. This happens in science when a new idea or theory stands up to peer review.

Creationists never accept the same process of peer review because they never change their basic ideas of the Earth being created in 6 days. Noah's flood, man and dinosaur lived together, etc.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

It's not creationism itself that's brainwashing them, so much as an unscientific and at times outright anti-scientific mentality. The percentage of American high school kids who actually understand the scientific method hovers around zero. In the meantime, they are taught mindless illogical bullshit like "faith = morality" and "it's important to believe in something" and "if you don't understand something, God must have been involved".

The churches step into a hole in the education system, because kids are taught science as a collection of facts rather than a philosophy.

I think you could probably extend this into more area's then just Science. I think that schools nowadays are teaching in an anti-conceptual mentality form. I.E. they teach facts but don't teach the theory of how they relate to one another. History and Science are just the obvious examples of the problem.

[Joe]

--Apparently the writer of this statement cannot accept the facts that logical rational thinking uncovers evolution as being false and 100% unscientific. And that maybe Creationism is growing because people are thinking for themselves when confronted with the facts and evidence

How is evolution 100% false and unscientific?

If creationism was a true science then over time we would see refinements or outright changes in their basic ideas. This happens in science when a new idea or theory stands up to peer review.

Creationists never accept the same process of peer review because they never change their basic ideas of the Earth being created in 6 days. Noah's flood, man and dinosaur lived together, etc.

Ah, but Creationism does evolve. Into Intelligent Design, which masks its religious intent.

[ArmorPierce]

The ambassador is yet to have back up any of his claims...

[Darth Servo]

I didn't get any instruction on evolution in high school at all. My HS biology class covered mostly cellular mechanics like carbohydrate metabolism, photosynthesis and mitosis. Other aspects were strictly on anatomy. I didn't get any serious education about evolution until college freshman biology.

Ambassador. Do you know how do back up your claims?

[Stuart Mackey]

If I go by Ambassidors reasoning I can expect free gifts, every year, from the Jolly fat man from the northpole, Yipee!

[Colonel Olrik]

Missed the whole thing.

Hey, "AMBASSADOR", want to debate me one to one? On Evolution, Science or any related matters? Come on, what are you afraid of?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I found this on the website:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/index.shtml

"The creationist movement is very powerful in America because it's so well funded. That funding, plus a weak education system and a gullible public, has led to a very successful misinformation campaign for the oxymoronically named "Creation Science" lobby."


And the writer is quite correct; the Creationist Movement is very powerful in America. However, I would like to point out several flaws in his reasoning as to why.

1. He says the Creationist Movement is well funded.

--The truth is that it's so poorly funded its message is rarely heard outside religious circles. It relies almost 100% on unsolicited donations from non-profit churches and their members.

Do you have any idea how much money the religous right has? They have enough to buy senators(and presidents) and put forth political nominees. back it up or shut the fuck up.

2. He claims that the education system is weak.

--How can this be when the dominant and only free education system in most countries, including America, is public and ONLY teaches the Theory of Evolution? Creationism is almost never touched on, and when it is it's only to mention it as a cultist way of thinking.

You forget one thing foolchild. Creation is not valid science. There is no verifiable evidence backing it. It can be disproven by a 10 year old. And because the scientific method assumes a natural, rather than supernatural mechanism, creation theory isnt even a scientifically valid theory.

3. He says the public is gullible.

--If that were so then the public at large would believe in evolution and not be giving the “unscientific” teachings of Creationism any heed.

It is called brainwashing you stupid asshat. From birth american school children are indoctrinated into religion. That is why the american peope are fucking stupid

4. He says it's led to a very successful misinformation campaign for the oxymoronically named "Creation Science" lobby.

--Why must it be misinformation that causes the increase in the belief of something he disagrees with? Maybe the truth just simply is that most rational people can see that evolution is unlogical and can see right through its flawed "science".


--Apparently the writer of this statement cannot accept the facts that logical rational thinking uncovers evolution as being false and 100% unscientific. And that maybe Creationism is growing because people are thinking for themselves when confronted with the facts and evidence.

Care to back that up fucktard? Show to us, how evolution is un-scientific. Last time I checked it was the best fit to observed phenomenon, unlike creation which has NO EVIDENCE OTHER THAN A 2000 YEAR OLD BOOK WRITTEN BY TRIBAL LEADERS!

[Wicked Pilot]

I think we scared him off

[THE AMBASSADOR]

First let me clear up three issues before I continue.

One: I’ve noticed that most evolutionists will not ever take part in debates or watch/listen to discussions by Creationists concerning their evidence for Creation. Why? Is it because the evolutionists know beyond a shadow of a doubt and without a hint of decent that they are right? Then why not listen to opposing views no matter how absurd? Or is it that they are they afraid that, however unlikely, they may have their minds changed and they just can’t accept that? I don’t know, just wondering.

Two: What’s wrong with the same old arguments when they’re correct? Should we change our stance just because people don’t believe? Sure we find new evidence that supports our old evidence, we do not abandon the latter simply because gain the former.

Three: What’s wrong with being a fundie a.k.a. fundamentalist? A fundamentalist is simply anyone who believes in something so strongly that they are willing to fight and/or possibly die for it. Are evolutionists so positive enough that they are right that they’re ready to fight over it? I’m ready to do so for my beliefs.


Now back on topic.

The entire theory of evolution is based solely on the original ideas of a single man. His name, Charles Darwin. He saw the variations of animals on the Galapagos Islands and saw that many were adapted to their environment in ways that their counterparts in other parts of the world were not. This is known as Microevolution. And most people agree with this line of thinking, including Creationists.

But Mr. Darwin went one step further, he assumed, with no visible proof or evidence other than his new notion that species adapt and change, that creatures also changed from one species into completely different and separate type of animals over a long period of time. As a result he developed the idea of biological evolution. This is also known as Macroevolution. And this is where Creationists differ. Because there is one flaw that all of evolutionism is based on.

Mr. Darwin based all of his theories of biological evolution on something that he had seen not too prior to his visit to Galapagos in Argentina. There he saw a the vast Valley of the Santa Cruz River cut deep into the rock and having many layers of sediment. He assumed that a canyon like this could only be formed over a long period of time. Based on his ideas of the Santa Cruz River Valley Mr. Darwin developed the idea Using this preconceived idea of geologic evolution. He assigned his new theory of the canyon formation onto all aspects of nature. Slow biological evolution is based on his idea of slow geologic evolution.

But we now know that canyons can be cut through deep rock very quickly. In Washington after the Mt. Saint Helen’s eruptions mud flows and melted snow runoff carved many complex networks of canyons hundreds of feet deep and tens of miles in length in only a matter of a few days. Also the eruptions laid down 600 feet and thousands of layers of sedimentary strata between April and June of 1980. In the years since a erosion has chiseled out a complex canyon system.

Another geologic feature created during the Helen’s eruption was thousands of complex drainage gully and rills systems similar to those found in the Badlands of South and North Dakota and the desert terrain of the Southwest United States.

Since Darwin’s assumption that such canyons could only be formed over long periods of time has been proven wrong then logic only allows that every idea that he based on that single flawed theory is also wrong.


Secondly, in addition to Mr. Darwin’s ideas, all of the evidence for the support of evolution is based on dates garnered from carbon dating and uranium dating that has been proven inaccurate. Scientists have used every dating method known to exist to date the age of objects already known and the results were an additional hundreds and thousands of years beyond the true age. So the scientists came up with the theory that the decay rate changes over time. Yet everyone of them believes in the idea of Uniformity, that everything takes place at a constant rate over long periods and unchanging circumstances. How then can they say that decay rates change when they say that everything occurs at a constant unchanging rate of time? It’s sheer lunacy.

Also, regarding time and dating methods, there was a Bristlecone pine tree in California that was thought to be the oldest living thing on Earth. Dating methods placed the age at around 7,000 years old. But when, through an unfortunate accident, the tree was felled and it’s rings counted the true age was less than 4,000 years. They had rewrite their books.

Ice layers are also used to measure time passage. Scientists assume that every layer in an ice core is a year. But the truth is that there maybe several hundreds of layers laid down within a single day as the surface thaws and refreezes. During World War 2 a plane was forced to land on a Greenland ice sheet. Fifty years later the plane was dug out. The plane was under thousands of layers. I seriously doubt that the plane had been down there for thousands of years.

Sedimentary layers all around the Earth have been used to age the planet. But these are dated using the same flawed dating techniques. And also how and when were these sedimentary layers put down? And how so uniformly across the entire planet? Where has the sediment been washed down from? And if it takes hundreds and thousands of years for these layers to be laid down then why are trees found, intact, to have been growing through several layers of sediment? Did they grow for thousands of years while being slowly covered over? Some are found upside down. Did they grow that way? And what about animal remains? Why hadn’t they decayed or been eaten by other animals while being buried over a period of hundreds of years? The only logical conclusion is all of these things were buried quickly and completely in a short amount of time with a single body of water.

Then we come to the Grand Canyon. The river in the bottom is too small to have ever created a gouge so wide and deep. It had to have been made quickly in a massive rush of water, as we have seen done in Washington during the Helen’s eruption, only with a lot more water. Not only that but the top of the canyon at its terminus is higher in elevation than where the river enters it. And the north side of the canyon is 2,000 feet higher in elevation than the south side. How is that possible? It goes completely against the Laws of Physics, that is unless you can make water run uphill very slowly and horizontally along a sloped surface, instead of in one massive wave. A slow moving river of water could not have ever created the Grand Canyon going up hill over a long period of time.

Not to mention that no missing links have ever been found in their transitional stages. And those that have turned up were proved to be hoaxes and forgeries.

These are only a few pieces of the logical and rational evidence that makes me and many others discount evolution. You asked for them and so here they are.

Now show me evidence to the contrary of my beliefs and logic. Without name calling or making ad homonym attacks. I never insulted you so don’t do it to me. Calling me an idiot and moron and fucking stupid only goes to show that you can’t argue your point in a civil manner. Prove me wrong. Don’t bring me down to your level. I show no respect to anyone who can’t give any reasons for what they believe or don’t believe in other than simply because they believe differently. And that includes Creationists. So show me how to get it if you really believe in what you say.

[Montcalm]

First let me clear up three issues before I continue.

One: I’ve noticed that most evolutionists will not ever take part in debates or watch/listen to discussions by Creationists concerning their evidence for Creation. Why? Is it because the evolutionists know beyond a shadow of a doubt and without a hint of decent that they are right? Then why not listen to opposing views no matter how absurd? Or is it that they are they afraid that, however unlikely, they may have their minds changed and they just can’t accept that? I don’t know, just wondering.

Two: What’s wrong with the same old arguments when they’re correct? Should we change our stance just because people don’t believe? Sure we find new evidence that supports our old evidence, we do not abandon the latter simply because gain the former.

Three: What’s wrong with being a fundie a.k.a. fundamentalist? A fundamentalist is simply anyone who believes in something so strongly that they are willing to fight and/or possibly die for it. Are evolutionists so positive enough that they are right that they’re ready to fight over it? I’m ready to do so for my beliefs.


Now back on topic.

The entire theory of evolution is based solely on the original ideas of a single man. His name, Charles Darwin. He saw the variations of animals on the Galapagos Islands and saw that many were adapted to their environment in ways that their counterparts in other parts of the world were not. This is known as Microevolution. And most people agree with this line of thinking, including Creationists.

But Mr. Darwin went one step further, he assumed, with no visible proof or evidence other than his new notion that species adapt and change, that creatures also changed from one species into completely different and separate type of animals over a long period of time. As a result he developed the idea of biological evolution. This is also known as Macroevolution. And this is where Creationists differ. Because there is one flaw that all of evolutionism is based on.

Mr. Darwin based all of his theories of biological evolution on something that he had seen not too prior to his visit to Galapagos in Argentina. There he saw a the vast Valley of the Santa Cruz River cut deep into the rock and having many layers of sediment. He assumed that a canyon like this could only be formed over a long period of time. Based on his ideas of the Santa Cruz River Valley Mr. Darwin developed the idea Using this preconceived idea of geologic evolution. He assigned his new theory of the canyon formation onto all aspects of nature. Slow biological evolution is based on his idea of slow geologic evolution.

But we now know that canyons can be cut through deep rock very quickly. In Washington after the Mt. Saint Helen’s eruptions mud flows and melted snow runoff carved many complex networks of canyons hundreds of feet deep and tens of miles in length in only a matter of a few days. Also the eruptions laid down 600 feet and thousands of layers of sedimentary strata between April and June of 1980. In the years since a erosion has chiseled out a complex canyon system.

Another geologic feature created during the Helen’s eruption was thousands of complex drainage gully and rills systems similar to those found in the Badlands of South and North Dakota and the desert terrain of the Southwest United States.

Since Darwin’s assumption that such canyons could only be formed over long periods of time has been proven wrong then logic only allows that every idea that he based on that single flawed theory is also wrong.


Secondly, in addition to Mr. Darwin’s ideas, all of the evidence for the support of evolution is based on dates garnered from carbon dating and uranium dating that has been proven inaccurate. Scientists have used every dating method known to exist to date the age of objects already known and the results were an additional hundreds and thousands of years beyond the true age. So the scientists came up with the theory that the decay rate changes over time. Yet everyone of them believes in the idea of Uniformity, that everything takes place at a constant rate over long periods and unchanging circumstances. How then can they say that decay rates change when they say that everything occurs at a constant unchanging rate of time? It’s sheer lunacy.

Also, regarding time and dating methods, there was a Bristlecone pine tree in California that was thought to be the oldest living thing on Earth. Dating methods placed the age at around 7,000 years old. But when, through an unfortunate accident, the tree was felled and it’s rings counted the true age was less than 4,000 years. They had rewrite their books.

Ice layers are also used to measure time passage. Scientists assume that every layer in an ice core is a year. But the truth is that there maybe several hundreds of layers laid down within a single day as the surface thaws and refreezes. During World War 2 a plane was forced to land on a Greenland ice sheet. Fifty years later the plane was dug out. The plane was under thousands of layers. I seriously doubt that the plane had been down there for thousands of years.

Sedimentary layers all around the Earth have been used to age the planet. But these are dated using the same flawed dating techniques. And also how and when were these sedimentary layers put down? And how so uniformly across the entire planet? Where has the sediment been washed down from? And if it takes hundreds and thousands of years for these layers to be laid down then why are trees found, intact, to have been growing through several layers of sediment? Did they grow for thousands of years while being slowly covered over? Some are found upside down. Did they grow that way? And what about animal remains? Why hadn’t they decayed or been eaten by other animals while being buried over a period of hundreds of years? The only logical conclusion is all of these things were buried quickly and completely in a short amount of time with a single body of water.

Then we come to the Grand Canyon. The river in the bottom is too small to have ever created a gouge so wide and deep. It had to have been made quickly in a massive rush of water, as we have seen done in Washington during the Helen’s eruption, only with a lot more water. Not only that but the top of the canyon at its terminus is higher in elevation than where the river enters it. And the north side of the canyon is 2,000 feet higher in elevation than the south side. How is that possible? It goes completely against the Laws of Physics, that is unless you can make water run uphill very slowly and horizontally along a sloped surface, instead of in one massive wave. A slow moving river of water could not have ever created the Grand Canyon going up hill over a long period of time.

Not to mention that no missing links have ever been found in their transitional stages. And those that have turned up were proved to be hoaxes and forgeries.

These are only a few pieces of the logical and rational evidence that makes me and many others discount evolution. You asked for them and so here they are.

Now show me evidence to the contrary of my beliefs and logic. Without name calling or making ad homonym attacks. I never insulted you so don’t do it to me. Calling me an idiot and moron and fucking stupid only goes to show that you can’t argue your point in a civil manner. Prove me wrong. Don’t bring me down to your level. I show no respect to anyone who can’t give any reasons for what they believe or don’t believe in other than simply because they believe differently. And that includes Creationists. So show me how to get it if you really believe in what you say.

You may have a point but the majority of creationists do not want to listen and they spit on the evolution theory,when someone try to explain it they all go LALALALA I DON`T HEAR YOU.

[Colonel Olrik]

First let me clear up three issues before I continue.

One: I’ve noticed that most evolutionists will not ever take part in debates or watch/listen to discussions by Creationists concerning their evidence for Creation.

Stop with the bullshit and present the said "evidence". And, if you want a one to one, debate me.

is it because the evolutionists know beyond a shadow of a doubt and without a hint of decent that they are right? Then why not listen to opposing views no matter how absurd? Or is it that they are they afraid that, however unlikely, they may have their minds changed and they just can’t accept that? I don’t know, just wondering.

The first one. I don't pay much attention to groups attempting to prove the existance of santa claus, either. Present thy evidence.

Two: What’s wrong with the same old arguments when they’re correct? Should we change our stance just because people don’t believe? Sure we find new evidence that supports our old evidence, we do not abandon the latter simply because gain the former.

PRESENT THE EVIDENCE, AND DEFEND IT.

Three: What’s wrong with being a fundie a.k.a. fundamentalist? A fundamentalist is simply anyone who believes in something so strongly that they are willing to fight and/or possibly die for it. Are evolutionists so positive enough that they are right that they’re ready to fight over it? I’m ready to do so for my beliefs.

Evolution is a science. If proven wrong, then no one would try to hide the proof of it. That's how scince works, based on facts and theories, not on beliefs.

The entire theory of evolution is based solely on the original ideas of a single man. His name, Charles Darwin.

Wrong. Wallace developed basically the same theory in parallel with Darwin. Also, many of Darwin's ideas were corrected, others expanded by hundreds of scientists since then.

He saw the variations of animals on the Galapagos Islands and saw that many were adapted to their environment in ways that their counterparts in other parts of the world were not. This is known as Microevolution. And most people agree with this line of thinking, including Creationists.

So, you accept evolution between species, but not between branches, for example? Please tell where's the decisive diference.
.

[Lagmonster]

One: I’ve noticed that most evolutionists will not ever take part in debates or watch/listen to discussions by Creationists concerning their evidence for Creation. Why? Is it because the evolutionists know beyond a shadow of a doubt and without a hint of decent that they are right? Then why not listen to opposing views no matter how absurd? Or is it that they are they afraid that, however unlikely, they may have their minds changed and they just can’t accept that?

A true scientist is open minded. Frankly, I doubt there are too many scientists on earth who would stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to acknowledge serious evidence for the existance of god or a spontaneous, divinely inspired creation. Maybe you should realize that this mythical evidence for creation doesn't exist.

You get full points for gusto, kid, but you are metaphorically getting out of the safari jeep and kicking the lions. Guess what that means, metaphorically?

Two: What’s wrong with the same old arguments when they’re correct? Should we change our stance just because people don’t believe? Sure we find new evidence that supports our old evidence, we do not abandon the latter simply because gain the former.

Belief is irrelevant. You don't look at a cat and assume it's a demon because you believe demons are small and hairy and have whiskers. Beyond that, the 'same old arguments' are NOT correct. If you had the ability to understand the criticism that has been routinely leveled against Creationist arguments, you'd know this. I'm sorry, but that's just the way things are.

There's those metaphorical lions again. You're really laying in with the boots.

Three: What’s wrong with being a fundie a.k.a. fundamentalist? A fundamentalist is simply anyone who believes in something so strongly that they are willing to fight and/or possibly die for it. Are evolutionists so positive enough that they are right that they’re ready to fight over it? I’m ready to do so for my beliefs.

A fundie is, by definition, the equivalent of a person running around with their fingers in their ears and an unproven bit of testimony jammed in their mouths.

Those lions are awake now. Get ready for dinner.

Kid, you're just a regular Creationist website summary machine, aren't you? Answer this: Do you EVER research ANY creationist statement you read to see if modern science has an answer? Or do you just assume that the criticism is legitimate and not bother looking for rebuttals from the scientific community?

[Alyeska]

First let me clear up three issues before I continue.

One: I’ve noticed that most evolutionists will not ever take part in debates or watch/listen to discussions by Creationists concerning their evidence for Creation. Why? Is it because the evolutionists know beyond a shadow of a doubt and without a hint of decent that they are right? Then why not listen to opposing views no matter how absurd? Or is it that they are they afraid that, however unlikely, they may have their minds changed and they just can’t accept that? I don’t know, just wondering.

Incorrect. Most "evolutionists" have been taught Creationism since their birth.

Two: What’s wrong with the same old arguments when they’re correct? Should we change our stance just because people don’t believe? Sure we find new evidence that supports our old evidence, we do not abandon the latter simply because gain the former.

One problem, those arguments are incorrect. The have more holes then the Titanic.

Three: What’s wrong with being a fundie a.k.a. fundamentalist? A fundamentalist is simply anyone who believes in something so strongly that they are willing to fight and/or possibly die for it. Are evolutionists so positive enough that they are right that they’re ready to fight over it? I’m ready to do so for my beliefs.

Whats wrong with having a low IQ? Its not criminal, but its not desirable and it sure can be annoying. BTW, the "evolutionists" have already proven their side correct.

Now back on topic.

And the above wasn't?

The entire theory of evolution is based solely on the original ideas of a single man. His name, Charles Darwin. He saw the variations of animals on the Galapagos Islands and saw that many were adapted to their environment in ways that their counterparts in other parts of the world were not. This is known as Microevolution. And most people agree with this line of thinking, including Creationists.

Thats only because there is so much evidence that not even the blind can disagree with it.

But Mr. Darwin went one step further, he assumed, with no visible proof or evidence other than his new notion that species adapt and change, that creatures also changed from one species into completely different and separate type of animals over a long period of time. As a result he developed the idea of biological evolution. This is also known as Macroevolution. And this is where Creationists differ. Because there is one flaw that all of evolutionism is based on.

This should be amusing.

Mr. Darwin based all of his theories of biological evolution on something that he had seen not too prior to his visit to Galapagos in Argentina. There he saw a the vast Valley of the Santa Cruz River cut deep into the rock and having many layers of sediment. He assumed that a canyon like this could only be formed over a long period of time. Based on his ideas of the Santa Cruz River Valley Mr. Darwin developed the idea Using this preconceived idea of geologic evolution. He assigned his new theory of the canyon formation onto all aspects of nature. Slow biological evolution is based on his idea of slow geologic evolution.

Just because a theories creator made mistakes does not invalidate the theory itself. I also take it you missed the part where many of Darwins ideas have been proven wrong, but the basic concept of evolution itself is still a valid theory.

But we now know that canyons can be cut through deep rock very quickly. In Washington after the Mt. Saint Helen’s eruptions mud flows and melted snow runoff carved many complex networks of canyons hundreds of feet deep and tens of miles in length in only a matter of a few days. Also the eruptions laid down 600 feet and thousands of layers of sedimentary strata between April and June of 1980. In the years since a erosion has chiseled out a complex canyon system.

Point being? Is the world covered in volcanoes? Have you actually studied geology? Do you know how all canyons are formed? Are you claiming that Glacies National Park was carved by a volcanoe? Your grasping here and you don't have actualy evidence to support your position. You claim that Darwin made eroneous claims by making assumptions. Your pulling them out of your ass right now.

Another geologic feature created during the Helen’s eruption was thousands of complex drainage gully and rills systems similar to those found in the Badlands of South and North Dakota and the desert terrain of the Southwest United States.

Your grasping

Since Darwin’s assumption that such canyons could only be formed over long periods of time has been proven wrong then logic only allows that every idea that he based on that single flawed theory is also wrong.

Wrong. That was Darwin's supporting evidence. We don't use that evidence anymore. Instead we use the fossile record, radiometric dating, and genetics.

Secondly, in addition to Mr. Darwin’s ideas, all of the evidence for the support of evolution is based on dates garnered from carbon dating and uranium dating that has been proven inaccurate. Scientists have used every dating method known to exist to date the age of objects already known and the results were an additional hundreds and thousands of years beyond the true age. So the scientists came up with the theory that the decay rate changes over time. Yet everyone of them believes in the idea of Uniformity, that everything takes place at a constant rate over long periods and unchanging circumstances. How then can they say that decay rates change when they say that everything occurs at a constant unchanging rate of time? It’s sheer lunacy.

Wrong. They rate of decay does NOT change. A classic creationist tactic is to claim that the decay rate does NOT remain static and thus radiometic datting is invalid. However this have NEVER been proven. Any scientist worth his beans does NOT claim that the decay rate changes. What you just stated is a flat out lie.

Also, regarding time and dating methods, there was a Bristlecone pine tree in California that was thought to be the oldest living thing on Earth. Dating methods placed the age at around 7,000 years old. But when, through an unfortunate accident, the tree was felled and it’s rings counted the true age was less than 4,000 years. They had rewrite their books.

Site the proof.

Ice layers are also used to measure time passage. Scientists assume that every layer in an ice core is a year. But the truth is that there maybe several hundreds of layers laid down within a single day as the surface thaws and refreezes. During World War 2 a plane was forced to land on a Greenland ice sheet. Fifty years later the plane was dug out. The plane was under thousands of layers. I seriously doubt that the plane had been down there for thousands of years.

Incorrect. Age in ice is determined between the compression lines of summer and winter. Try reading up on the subject.

Sedimentary layers all around the Earth have been used to age the planet. But these are dated using the same flawed dating techniques. And also how and when were these sedimentary layers put down? And how so uniformly across the entire planet? Where has the sediment been washed down from? And if it takes hundreds and thousands of years for these layers to be laid down then why are trees found, intact, to have been growing through several layers of sediment? Did they grow for thousands of years while being slowly covered over? Some are found upside down. Did they grow that way? And what about animal remains? Why hadn’t they decayed or been eaten by other animals while being buried over a period of hundreds of years? The only logical conclusion is all of these things were buried quickly and completely in a short amount of time with a single body of water.

Three things.

First, your claims on radiometric dating is false.

Second, read a geology book, sediments are NOT evenly distributed. Mountains loose their rock as they push upwards and that turns into sediment.

Third, you are making false conclussions based on false data.

Then we come to the Grand Canyon. The river in the bottom is too small to have ever created a gouge so wide and deep. It had to have been made quickly in a massive rush of water, as we have seen done in Washington during the Helen’s eruption, only with a lot more water. Not only that but the top of the canyon at its terminus is higher in elevation than where the river enters it. And the north side of the canyon is 2,000 feet higher in elevation than the south side. How is that possible? It goes completely against the Laws of Physics, that is unless you can make water run uphill very slowly and horizontally along a sloped surface, instead of in one massive wave. A slow moving river of water could not have ever created the Grand Canyon going up hill over a long period of time.

Incorrect. When a river gouges out it goes down. As it goes down the sides of the gouge fall in as well. It is a well known fact that a river in certain geologic formations will not only dig down, but it will create a very wide valley. Your lack of knowledge regarding geology is stunning.

Not to mention that no missing links have ever been found in their transitional stages. And those that have turned up were proved to be hoaxes and forgeries.

Creationist myth. There is no "missing link". If you have a line of numbers that say 1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10,11 I think its safe to assume that we are missing 6 and 7.

These are only a few pieces of the logical and rational evidence that makes me and many others discount evolution. You asked for them and so here they are.

All based on incorrect assumptions and false information.

Now show me evidence to the contrary of my beliefs and logic. Without name calling or making ad homonym attacks. I never insulted you so don’t do it to me. Calling me an idiot and moron and fucking stupid only goes to show that you can’t argue your point in a civil manner. Prove me wrong. Don’t bring me down to your level. I show no respect to anyone who can’t give any reasons for what they believe or don’t believe in other than simply because they believe differently. And that includes Creationists. So show me how to get it if you really believe in what you say.

I call someone who thinks the Earth is flat an idiot to. Try reading a biology or geology book. You would be surprised what a little education can do.

[THE AMBASSADOR]

So, you accept evolution between species, but not between branches, for example? Please tell where's the decisive diference.
.

No. I accept evolution within a species, not between them. For example. I belive that certain types of monkeys can adapt and evolve to fit their enviormnets. Same with Iguanas, as we see in the Galapagos. Or the Finches.

What I don't agree with is that a fish can become a bird. Or a lizard can become a horse.

If you want to believe that God did not create everything, and instead everything evolved from single celled lifeforms that were somehow created from the primordial soup that came from a galactic explosion, then fine. I'll even (in this instance) agree that humans came from apes. We had primates and they branched off and became other kinds of primates and today we have monkeys, apes, and humans. Fine. Same with all other life. Each single celled organsim became a certain kind of animal and they evolved from there into a greater or lesser forms of the same creature. But do not try and tell me that species changed to become geneticaly different creatures. Birds and lizards for example may have similar skeletal structures, but their genetics are so far apart that they can't possibly be related. Cats and dogs have similar skeletal structures as do mice and camals, but no one thinks that they're related.

[Colonel Olrik]

So, you accept evolution between species, but not between branches, for example? Please tell where's the decisive diference.

No. I accept evolution within a species, not between them. For example. I belive that certain types of monkeys can adapt and evolve to fit their enviormnets. Same with Iguanas, as we see in the Galapagos. Or the Finches.

Idiot. The definition of two different species is when successful mating between two different animals, leading to a fertile offspring, is not possible.

So, monkeys are all of different species. If a species adapt to its environment ut to a point when reproduction with pther elements of that species is no longer possible, then you have a different specie altogether. Therefore, it is evolution between species. The difference between two different species of monkeys and of a monkey to a horse is only of scale and time.

[Cyborg Stan]

Aw fuck, that got alot of fast responses. Oh well, might as well post my response thus far, although I plan to continue a bit afterwards :

Three: What?s wrong with being a fundie a.k.a. fundamentalist? A fundamentalist is simply anyone who believes in something so strongly that they are willing to fight and/or possibly die for it. Are evolutionists so positive enough that they are right that they?re ready to fight over it? I?m ready to do so for my beliefs.
Now back on topic.

Fundamentalists are of the same mindset of those people that blow themselves up using bombs, and the same mindset does not lead to a very good interpretation of evidence, considering that when blowing oneself up, you usually shut off the rational portions of the mind long beforehand.

The entire theory of evolution is based solely on the original ideas of a single man. His name, Charles Darwin. He saw the variations of animals on the Galapagos Islands and saw that many were adapted to their environment in ways that their counterparts in other parts of the world were not. This is known as Microevolution. And most people agree with this line of thinking, including Creationists.

First off, the entire theory of evolution is not due to Darwin alone. Hell, even you should know about Lamarck, or Wallace. The main contribution of Darwin was his mechanism of evolution by natural selection.

Secondly, in addition to Mr. Darwin?s ideas, all of the evidence for the support of evolution is based on dates garnered from carbon dating and uranium dating that has been proven inaccurate. Scientists have used every dating method known to exist to date the age of objects already known and the results were an additional hundreds and thousands of years beyond the true age. So the scientists came up with the theory that the decay rate changes over time. Yet everyone of them believes in the idea of Uniformity, that everything takes place at a constant rate over long periods and unchanging circumstances. How then can they say that decay rates change when they say that everything occurs at a constant unchanging rate of time? It?s sheer lunacy.

1) Nuclear physists state that the decay rate is constant. Considering we know enough to both blow ourselves up and power our homes and submarines using it, I tend to believe them. They did experiments to see if the decay rates vary in pressure, heat, etc, and found insignficant difference. Not to mention, almost all the data for isotope dating fits very neatly with each other - which means that all the decay rates would have to have been changing in conjunction with each other.... with the associated heat release. For the Earth to be 6,000 instead of 5,000,000,000, we would need it to vary at the very least by a million times.

2) Carbon dating is more often than not useful for historical research, not for geologic-time scales like the history of evolution. If we're lucky, we may be able to extend the reach of C14 dating to 50k years, but 20k years is already pushing it. And no matter how good our C14 technique works, it still wouldn't replace the fact that fossils get their minerals replaced.

3) Uranium dating is not real useful unless if there's uranium present. You never heard of, say Potassium-Argon or others you would pick up simply by reading up? How....... interesting.

Sedimentary layers all around the Earth have been used to age the planet. But these are dated using the same flawed dating techniques. And also how and when were these sedimentary layers put down? And how so uniformly across the entire planet? Where has the sediment been washed down from? And if it takes hundreds and thousands of years for these layers to be laid down then why are trees found, intact, to have been growing through several layers of sediment? Did they grow for thousands of years while being slowly covered over? Some are found upside down. Did they grow that way? And what about animal remains? Why hadn?t they decayed or been eaten by other animals while being buried over a period of hundreds of years? The only logical conclusion is all of these things were buried quickly and completely in a short amount of time with a single body of water.

1) Sendimentary layers themselves are only useful for determining the age of what is buried in them, and then only to bracket since by the way sendiments are (ground-up pieces of OTHER rock) they themselves can't be dated exactly (We use igneous instead). Learn geology.

2) 19th century geologists, before Darwin's time had no touble with polystrata fossils. You, well over 150 years later shouldn't either. Simply put, they already knew that mudslides happen. They also know enough to tell when a mudslide happened and when they don't.

[Colonel Olrik]

Oh, about carbon dating, I posted this here before, to the benefit of other fundie morons. Here it goes.

Carbon 14 (C14) is a radioactive isotope of carbon. It is produced in the upper atmosphere by radiation from the sun (Specifically, neutrons hit nitrogen-14 atoms and transmute them to carbon).

A creature dies, and the body is preserved. The C14 will undergo radioactive decay, and after 5730 years, half of it will be gone. Eventually, all of it will be gone. So, if we find such a body, the amount of C14 in it will tell us how long ago it was alive. Right?

After about ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at all.

When talking about fossils, we're talking about beings who existed millions of years ago

THEREFORE, carbon dating is not used to validy the found fossils

Carbon dating has absolutely no relevance when Evolution is concerned. Got that?

The fossils are classified by its characteristics and the environment where they are found.
DNA has no connection whatsoever with fossils

[Cyborg Stan]

What I don't agree with is that a fish can become a bird. Or a lizard can become a horse.

That's good, because nobody in their right mind would agree with that. Of course, that isn't evolution, it's a strawman. What it SHOULD be is that, historically speaking, a population of fishes change form through generations of themselves, in which the generations would vary only slightly with the recent parent generations but with countless generations thereof, and eventually a branch of the population that started with fishes are what today we know as birds.

[Alyeska]

People are afraid of God and cannot accept that they are not in control so they create lies and hypocrisies to explain away the existence of God and will not listen to any rational reasoning to the contrary.

That is the dumbest fucking statement (and sig) I have ever seen. You have yet to provide ANY rationale evidence even proving the existance of your sadistic and cruel "God". You are asserting the claim he exists and therefor the burden of proof lies on you. We don't need to prove he doesn't exist.

[Darth Wong]

One: I’ve noticed that most evolutionists will not ever take part in debates or watch/listen to discussions by Creationists concerning their evidence for Creation. Why? Is it because the evolutionists know beyond a shadow of a doubt and without a hint of decent that they are right? Then why not listen to opposing views no matter how absurd? Or is it that they are they afraid that, however unlikely, they may have their minds changed and they just can’t accept that? I don’t know, just wondering.

That's bullshit. I've taken part in lots of debates, and crushed every creationist I've ever encountered. Most creationists, however, do not debate. They only spew their opinion and when their facts are show to be fraudulent and their logic flawed, they simply stick their fingers in their ears and repeat themselves.

Two: What’s wrong with the same old arguments when they’re correct? Should we change our stance just because people don’t believe? Sure we find new evidence that supports our old evidence, we do not abandon the latter simply because gain the former.

Actually, the creationist arguments have all been disproven decades ago or more than a century ago. Most of them don't make any sense, rely upon grotesque misrepresentations of fact or the scientific method, etc. Again, you rely on simply stating that your arguments are true rather than proving it.

Three: What’s wrong with being a fundie a.k.a. fundamentalist? A fundamentalist is simply anyone who believes in something so strongly that they are willing to fight and/or possibly die for it. Are evolutionists so positive enough that they are right that they’re ready to fight over it? I’m ready to do so for my beliefs.

Actually, this is precisely the problem. You admit right up-front that you believe so strongly that you would fight and die for it. A scientist, on the other hand, is prepared to revise his theories in light of physical evidence. This is what separates scientists from religious fanatics; fanatics fight for what they believe in, and if you're willing to die for your beliefs, you're sure as hell willing to ignore evidence for them.

The entire theory of evolution is based solely on the original ideas of a single man. His name, Charles Darwin. He saw the variations of animals on the Galapagos Islands and saw that many were adapted to their environment in ways that their counterparts in other parts of the world were not. This is known as Microevolution. And most people agree with this line of thinking, including Creationists.

You derail yourself already. The theory of evolution was formally originated by Darwin, but it is BASED on evidence, not his personal authority. I see that later on in your argument, you try to A) find a mistake that Darwin made and then B) conclude that every theory with his name on it falls apart as a result (look up "ad-hominem fallacy").

But Mr. Darwin went one step further, he assumed, with no visible proof or evidence other than his new notion that species adapt and change, that creatures also changed from one species into completely different and separate type of animals over a long period of time. As a result he developed the idea of biological evolution. This is also known as Macroevolution. And this is where Creationists differ. Because there is one flaw that all of evolutionism is based on.

It is a "flaw" to say that a process which cause small changes in small periods of time can cause large changes in large periods of time? Explain why a process of change will abruptly run into a wall. Explain what physical process will cause evolution to stop working so that it can no longer cause change once it reaches this invisible barrier.

Mr. Darwin based all of his theories of biological evolution on something that he had seen not too prior to his visit to Galapagos in Argentina. There he saw a the vast Valley of the Santa Cruz River cut deep into the rock and having many layers of sediment. He assumed that a canyon like this could only be formed over a long period of time. Based on his ideas of the Santa Cruz River Valley Mr. Darwin developed the idea Using this preconceived idea of geologic evolution. He assigned his new theory of the canyon formation onto all aspects of nature. Slow biological evolution is based on his idea of slow geologic evolution.

Slow geologic development was not his idea. And it is the only thing which fits the biomass, the radiometric and astrophysical age of the Earth, etc., the laws of thermodynamics as they pertain to physical deformation and formation of limestone, etc.

But we now know that canyons can be cut through deep rock very quickly. In Washington after the Mt. Saint Helen’s eruptions mud flows and melted snow runoff carved many complex networks of canyons hundreds of feet deep and tens of miles in length in only a matter of a few days. Also the eruptions laid down 600 feet and thousands of layers of sedimentary strata between April and June of 1980. In the years since a erosion has chiseled out a complex canyon system.

So? How does this prove that everything on Earth was created quickly? Your logic is typically moronic for a fundie: you believe that if A is possible, then B must be wrong. Worse yet, you act as though a volcano proves the idiotic fundie notion of "flood geology", as if they're the same thing. Flood geology is the most moronic idea ever concocted by fundies.

By the way, there is no miniature grand canyon at Mt. St. Helens. The gouges cut by flows from the mountain quickly wash out into broad shapes. Moreover, there are no deep vertical walls or U-turns in these "canyons". The Grand Canyon and Mt. St. Helens comparison, if anything, utterly DESTROYS young-earth creationist geology. Sorry, better luck next time.

Here's a cite from a related article:

-------------------------------

The Colorado River is 1450 miles from its source to the Gulf of California. It has four main tributaries: the Little Colorado, San Juan, Dolores, and Green Rivers. The Green River is the main tributary, arising in Wyoming and traveling 720 miles to join the Colorado, 1100 miles above its entry into the Gulf. The Colorado River system is characterized by meandering courses with many U turns. In this respect it is similar to the Mississippi River system. So why does the Colorado system consist of deep gorges while the Mississippi is essentially flat? Because the Colorado River has cut into, and is still cutting into, a rising rocky plateau. The average load of suspended solids carried is almost 400,000 tons per day. [p. 8, Beal publication] This includes heavier material pushed along the bottom. The Colorado acts like a giant conveyor belt, carrying the material to the delta at the Gulf of California. The harder rock walls remain vertical, while the softer rock erodes to form a sloping wall. The Grand Canyon system high plateau extends over thousands of square miles. The geology of this plateau consists of horizontal layers of different kinds of solid rock. Starting at the top and going down, these layers are:

• Kaibab Limestone: 300 feet thick, formed in a marine environment. Fossils include molluscs, crinoids, and brachiopods.
• Toroweap formation: 200 feet thick, varying from predominantly sandstone to limestone.
• Coconino Sandstone, 50-300 feet thick. Sandstone formed from desert sand dunes. Numerous reptile tracks preserved in the sandstone.
• Hermit Shale: 300 feet thick. Siltstones formed from deposits in swamps and lagoons.
• Supai group: 600-700 feet thick; plant fossils indicate a depositional environment that was low and swampy. Abundant evidence of cross bedding.
• Redwall Limestone: 400-650 feet thick. Abundant fossil evidence of crinoids, brachiopods, bryozoans typical of a warm, shallow clear ocean.
• Temple Butte Limestone: 100-1000 feet thick. Limestone converted to dolomite.
• Mauv Limestone: 150-800 feet thick. Limestone with green micaceous siltstones.
• Bright Angel shale: 250-450 feet thick. Shaly green mudstones, with some fine grained sandstones. Many fossils of trilobites, brachiopods, and worms. Gradual transition to overlying Mauv Limestone.
• Tapeats Sandstone: 100-300 feet thick. Formed from coastal sand dunes.
• Grand Canyon Supergroup: 15,000 feet thick. Angled layers (10 to 15 degrees) of sedimentary rock and interbedded lavas eroded to a horizontal surface prior the deposition of the Tapeats Sandstone.

The fossils occurring in these deposits indicate that the topmost layers are at least 250 million years old, and represent life forms that do not exist today. Limestones are formed by the slow deposition of microscopic marine creatures. There is absolutely no way that these creatures could have laid down deposits hundreds of feet thick in the one year period of the Genesis flood.

There is no evidence to support the creationist contention that the limestone deposits were formed from "chemical rich waters," and no reasonable explanation of how this could have happened. The enormous quantities of limestone present would require concentrations of calcium ions and depths of water entirely beyond any possibility of existing at any one time. They had to be formed slowly over millions of years as microorganisms extracted the dilute concentrations of carbon dioxide present in sea water to form the calcium carbonate which is the main constituent of limestone. Furthermore, there is no mechanism, and creationists have not provided any, to show how the huge quantities of calcium carbonate (limestone) could have been precipitated, especially in the short time frame alleged by young earth creationists.

The geology clearly shows that the Grand Canyon formations were deposited in an environment which existed as a flat coastal marine area for hundreds of millions of years. This region began to be uplifted at the end of the Paleozoic era. At the same time the existing meandering river systems began to cut down into the rock, keeping pace with the uplift over the ensuing millions of years. The Colorado River acted as a "conveyor belt," carrying the material, as it gradually eroded from the canyon walls, into the Gulf of California.

The amount of rock removed was hundreds of cubic miles. Hundreds of cubic miles of SOLID rock! Just to transport that amount of rock (to say nothing of removing it) would require a flash flood consisting of thousands of cubic miles of water! There is no evidence whatever that such an enormous body of water ever existed at an elevation sufficient to result in a flash flood. We are dealing with a flat plateau. Where was the elevated source of all that flash flood water?

Furthermore, how could a flash flood create a meandering river system with four tributaries and numerous U turns in a flat plateau? Did each tributary have its own source of flash flood water?

-------------------------------[/color] http://home.attbi.com/~fsteiger/grandcyn.htm

Sorry, but either you've been had or you're trying to deceive us (or both).

Another geologic feature created during the Helen’s eruption was thousands of complex drainage gully and rills systems similar to those found in the Badlands of South and North Dakota and the desert terrain of the Southwest United States.

Wow, so if everything on Earth is a volcano and we throw radiometric dating and astrophysics out the window and ignore everything else about geology while we're at it such as the predictable progression factor, then your theory works just fine, right? Does Mt. St. Helens have progressive layers of simpler and simpler lifeforms as you dig deeper into the ash? Does it have sharp vertical walls in these "canyons", do they continue in their original shape or wash out, and are they limestone instead of ash? Mt. St. Helens proves nothing but the sad desperation of creationists and their willingness to distort and ignore facts.

Since Darwin’s assumption that such canyons could only be formed over long periods of time has been proven wrong then logic only allows that every idea that he based on that single flawed theory is also wrong.

Ah, "silver bullet" mentality. It is possible to form a small sort-of vaguely canyon-like shape quickly, therefore EVERY canyon on Earth must have been formed quickly, therefore EVERYTHING Darwin ever said is wrong, eh? This is the most pathetic leap in logic and hasty generalization I've ever seen.

Secondly, in addition to Mr. Darwin’s ideas, all of the evidence for the support of evolution is based on dates garnered from carbon dating and uranium dating that has been proven inaccurate.

Not inaccurate enough to be out by a half-dozen orders of magnitude.

Scientists have used every dating method known to exist to date the age of objects already known and the results were an additional hundreds and thousands of years beyond the true age.

So? It's a false-dilemma fallacy to say that the methods must either be perfect or useless. When you take materials that have half-lives of billions of years and detect massive depletion, you're obviously looking at something very ancient. The fact that you can't nail it down to a PRECISE figure doesn't change that fact.

So the scientists came up with the theory that the decay rate changes over time.

Wrong. That is a creationist theory. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for variable nuclear decay rates.

Yet everyone of them believes in the idea of Uniformity, that everything takes place at a constant rate over long periods and unchanging circumstances. How then can they say that decay rates change when they say that everything occurs at a constant unchanging rate of time? It’s sheer lunacy.

Speak for yourself; you are accusing scientists of being hypocrites for holding a creationist belief, which they don't.

Also, regarding time and dating methods, there was a Bristlecone pine tree in California that was thought to be the oldest living thing on Earth. Dating methods placed the age at around 7,000 years old. But when, through an unfortunate accident, the tree was felled and it’s rings counted the true age was less than 4,000 years. They had rewrite their books.

Please provide your cite for this. And even if it's true, it fails to prove your point: the dating method is accurate to within 50%, so radiometric dating indicating ages of millions or billions of years still destroys your claims.

Ice layers are also used to measure time passage. Scientists assume that every layer in an ice core is a year. But the truth is that there maybe several hundreds of layers laid down within a single day as the surface thaws and refreezes. During World War 2 a plane was forced to land on a Greenland ice sheet. Fifty years later the plane was dug out. The plane was under thousands of layers. I seriously doubt that the plane had been down there for thousands of years.

This is a lie. Professional ice-core dating is based on things like isotope concentrations in the layers, which is annually consistent. If some amateur does it wrong, that hardly invalidates the proper method (I've noticed that this "we tried doing it wrong and got a bad result" method is very common among creationists trying to disprove geological methods).

Sedimentary layers all around the Earth have been used to age the planet. But these are dated using the same flawed dating techniques. And also how and when were these sedimentary layers put down? And how so uniformly across the entire planet? Where has the sediment been washed down from?

Actually, if it was all washed down, then it would NOT be uniform and would pool in low-lying areas. Try again.

And if it takes hundreds and thousands of years for these layers to be laid down then why are trees found, intact, to have been growing through several layers of sediment?

They're not. You are confusing things like ash layers, tar pits, and coal seams with sedimentary rock such as limestone.

Did they grow for thousands of years while being slowly covered over? Some are found upside down. Did they grow that way? And what about animal remains? Why hadn’t they decayed or been eaten by other animals while being buried over a period of hundreds of years? The only logical conclusion is all of these things were buried quickly and completely in a short amount of time with a single body of water.

Wrong, since that would not consistently sort them by developmental level and levels of radioisotopes in their bodies which would just COINCIDENTALLY be consistent with radiometric dating. And a flood theory fails on so many levels it's not funny (eg- where did the water come from, where did the water go, where did the energy go, etc). Also, the quantity of biomass indicated by sedimentary rock, if extrapolated to living mass, is too much biomass to exist on the Earth in a short timeframe (among other serious problems).

Then we come to the Grand Canyon. The river in the bottom is too small to have ever created a gouge so wide and deep. It had to have been made quickly in a massive rush of water, as we have seen done in Washington during the Helen’s eruption, only with a lot more water.

Then why don't see grand canyons leading to the ocean in all directions from the centre of every land mass? This process only works in one place? Your argument is based on the moronic assumption that the river was always that size.

Not only that but the top of the canyon at its terminus is higher in elevation than where the river enters it. And the north side of the canyon is 2,000 feet higher in elevation than the south side. How is that possible?
It goes completely against the Laws of Physics, that is unless you can make water run uphill very slowly and horizontally along a sloped surface, instead of in one massive wave. A slow moving river of water could not have ever created the Grand Canyon going up hill over a long period of time.

See earlier article. You are treating geology as static in order to attack its theory of long-term trends of change, which is typically selective creationist thinking.

More to the point, I don't see how it proves flood geology. You fundies always think that if you can raise questions about some specific incident (which an expert in that particular region could probably answer) and the average person doesn't have an explanation off the top of his head, then your explanation wins by default. Doesn't work that way, and you always run into the risk that someone will call your bluff.

Not to mention that no missing links have ever been found in their transitional stages. And those that have turned up were proved to be hoaxes and forgeries.

This is an outright lie.

These are only a few pieces of the logical and rational evidence that makes me and many others discount evolution. You asked for them and so here they are.

Your logic in every case is "I don't understand how the conventional theory explains this, so I assume that my alternate theory explains it better". That's not how it works. You must show that your alternate theory generates specific predictions which are more accurate than those of the scientific theory.

Look at radiometric dating; you attack it based on some vague claim that it doesn't work (gee, powerful "proof"). But do you have a better explanation for anomalous depletion of radioisotopes with half-lives of millions or billions of years? Do you have a better explanation for the odd coincidence of radiometric depletion patterns and geologic age?

The consistency of radiometric dating, geological methods, and evolutionary predictions is astonishing, and you have no explanation for it so you attempt to attack each in isolation with your logically fallacious methods, as if the coincidence does not need to be explained at all.

If you see something, it might be an optical illusion or a mirage. If you hear something, it might be an echo. If you smell something, it might be carried on the wind. But if you see, hear, AND smell something, then there's a pretty damned good chance it's really there.

Now show me evidence to the contrary of my beliefs and logic. Without name calling or making ad homonym attacks.

Your "logic" is that your theory wins by default if you don't personally understand how the scientific theory works in any given situation. That's pathetic.

I never insulted you so don’t do it to me. Calling me an idiot and moron and fucking stupid only goes to show that you can’t argue your point in a civil manner.

Calling scientists liars is a pre-emptive insult, so don't go holding your nose in the air, asshole.

Prove me wrong. Don’t bring me down to your level. I show no respect to anyone who can’t give any reasons for what they believe or don’t believe in other than simply because they believe differently.

And we have no respect for people who are actually willing to fight and die for beliefs. It goes without saying that you'd be willing to bullshit for them, and the only things worth fighting for are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not beliefs.

And that includes Creationists. So show me how to get it if you really believe in what you say.

I don't "believe" in what I say; I understand the logic behind it. That's what makes me different from you; your ideas need the power of faith before any sane person would even consider them.

Some questions for you:

1. Explain species geo-location.
2. Explain the absence of centralized migration patterns for all Earth's species from Noah's supposed debarkation point.
3. Explain why evolution can no longer function once it reaches some arbitrary point (hence your claim that "macroevolution" doesn't work).
4. Explain where the water for the flood came from, and where it went.
5. Explain how a tiny shift in the ocean floor could create tsunamis that wipe out coastal life hundreds of kilometres away, but Noah's little boat supposedly survived the most titanic geologic disruptions imaginable.
6. Generate an alternate theory of astrophysics which is consistent with observation while maintaining your silly young-Earth beliefs (I particularly enjoy the Biblical notion that the Earth was created before the stars).
7. Explain the tributaries, vertical walls, layered cuts, and U-turns of the Grand Canyon in light of your "giant flash flood" theory. And if you resort to the Great Flood, explain why we don't have Grand Canyons all over the place.

I have more questions if you like.

[Wicked Pilot]

Yeah, I think the "fundie moron" title is appropiate in this case. Just look at his sig.

[Sir Sirius]

People are afraid of God...

Rightfully so, the biblical god is a cruel and evil motherfucker, fortunately he doesn't exist.

...and cannot accept that they are not in control so they create lies...

What lies? Please specify.

...and hypocrisies...

What are you talking about? Examples would be nice

...to explain away the existence of God...

It is not the responsibility of the sceptic to disprove the claims of theists, it is the responsibility of theists to backup their claims.

...and will not listen to any rational reasoning to the contrary.

I've never heard any "rational reasoning" that proves the existance of god, but since you clearly belief that such arquments exist you won't mind presenting us with a few examples, right?