New anti-evolution website launched to counter evolution juggernaut.

www.evolutionsucks.org ^ | 12-29-2005 | Douglas Peterson

[budlt2369]

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_06.html

[atlaw]

Following are facts extreme evolutionists don't want the public to know.

1. I am a recently retired public middle school mathematics teacher in West Virginia with over 30 years experience as an educator including administration.

Why do "extreme evolutionists" want to keep your career and recent retirement a secret? (And what's an "extreme evolutionist"?)

For the last five years of my full-time career, with the full knowledge of State, County, and ACLU officials, I demonstrated to my students that mathematics proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense.

Perhaps you'd like to share this mathematic proof.

[The Barbarian]

Wow, an up-to-date summary of the evidence - 1867. Post war, I guess. Civil War.

Let’s take a look at how that stuff wears today:

There are now known fossil intermediates between orangutans and other apes. Sivapithecus, for example.

There are numerous prosimian intermediates in the fossil record showing transitions between Tarsiers and more primitive primates. Eosimias is one such intermediate.

We now have numerous transitionals between elephants and other ungulates, and of course, we now know that the monotremes are transitional between mammals and reptiles.

The rather unfortunate racism exhibited by almost all Europeans of the time was not caused by science. Indeed, evolutionists like Huxley and Darwin pointed out that all humans have a common ancestor and all deserve rights and freedom, while creationists like Fitzroy and Agassiz denied blacks were human and advocated slavery for them. In fact, Darwin’s position on blacks was essentially identical to Lincoln’s.

This was one of the great objections to evolution by creationists at the time.

[Philos]

Is ‘scientific-methodology type’ a Euphemism for “science” that references a non-scientific text as evidence to support itself? The ground gets a bit shaky when you use historical hearsay and parables about morality to support a scientific position.

[Philos]

Apparently science has made no other discoveries in the field of evolutionary biology since 1867. That’s upsetting.

[LogicWings]

Visitors are challenged with a series of questions that current evolutionary theory has no answers for.

Ha - ha - ha. (Opinion masquerading as fact.) Life is one continual joke.

[Red_Devil 232]

What was question #8? I don’t see one. He must have removed it because of your comment!

[Sally Golightly]

That was over a year ago, the answer (and apparently the question) are lost in the mists of time.

It was probably more of what a South African friend terms “kife”.

[usastandsunited]

I haven’t visited an evolution thread on FR in quite some time.

Nice to see they are still “you suck... no YOU suck” type of threads..

Carry on ....

[Danbert]

I believe in micro-creation; I don’t believe in macro-creation.

[chronic cough 420]

To say that evosucks was made for students is the talk of charlatans. Creationists have strawman arguements while claiming accomplishment by refuting 100 year old science. Everyone knows Eco science is shoddy because ours tools have only been refined for few decades. Even without our modern tools, there is no debating the lineage between Australopithecus, homo habilis, homo erectus and homo sapien sapien.

[chronic cough 420]

so pauli, let’s hear what you think. What is homo habilis, homo erectus and Neanderthal? Do you honestly think that God placed these creatures on Earth in 3 seperate instances and that they have no connection with us? Do you think that mapping the human genome is another cultist conspiracy, if not, you must admit that a chimps DNA is 98 percent related to a human.

[nightshiftblues]

It always amazes me how Intelligent Design and Creationism advocates spend all their efforts on what is essentially propaganda. Anti-evolution movies, sermons, debates, books, websites, radio programs etc.

I always wonder, where is the scientific branch of this movement? Where are the hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed articles that back up these claims? Where is the science that is being defended by the creationist/ID propaganda wing?

The simple (and incredible) fact is that it does not exist. They have no alternative to evolution, they cannot be constructive because they dont really stand for anything. If you took the Creationism/ID movement and removed the spin, you would have nothing left.

This is what happened in Dover. ID proponents were deprived of their pulpit and were asked for the science behind the spin. When it turned out that the only “science” at their disposal is a two thousand year old religious text, they lost.