01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massive mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution.
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
The foregoing Is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 18].
That guy is not debunking anything. Look at 1.1:
According to Big Bang theory, the universe came from nothing. But something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, there must be a creator. REPLY: (i) First, of all, the idea of the universe "coming from" nothing, far from being a stipulation of standard Big Bang theory, is inconsistent with it.
That's snake oil. Matter and energy exists. It had to come from somewhere. The Big Bang is science's best explanation for it. Since it falls way short, Mark Vuletic throws in something called the "theory of quantum gravity." Then he says "no theory of quantum gravity has yet been fully developed."
Patrick, that's not debunking anything.
Many other replies are along the lines of "that's right but irrelevant:"
3.5: Cells are too complex to have come into existence all at once by pure chance. REPLY: This is true, but irrelevant
or "we're still looking into it."
3.2: Amino acids in living organisms are all left-handed, but in nature, equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids form, so one would expect them to occur in equal proportions in living organisms if abiogenesis were true. REPLY: There is no consensus on how this problem is to be resolved, but there are several possibilities that continue to be explored.
About the only real debunking I saw was the one in which he showed that Einstein was not an anti-evolutionist.
And thanks for the ping.
Pseudo-Patrick Henry posts this well-worn anti-creationism list on every thread even remotely related to Creationism. The first time I posted a pro-creationism list was a couple of weeks ago. A week or so later, on another thread, PPH posted his list again, and I posted mine again and he posted to me calling me a reflex poster. These people epitomize what they accuse their opponents of being. I call him Pseudo-Patrick Henry because the real Patrick Henry was a creationist. I've posted the quotes from Patrick Henry to prove this twice, but the Darwinists accused me of being a robo or reflex poster. If someone wants the quotes let me know. I don't like casting my pearls before swine, but there are newbies who sometimes read these threads and aren't aware of the Pseudo-Patrick Henry broken record routine and might want an alternate view. I can copy and paste as well as PPH and the rest of his crowd.