Links for the Creation/Evolution Controversy (not a debate topic)

This topic is to compile links, not to debate their content.And I'm uncertain that some of the messages even had anything to do with posted links.Adminnemooseus

I've just wrote this about abiogenesis and evolution.Creation and evolution viewsOf course, I personally don't see what the big deal is in admitting that the warm-pond was Darwin's idea. It only has relevance to evolution. Now if evolutionists were to say, "yes, we have to argue abiogenesis, because we accept evolution" then I would be okay with that.It seems to me, people want to disassociate themselves from abiogenesis, because it is a poor explanation of specified complexity and is basically a belief, which draws people away from the power of the epithetical value the word, 'science' can gain, for their materialistic worldview.I shall shut up now, since this is only a thread for links.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

It would be impolite for me to not share this link to Phat and the members of EvC, since I gave mention of him and EvC forum, at another site. It could be deemed to be very rude to mention people behind their back, so here is the link if you would like to read it: it is my examination of the study by evolutionist that told unbelievers in evolution to, "think harder".It would seem as though the writer of the study doesn't have any knowledge of potential errors that can be inferred from her study. Indeed.Bot Verification(I was going to post this in the "think harder" thread but it has been closed, so here is the link here)Bye for now.

You're kidding, right?Pretty much every non-creationist to ever visit that site has been summarily banished without warning or explanation. Nothing can be discussed there, it's a pulpit.If you want to discuss it, do it here where both sides of arguments are not only tolerated but actively encouraged.

I don't believe in hurting or insulting people just for the sake of it but at the same time I cannot see why idiotic ideas or concepts cannot be pointed out. YEC is based on the ideology that in the "battle" of reality vs. Bible the former must yield every time. That IMO is sheer idiocy and such a waste of human capabilities.I believe that YECs are good people at heart just like normal people - they have just unfortunately been brainwashed into an ideology that has zero to do with reality or rationality. Sad state of affairs...

I'm not sure exactly what the topic would be, but since this isn't a discussion thread someone should propose a new topic to discuss this over at Proposed New Topics.

I stumbled across the website, Evolution News and Views, the other day.Despite the name, it is in fact a creationist website (or, rather, ‘Intelligent Design’), but there are actually some well written articles on there. Some of the contributors actually seem to read biology journals, and report on things they can twist to give an anti-evolution slant.It’s also quite well presented, and has a very good presence on Google. On a worrying number of topics it’s one of the first results I get on Google. I found it after reading the abstract of an article about problems with RNA World hypothesis. The full article was behind a paywall, so I went Googling to see if I could find more details in a blog or news report, and this was the first results.Apologies if this website is old news to everyone else, but I thought some here might find it interesting.

That website is sponsored by the Discovery Institute.I wouldn't trust anything they say.

Here is a link to a nice blog dealing with the Discovery Institute.A Visit to the Museum with Klinghoffer | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

I think the important thing is that we can trust the web site as presenting an opinion on ID. Surely that is of interest to people debating the topic.

Bot VerificationJust posted this at EFF. It's not a refutation of human evolution, it actually isn't a study of human evolution at all, it is just a logical evaluation of similar shapes/structures. It's just for reading, you don't have to, "hate" on me, just read it or don't. I think the points I have made are pretty unavoidably true, it seems to me that showing anatomies that "evolve" is easier to do if two anatomies are already similar. Obviously it is begging-the-question to assume that those similarities are because of evolution if that is what you are trying to prove. (evolution)

Oh, look. Your post already has a rebuttal that is a pretty good start on why your point is pretty silly. I'll add another point. The fact that we do find similarities even in situations that you say are difficult would seem to be the final nail in the coffin for your double talk. Of course more dissimilar animals are more have fewer similarities. How could that not be the case by definition. And yet we still find hind leg remnants in a whale that show similarities to hippos.What's your point again? More dissimilar things look less similar to each other than more similar things do, hence what? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

But that's exactly my point. A whale is a mammal, with mammalian-bones by design, so to find bones of land-mammals that look similar to it is tautologous.Indeed, shapes similar to eachother being more similar is tautologous.The term you were looking for was, "tautologous".The point is - it is then easy to make it look like there was an evolution even if there was not.Have you noticed there isn't anything really all that similar to a seahorse and so there are no ancestors for that fish.Why is it that where there is dissimilarity, there tends to be no evolution-story? I don't see you providing a whole selection for platypus evolution, unless you are going to use ducks as your transitionals.Perhaps NoNukes, you should put your brain into gear next time - everything you have just said supports the whole point of what I am saying. In a world where there are millions of organisms you are going to be able to create transitionals for many of them, even if evolution had not happened, because mathematically and logically, it is GUARANTEED that you have an anatomical smorgasboard.You should also realize that a, "rebuttal" could be regarded as a, "response" to an argument. Merely responding to an argument can be be done by anyone, even a five year old. But an actual refutation is an entirely different matter.Please now REFRAIN from trying to debate me in the links and information thread. I only responded to your post because you gave me permission by responding to a link, with an argument. Ahh but the problem with saying these things about someone far cleverer than you will ever be, is that they can actually make you look silly, rather than just calling you silly(or your points at least). some epithets such as, "silly", "rebuttal" and "good start", won't wash with me. Those are just empty-headed, bare-assertions, and tomato-throwing.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

So all mammals are not just alike, but the same so that finding consistent structures in mammals is tautologous. Mike, that's nonsense. Given that I am not a biologist, is what I've 'noticed' really the point?Yeah, there do seem to be ancestors for a sea horse.http://fusedjaw.com/...beginners-guide-to-seahorse-evolution That is not what you've shown, Mike. Evolution is not a straight line, it is a tree. The common ancestors for dissimilar things are very distant. When you look at the leaves, you have to follow a long way before you get to the trunk.Dissimilar things look different. Yes. And to get there you take large groupings like mammals and say that they are all the same, despite the huge differences between them.Well that's exactly what is expected. Evolution and common descent necessarily produces a tree like structure in which the things you are suggesting are expected. Close relatives have more similar traits that distant relatives, yet we can find evolutionary paths between even reptiles and mammals. There is no reason at all for a sea horse to have any substantial morphological similarities to mammals or reptiles. On the other hand, there is no real reason to expect a tree like structure for special creation.Does a platypus have a place in the tree? Yes it does have a place as being a mammal that is common to other mammals from an extremely distant branch. Are you claiming that we cannot find similarities with other mammals? Well you don't seem to be. In fact, the platypus reinforces the idea that there is a link between mammals and reptiles.Engage your own brain, bro.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Of course, we are all familiar with creationists' repeated accusation that Darwinism is to blame for Nazism. Actually that claim goes back to the hey-day of the anti-evolution movement, the 1920's, though at that time it was German imperialism and WWI atrocities that Darwin was being blamed for. Falsely, as we all know. Nazi racial ideology was religious, creationist and opposed to DarwinismNazi racial ideology was creationist and explicitly rejected Darwin. Instead of accepting that all races descended from common ancestors, they believed that they were all created separately by God with the Aryans being the superior special creation, the Master Race. Their condemnation of inter-racial marriage, their purity laws, and their breeding efforts were not attempts to "breed the Master Race," but rather to preserve it from mixing with "sub-humans". Nazi ideology and practice taught and relied entirely on artificial selection (used by breeders of livestock), not Darwinism's natural selection.Long and well-researched quoting from many primary sources from Nazis and from the founders of their ideology. The author also examines creationist treatments to find that they instead quote from sources writing about Nazism and have to rely on innuendo instead of the facts (eg, blaming the Holocaust on Darwin because "evolution devalues human life", when instead it can be directly blamed on Nazi creationist beliefs).