What you're itching for here is to embark on an endeavor that will go on indefinitely, and change no one's mind. Being fresh out of LIberal Think Tank University, and armed to the teeth with this arsenal of knowledge to destroy the Old World Bumpkin Mindset, I'll ask again why you are choosing such a small fish tank to do battle? Surely there is an endless array of Creationist websites where you could retrain multiple minds at once with this great new knowledge you have gained about the universe, no?
Charles Darwin truly was a great man. Since his death, The Powers That Be have seen the power of his message (see Third Reich) and how they can use it to their advantage if they can convince the general public that all the smart people in the world have already proven evolution to be true. There are MULTITUDES of scientists who have issues with evolution, and many who outright reject it; the general public doesn't hear much about them, but thanks to the internet and printed books, their qualifications and objections can be easily found by anyone who HAS AN OPEN MIND and wishes to pursue the Other Perspective.
So what happens is many who have accepted evolution use the observation method to determine that evolution is a fact. They observe that the vast majority of scientists accept it, so therefore it is proven true. When they hear that many scientists reject it, they assume that these scientists are just nuts, based on the fact that they are in the minority.
Let's hear what problems Chucky D. himself had with his THEORY:
"Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, FATAL TO THE THEORY.
These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads: First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some other animal with widely different habits and structure? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, an organ of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, an organ so wonderful as the eye?
Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to the instinct which leads the bee to make cells, and which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?
Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?"
Toward the end of his life, Darwin openly admitted: “Not one change of species into another is on record…. We cannot prove that a single species has changed into another.”
Of course several "missing links" were discovered in recent years; all turned out to be hoaxes by desperate scientists hoping to be the one to finally solve Darwin's dilemma and "discover' a missing link.
Microevolution abounds. Macroevolution has never been observed or proven.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also a major problem for evolutionists.
Countless natural systems could not possibly have been going at anywhere near their present rate if the earth was even close to as old as evolutionists claim: the levels of helium in the atmosphere, the amount of meteoric dust on the Earth, flux of chemical elements from rivers to oceans, rate at which various elements leach out of the continents, decay of Earth's magnetic field, solar system dust, population size, the amount of top soil, amount of sediment in the ocean, influx of radio-carbon into the Earth's system, recession rate of the moon, decay rate of comets, the size that the sun would have to have been billions of years ago, I could go on and on, and on........
For those who care to take perhaps their first look ever at the creationist perspective, I suggest "A Scientific Analysis of Genesis" by Edward F. Blick; "Starlight and Time", by D. Russell Humphreys; "Scientific Creationism", by Henry Morris; and "The Collapse of Evolution", by Scott Muse.
Of course, an open mind is required to read any of these books.
Now one may be inclined to pick and choose a small segment or two from above and pick it apart, and perhaps even be successful. But one would be completely overwhelmed if he/she were to endeavor to tackle all of the above issues, keeping in mind that the above list is greatly shortened by time constraints. So I would assume that the tactical response would probably be a lump dismissal/discreditng of the creationist viewpoint and all who hold it. And that such a lump dismissal would be based off of the viewpoint that they hold, and not the matters in question themselves. But I guess I'll see.......................
- By cpgrower126
- By andynorth
- By elaineo
- By ChefDean
- By mediocre_god