A creatrionist said this is why evolution is false.

[Cainkane1]

I don't know how familiar you are with the main evidence for evolution. The theory in entirety is based on the necessity of transitional fossils. When Charles Darwin created the theory he stated that these were a necessity for his hypothesis to be true. Since his death there has not been the discovery of transitional fossils and so his theory remains incomplete of empirical evidence in this form. (Necessary evidence #1 disproven)
The observation that initially triggered Darwin's hypothesis was the finches on the Galapagos islands and how there was different beak sizes. The beaks on different islands that correlated with the different food on the island and so he believed that they had evolved to best suit the food on each island. What has since been found is that depending on the conditions of any year these beak sizes change. If there was a drought in a year and a certain nut that was consumed only by finches with small beaks was not produced than only the large-beaked finches would survive. This would seem like evolution except for the fact that within a couple of years due to genetics there would become an equally diverse number of large and small beaked finches. (Evidence #2 for evolution that has been found to be wrong) This also applies to the moths that he observed in London and how the diversity returned to the population.
Another big support of evolution was a set of drawings from a supporter of Darwin approx. 175 years ago. This man, Heckle, created a series of embryo drawings that showed a commonality between the embryo of a number of different mammals which was supposed to demonstrate that everything came from common ancestry. What has been discovered in the last 15 years however is that he completely faked these drawings and that this isn't what the embryos actually look like. What has been found is that the earliest stages of embryonic actually look very different and would appear to be of different ancestries. (Evidence #3 wrong)Even though we know these drawings are wrong they continue to be used in science text books.
The fossil record is also commonly used to support Darwinism as it is supposed to show how organisms became more complex gradually by random mutation. The fossil record does not look as it should for evolution to be true. What is seen is a large area in the geological column where almost no fossils exist and then suddenly there is a massive number of very complex fossils; this is called the Cambrian explosion. This is not how evolution was supposed to happen but more looks like the biblical account of creation. By what is seen in the column this explosion could not have taken very long. This is a scientific impossibility however because the genome (the genes that make up the organism) can not have a variance within it of more than 3 or 4 genes otherwise the organism dies (basically self-destructs). (Evidence #4 impossible)The Cambrian explosion would much better be explained by the biblical narrative of creation.
These are some of the main reason why evolution is becoming decreasingly popular for scientists in the past couple decades. There are many more falsities within the theory that could be explained if you would like. If these are sufficient to give you doubt about the theory of evolution then I can give you the support for the genesis narrative which is formulated under the theory of catastrophism.
Thanks for taking the time to read this,
Allan

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Since his death there has not been the discovery of transitional fossils and so his theory remains incomplete of empirical evidence in this form.
I believe this is the crux of your argument. It is wrong.

~~ Paul

[godless dave]

Be fair. He's also wrong about the peppered moths, wrong about the finches, and mostly wrong about Haeckel.

[this charming man]

snip When Charles Darwin created the theory he stated that these were a necessity for his hypothesis to be true. Since his death there has not been the discovery of transitional fossils and so his theory remains incomplete of empirical evidence in this form. snip

This statement is completely false.

I also see how you used "created" the theory. Intentional? Maybe. Telling? Yes.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/

[Madalch]

What has been found is that the earliest stages of embryonic actually look very different and would appear to be of different ancestries. (Evidence #3 wrong)Even though we know these drawings are wrong they continue to be used in science text books.
This is also wrong. Modern science texts do not cite these drawings as evidence for evolution. Anyone who claims "they continue to be used in textbooks" seems to be looking at the same book, published in the 1950s, and noting that it hasn't changed since it was printed. It's -still- making this claim!

These are some of the main reason why evolution is becoming decreasingly popular for scientists in the past couple decades. There are many more falsities within the theory that could be explained if you would like. If these are sufficient to give you doubt about the theory of evolution then I can give you the support for the genesis narrative which is formulated under the theory of catastrophism.
It's not becoming decreasingly popular among scientists.

[RecoveringYuppy]

I wonder how many posts will appear in the time it takes me to type?
I don't know how familiar you are with the main evidence for evolution. The theory in entirety is based on the necessity of transitional fossils. When Charles Darwin created the theory he stated that these were a necessity for his hypothesis to be true.
If Darwin made that statement, he was wrong. The evidence accumulated by Linneaus about a century before Darwin had already convinced many of the reality of evolution. And Lamark made major contributions in cataloging the fossil evidence of the time in the generation prior to Charles Darwin. And the DNA evidence we have today is simply beyond what Darwin could have imagined.

Since his death there has not been the discovery of transitional fossils and so his theory remains incomplete of empirical evidence in this form. (Necessary evidence #1 disproven)
How can anyone dismiss or not be aware of the whale fossils or humans we've found?

The observation that initially triggered Darwin's hypothesis was the finches on the Galapagos islands and how there was different beak sizes. ...This would seem like evolution except for the fact that within a couple of years due to genetics there would become an equally diverse number of large and small beaked finches. (Evidence #2 for evolution that has been found to be wrong)
That makes no sense at all. You haven't adequately explained why no selection would occur. And a diversification is a form of evolution, so it wouldn't matter if you did explain that. And if he merely got the selection pressure wrong or didn't identify all of them that would be absolutely no problem.


This also applies to the moths that he observed in London and how the diversity returned to the population.
Another big support of evolution was a set of drawings from a supporter of Darwin approx. 175 years ago. This man, Heckle, created a series of embryo drawings that showed a commonality between the embryo of a number of different mammals which was supposed to demonstrate that everything came from common ancestry. What has been discovered in the last 15 years however is that he completely faked these drawings and that this isn't what the embryos actually look like. What has been found is that the earliest stages of embryonic actually look very different and would appear to be of different ancestries. (Evidence #3 wrong)Even though we know these drawings are wrong they continue to be used in science text books.
We've known that he faked one of them for a long time. We also know that his faking that one doesn't any affect on the conclusion to be drawn. We also know that he wasn't completely right (hardly a surprise) but was on the right track: he was correct that evolution "works" by modifying embryonic development. He was wrong about it simply tacking new steps on at the end of development.

The fossil record is also commonly used to support Darwinism as it is supposed to show how organisms became more complex gradually by random mutation. The fossil record does not look as it should for evolution to be true. What is seen is a large area in the geological column where almost no fossils exist and then suddenly there is a massive number of very complex fossils; this is called the Cambrian explosion.
And you're incredibly out of date because we've found enough fossils from prior to the Cambrian now.

[Third Eye Open]

Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

[skeptigirl]

The theory in entirety is based on the necessity of transitional fossils.Clearly I am more familiar with evolution theory than anyone who would make this ignorant statement.

Update your information, Cainkane1. This claim is almost a century out of date if it ever was even true. Try reading about the explosion of new discoveries in the field of genetic science. It will help you to not fall for the propaganda that many Creationists use to convince people the Biblical version of Creation is scientifically possible.

[Ysidro]

Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

Thank you. This is one of those things that gets to me. Any transitional fossil found means the Creationists claim two more gaps. It's infuriating.

[jimbob]

Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

Ah, but if you do find a transitiona fossil, then it is a new species, and there are now two unfilled gaps in the fossil record, where before there was only one.

Cainkane1, am I right in reading this a a (verbaitm?) report of a creationist argument and not your own views?

[drzeus99]

I believe Cainkane1 is only quoting from a creationist. As far Cainkane1's own personal views, it's not stated anywhere.

[JoeEllison]

He didn't even spell "creationist" right... great for a chuckle. Creationists, and "creatrionists" too, are a bunch of morons and/or liars.

[skeptigirl]

I believe Cainkane1 is only quoting from a creationist. As far Cainkane1's own personal views, it's not stated anywhere.Sorry to be rude. Correction, it would be the Creationist that was spewing propaganda or ignorance then.

[shadron]

I don't know how familiar you are with the main evidence for evolution. ...

The observation that initially triggered Darwin's hypothesis was the finches on the Galapagos islands and how there was different beak sizes. (among other things, of course)....

...I can give you the support for the genesis narrative...

Allan did get a few things right. Damned few.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Attention. CLASS! CLASS!! ATTENTION!!!
<<whacks baton against the music stand>>

Pay attention, please:

This is a book about SALVATION.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/11C47NHS9KL._AA115_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-King-James-Version/dp/1565633253/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206749657&sr=8-1)

This is NOT!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21e9g4mZBML._AA115_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Species-Natural-Selection-Preservation-Favoured/dp/B000FBJ9Z6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=fiona-hardware&qid=1206750177&sr=8-1)

This is a book about SCIENCE.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21WB1CFWS8L._PIsitb-dp-arrow,TopRight,21,-23_SH30_OU01_AA115_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Evolution-Development-Natural-Selection/dp/0872202852/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206750075&sr=8-2)

This is NOT!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414KX3R1FPL._SL160_AA115_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-King-James-Version/dp/1565631609/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206749657&sr=8-2)

PLEASE STOP GETTING THEM CONFUSED!!

You may return to your seats, now. Thank you.

(Book images courtesy of Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/).)

[Tubbythin]

These are some of the main reason why evolution is becoming decreasingly popular for scientists in the past couple decades.
It isn't.

There are many more falsities within the theory that could be explained if you would like.
You haven't explained one yet!

If these are sufficient to give you doubt about the theory of evolution
Erm... nope.

then I can give you the support for the genesis narrative which is formulated under the theory of catastrophism.
I thought the genesis narrative was that the Earth was created in 6 days?

[Ateius]

Creationists say a lot of things.

I'm trying to keep my blood pressure down, so I do my best not to listen.

[Whack01]

ughh... The creationist you're talking to was trying to recite talking points he likely heard from ken ham and failed miserably, though he did state point 1 correctly. Don't bother debunking him, he'll just go back hear the 'correct' argument then you'll have to either repeat yourself (if you already knew the 'correct' version of these arguments) or update your arguments (if you don't). If he can't get his own arguments right how's he going to understand yours?

/a creationist
// I won't argue one way or the other on his talking points right now. I'm just saying I've heard them almost verbatim before and he didn't even recite them right.

[Olowkow]

These are some of the main reason why evolution is becoming decreasingly popular for scientists in the past couple decades.

Yeah, boy, that there evolution has just been on the decline since the 80's. :rolleyes: Seems like you just can't find any books on it anymore since everyone is buying them all. (I think that was Yogi Berra's) :)

[skeptical]

Why is it, that these guys never do any actual research whatsoever on evolutionary theory, and then think they know so much more about it than anyone else? They come on, post the same old things that have been shown to be wrong over and over and over as if no one has ever seen it before. And of course, never come back to actually try to engage in debate, because that may mean they might actually learn something.

The ignorance boggles the mind.

[skeptigirl]

Why is it, that these guys never do any actual research whatsoever on evolutionary theory, and then think they know so much more about it than anyone else? They come on, post the same old things that have been shown to be wrong over and over and over as if no one has ever seen it before. And of course, never come back to actually try to engage in debate, because that may mean they might actually learn something.

The ignorance boggles the mind.I am soooo feeling your pain right now. The ignorance and complete denial of reality boggles the mind.