• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Online Reference: Selected Sites Denying the Theory of Evolution

ttechsan

twitter @ttechsan
Apologetics Press

Take a look at many articles. Pick the one that interest you most and you feel you can disprove so we can discuss.

I can pick one I like from this and do the same. Have you try to disprove the one I pick.

You will also notice this link has a topic list at the top which has list of many articles per topic you can read any you might like to see what it says.

I thought you might enjoy this site.
 

ttechsan

twitter @ttechsan
Behe Responds to Postings in Talk.Origins Newsgroup: Behe, Michael One review of Talk Origins

Talk.origins - Conservapedia Another review of Talk Origins

More Problems with TalkOrigins' Response on the Cambrian Explosion - Evolution News & Views Another review of Talk Origins

My point is I have read many that are not real glowing and there are others. I get referred to them so often as if it is the Holy Grail for Evolutionist when according to many reviews I read it shouldn't be. Just food for thought.

Again I want written articles. I thought I had made this pretty clear.
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
I think we should probably have separate stickied topics for evolution resources and creationist resources. If we try to put them together, we'll just end up turning it into a debate thread (which is not its purpose).
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
You're right, of course. For that reason, the thread has been in effect split over.
 

ttechsan

twitter @ttechsan
The reason I ask is this. I find that truly few people really openly research a subject. They only read material that reinforces their own opinion. They rarely read opposing opinions and very rarely will read rebuttals and counter rebuttals to the point they could actually debate for both sides so they know will them both so well.

I was recently studying a topic and I came across this article that I think was written so well about the subject doing exactly as I mentioned above.

Now for the monitors, I don't know how else to illustrate this point but to link this article. It has nothing to do with evolution and creationism. It is religious in nature but not to converting to one religion or another.

Even as a Christian. My wife and I have a glass of wine when we celebrate another anniversary of her being breast and now thyroid cancer free. Our wedding anniversary. That really is about it. I found this article interesting to say the least. Has it changed our minds? Not sure yet. We've both read it and it makes very good points I've never known both ways. We don't have more than a glass each regardless.

My point of this post is to illustrate how thorough this man did his research both ways and researched rebuttals and counter rebuttals. That impressed greatly. I personally have never read any article that so thoroughly went through both sides and rebuttals and counter rebuttals like this.

I feel in creations vs evolution both sides need to do as thorough a job as this man did on this subject. I don't think either side does that. I find each side rarely reads the other side much less the rebuttals and counter rebuttals like is necessary to honest open research. That way an honest not biased decision is made.

Monitors, So I am asking you to please allow this as the reason is to illustrate how he presented his opinion by how he did his research and handling both sides and rebuttals and counter rebuttals. I've never seen a creationist nor evolutionist article be this thorough for both sides, esp handling all the rebuttals and counter rebuttals. He really impressed me.

I hope you guys get as much out of how he handled the topic as I did regardless of the topic itself. It is how he handled the topic!
Enjoy. If you actually have read one like this for creationism or evolution please give the links for us all to enjoy.

P.S. Sorry I am so inconsistent on here. I just struggle with so many health issues. I never know from day to day when I will be able to come back and if so how long I will be able to stay. For those that even care I do apologize.

Jesus and Wine
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Not just believers against ToE (Theory of Evolution), but scientists, too.

75 Theses Against Evolution
  1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
  2. There is life on Earth now.
  3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
  4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
  5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
  6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
  7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
  8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
  9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
  10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
  11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
  12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
  13. Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
  14. Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
  15. “Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
  16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
  17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
  18. The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
  19. There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
  20. The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
  21. There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
  22. The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
  23. Growth and reproduction require cell division.
  24. Cell division is a complex process.
  25. There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
  26. According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
  27. Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
  28. There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
  29. Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
  30. Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
  31. Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
  32. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
  33. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
  34. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
  35. There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
  36. According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
  37. Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
  38. The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
  39. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
  40. According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
  41. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
  42. There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
  43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
  44. Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
  45. Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
  46. Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
  47. No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
  48. Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
  49. Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
  50. Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
  51. Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
  52. There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
  53. Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
  54. Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
  55. Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
  56. The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
  57. Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
  58. There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
  59. Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
  60. Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
  61. Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
  62. There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
  63. There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
  64. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
  65. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
  66. Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
  67. The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
  68. The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
  69. All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
  70. Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
  71. Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
  72. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
  73. When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
  74. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
  75. Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i6f.htm
 

infrabenji

Active Member
Apologetics Press

Take a look at many articles. Pick the one that interest you most and you feel you can disprove so we can discuss.

I can pick one I like from this and do the same. Have you try to disprove the one I pick.

You will also notice this link has a topic list at the top which has list of many articles per topic you can read any you might like to see what it says.

I thought you might enjoy this site.
I’m still trying find an article that isn’t wrong prima facie. These are garbage, no offense, you have anything a little more substantive? Maybe pick your best argument and start with one claim and we can go from there, if you want. If not, no sweat.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I’m still trying find an article that isn’t wrong prima facie. These are garbage, no offense, you have anything a little more substantive? Maybe pick your best argument and start with one claim and we can go from there, if you want. If not, no sweat.
The thread is from 2014.

I think it might be a bit of a wait for the reply.
 

infrabenji

Active Member
The thread is from 2014.

I think it might be a bit of a wait for the reply.
Hahahahahaha that’s so funny! I had no idea. I’m brand new to online forums and their workings. So threads can just sit indefinitely? Good to know. I assumed they had an expiration date or something. I’m such a dipnut sometimes. Thanks again for pointing that out to me. Have a good night.
 
https://www.amazon.com/Conjugation-...ugation&qid=1629823655&s=digital-text&sr=1-12
Apologetics Press

Take a look at many articles. Pick the one that interest you most and you feel you can disprove so we can discuss.

I can pick one I like from this and do the same. Have you try to disprove the one I pick.

You will also notice this link has a topic list at the top which has list of many articles per topic you can read any you might like to see what it says.

I thought you might enjoy this site.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Check out this book, it presents some compelling information discrediting evolution and it also presents some scientific facts that were presented in the Bible thousands of years prior to their discovery by modern science.

https://www.amazon.com/Conjugation-...ugation&qid=1629823655&s=digital-text&sr=1-12
I was just going over this thread for the first time, and did see that it started in 2014 with few comments after that. But one poster's list makes sense. Since I don't like to take too many points at a time, I'll just repost the first 9 points he made:
  1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
  2. There is life on Earth now.
  3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
  4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
  5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
  6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
  7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
  8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
  9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
I would just like to say that it seems that initially the Earth could have looked somewhat like Mars, with a few exceptions, I think. Barren. Void of life.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Not just believers against ToE (Theory of Evolution), but scientists, too.

75 Theses Against Evolution
  1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
  2. There is life on Earth now.
  3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
  4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
  5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
  6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
  7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
  8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
  9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
  10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
  11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
  12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
  13. Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
  14. Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
  15. “Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
  16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
  17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
  18. The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
  19. There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
  20. The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
  21. There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
  22. The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
  23. Growth and reproduction require cell division.
  24. Cell division is a complex process.
  25. There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
  26. According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
  27. Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
  28. There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
  29. Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
  30. Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
  31. Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
  32. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
  33. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
  34. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
  35. There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
  36. According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
  37. Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
  38. The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
  39. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
  40. According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
  41. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
  42. There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
  43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
  44. Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
  45. Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
  46. Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
  47. No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
  48. Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
  49. Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
  50. Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
  51. Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
  52. There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
  53. Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
  54. Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
  55. Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
  56. The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
  57. Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
  58. There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
  59. Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
  60. Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
  61. Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
  62. There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
  63. There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
  64. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
  65. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
  66. Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
  67. The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
  68. The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
  69. All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
  70. Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
  71. Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
  72. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
  73. When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
  74. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
  75. Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.
Seventy-five Theses

What an hilarious collection of straw man and argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies.

The theory of relativity, and germ theory, and gravity for example don't explain the origins of life. So why is evolution denied here just because it doesn't do what no other scientific theory does? What utter rot...

We know natural processes exist as an objective fact, if you want to tack on an unevidenced deity, using inexplicable magic, from a bronze age superstition, then Occam's razor applies. ;)

Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.

Hilarious, I'll bet they exclude leprechauns and mermaids from their biology classes as well, if only we could work out why?:rolleyes::D
 

AdamjEdgar

Active Member
The theory of relativity, and germ theory, and gravity for example don't explain the origins of life. So why is evolution denied here just because it doesn't do what no other scientific theory does? What utter rot...
because humanism uses that very same science to claim God and religion are false and a curse to society. The atheist view of Science demands that it is allowed to deny God. Also, the interpretations of science cannot include God! So we are allowed to interpret only if we first deny God. I see very obvious problems with that. humanism is setting a precedent that says only its world view can determine our existence through supporting science investigation. I thought Science did not determine such things as they are philosophical questions.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
because humanism uses that very same science to claim God and religion are false and a curse to society. The atheist view of Science demands that it is allowed to deny God. Also, the interpretations of science cannot include God! So we are allowed to interpret only if we first deny God. I see very obvious problems with that. humanism is setting a precedent that says only its world view can determine our existence through supporting science investigation. I thought Science did not determine such things as they are philosophical questions.
Tell that to Francis Collins. In fact you might want to check out this Christian website:

Francis Collins — Founder of BioLogos, Author of Language of God - Person - BioLogos
 
Top