Science Disproves Evolution

The link you provided is an entire website: Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. If you want us to accept an entire website as evidence, then it is only fair that that you accept an entire website as rebuttal: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy.Of course, debating in this way would be silly, which is why EvC Forum encourages members to state their arguments and evidence in their own words, using links only as references. Here are guidelines 4 and 5:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
   ​
5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Now what was that argument again? --Percy

That would be a website that accurately presents the consensus scientific views of practicing scientists engaged in research that they publish in peer-reviewed technical journals that is then subjected to further peer-review by examination and replication.Walt Brown's views are his own and are in no way representative of the scientific community.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

The title of this thread is "Science Disproves Evolution," not "The Bible Disproves Evolution."Science does not use revelatory books like the Bible and Qur'an as cheat sheets. It gathers its evidence from the real world, and since researchers everywhere are looking at the same real world they should over time develop consensus, which is precisely what happens.No real world evidence points to a young earth or a recent flood, and no one unaware of Genesis and only looking at the real world would ever arrive at such an idea.Though the title of this thread is "Science Disproves Evolution," a quick look at Message 1 reveals that Pahu is using an exceptionally broad definition of evolution, and the title really should be "Science Disproves Science," which makes as much sense as anything else he's said.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix minor garble in last para.

Really? Look at what you said in Message 59: That's a standard YEC position. Why would you argue that modern dating methods are inaccurate if you're not a YEC and instead think the earth is ancient? You also believe Biblical arguments belong in science threads, another standard YEC position.What your position really is is confused!Looking at Message 1 I'd say that dating arguments are on-topic, but Biblical arguments about prophecy are off-topic, and sophistry about supposed scientific bias and bullying in the face of overt creationist shenanigans and when over 60% of the American public thinks the world is less than 10,000 years old is not only off-topic but ludicrous.The title says, "Science Disproves Evolution," by which the author really meant "Science Disproves an Ancient Earth." If you have scientific evidence against an ancient earth then let's hear it, but no more Bible talk, please.--Percy

He included a link to the site at the bottom of his post, the bottom half of his post comes from this page:In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.I couldn't find where at that site the top half came from.--Percy

Hi Buz,I'm glad your position is clear to you. The reason I call it confused is that your "hypothesis" offers no self-consistent explanation or any real-world supporting evidence, and it is really only your own idiosyncratic interpretation of Genesis.Please leave Biblical arguments out of science threads. Science is not based upon revelatory evidence. In the science threads you should offer real-world evidence for your position. EvC Forum exists to examine creationism's claim that creationism is every bit as much legitimate science as evolution, supported by the evidence and deserving of representation in science classrooms. If your hypothesis is supported by revelation then that's great for your religion, but it isn't science. In the science forums your arguments must be based upon real-world evidence.--Percy

Pahu, could you post something in your own words? You're the one debating here, not Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. As the Forum Guidelines state:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Also, the 2nd half of your post is an example duplicate of the 2nd half of your Message 49. The Forum Guidelines state:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

--Percy

Hi Pahu,EvC Forum is a debate site focused on the creation/evolution controversy. If you'd like to debate then you should state your views in your own words, as the Forum Guidelines request:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
   ​
5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
   ​
6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

In this way we avoid what you're doing, which is posting material you don't understand. If you don't understand it, how are you going to debate it?If instead you'd just like to just post useful links and information, that should be done over at the [forum=-17] forum.--Percy

Hi Pahu,Almost all my posts to you in this thread have been requests to follow the Forum Guidelines, which you have so far failed to do. Participating in discussion primarily through the use of cut-n-pastes and links is strongly discouraged here. EvC Forum wishes for participants to compose their arguments in their own words, because this guarantees that members only participate in discussions about things they actually understand.I play two roles here at EvC Forum, one as a participant, and another as a moderator. As I am, unfortunately, also a participant in this thread I will not take any administration action here, but if you do not cease using a predominately cut-n-paste approach, and if you don't soon begin to seriously engage discussion, then I will request that other moderators examine your behavior in this thread to see if they think action is warranted.No more cut-n-pastes except short ones. No more links except as a reference to support your points. Just you writing your thoughts in your own words. Okay?--Percy