Validity of the statements and arguments of this site.?

Question

I would want to prove it myself but I'm only a 14 year old boy. So I would like someone with a higher level of education to skim through this, or thoroughly read it, whatever your time or mood decides, and tell me if this is valid, or baseless.
Here:

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

Tags: science, evolution, creation, God, Darwin, scientist, argument, Yahoo, test, prove etc.

Answer 1

Only an ignorant GULLIBLE & superstitious 12yo would fall for one word of that obvious nonsense.

You believe in bigfoot & the Easter Bunny too?

Answer 2

OK, there's too much wrong in there to actually post here. I'd run out of space. Let's pick a few, though:



Genetics

The bit describing mutations starts out alright, until the point where the author describes mutations as being "a complex and precise process that has much biochemical signaling and purpose". This is total BS. A mutation is a typo, nothing more. There's no reason behind it, and no purpose. Sometimes it produces something that's worse, sometimes something better, but usually has no effect. Later, there is something about the odds of the same mutation showing up 1000 times in a population, which is again, totally wrong. It doesn't need to show up independently - the original mutation gets passed on from generation to generation, and that tiny boost to survival adds up statistically.



Statistics

The author fundamentally misunderstands evolution. It's not life/death. It's small increases or decreases in the chances of survival and reproduction, and even then, it's only a chance. An incredibly fit individual can be unlucky and get killed in a forest fire, while an unfit but lucky individual can still have offspring. The chances build up and even out over time. Also, there is the standard BS about the chances of a gene randomly coming together - which neglects selection all together.



Biochemistry

This is just a bunch of gibberish... it's technically biochemistry, but it doesn't relate to abiogenesis. It's also moot, because abiogenesis is separate from evolution. Another example that the author does not know what he or she is talking about.



Information

The author neither defines nor understands the nature of information and how it arises.



Thermodynamics

Again, the author is going on about stuff that they don't understand. The second law only applies to a closed system, but the earth has constant energy input from the sun. Supposedly the sun is only capable of destroying... but does that mean the author is also trying to disprove photosynthesis?



Astronomy

The author just keeps drifting further and further away. Evolution has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the big bang. Evolution is the change in a population over time, and is a fundamental property of life - it would happen if the world and life came about naturally, or if life and the earth itself were sculpted by the hand of God.



Paleontology

The author lists a bunch of stuff that is actually evidence for evolution, and simply states that it is not. It's a giant non sequitur. The bit on hoaxes stands out - these hoaxes were discovered and disproved by scientists (not evolution deniers) and were promptly removed from the pool of evidence for evolution. The perpetrators careers were effectively ended.



Radiometric Dating

Fundamentally misunderstands the concept of refinement of techniques, testing, and reinforcement. Also, misrepresents carbon dating.



"Evolutionists"

Quote mining. Simple as that. Plus, it's irrelevant - put a bunch of scientists in a room, and they *will* disagree. Anyone who thinks that scientists just sit around and pat each other on the backs while agreeing on something has never seen a professional discussion between two scientists. This is either just extreme intellectual laziness (re-posting points that other people have made), or intentional dishonesty... which is especially striking because the next section is on Morality (as far as I know, lying doesn't magically become OK just because the purpose is to trick people into accepting your own religion).



Morality

It couldn't be more irrelevant. It's an argument from final consequences - basically that evolution can't be true, because then my beliefs would be wrong. Throw in a few quotes from historical monsters using a twisted (and completely wrong) version of evolution to justify their actions after-the-fact for good measure.



So, there we go. I've read it all, and everything on the page is crap, and was written by someone that appears to have no actual understanding of biology beyond the high school level. Most of the points were debunked a while ago (yet that never seems to stop people from bringing them up). Check out the link below for actual citations.

Answer 3

Yes Joshua. EVERYTHING on that page is crap. And yes, I have read every one of these arguments on this page, and dozens more like it. This particular text has been copied word-for-word in many different forums ... and as always it is difficult to know who the original author is, because Creationists frequently copy-paste each other without giving any hint that they are doing so, much less crediting the original author.



Other pages on which this article appears, (word-for-word):

http://whoeverfightsmonsters-nhuthnance.blogspot.com/2010/07/some-problems-with-evolution-and.html

http://aoe3.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=st&fn=2&tn=30506&st=46

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136498&page=5

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wMG5UCq-WXgJ:www.yumetal.net/forum/topic/25327-evolucija/&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us





To see that the author of this article is glaringly dishonest, go down to "Reason Number 9: Evolutionists are not Evolution's Friend." You don't even need to know anything about the science ... just how to Google, and how to read.



Because if someone is an 'evolutionist' and is "quoted" to give support to the claim that evolution is wrong ... then there's a really good chance that the 'evolutionist' is being MISQUOTED. And you can check this! Take one of these quotes from famous 'evolutionists', look it up, and see if the author of the article is representing the quoted person truthfully, or is dishonestly *misrepresenting* what was said.



Let me give you a general example, and a specific example:





First, note that many of these are not quotes about evolution at all, but about the ORIGIN OF LIFE. Evolution is about how life *changes*, not how life *started*. All biologists will tell you that, while we do understand evolution very very well, we do NOT yet know how life started.



So quoting 'evolutionists' as they are saying that questions about the origin of life are 'speculative', is incredibly DISHONEST when interspersed with quotes about evolution ... as if the two are the same thing!



It would be like quoting physicists who admit that we don't know how gravity *started*, as some sort of admission that they are not sure that gravity exists at all!!!



Really think about that for a second, and you can start to get a glimpse of the blatant DISHONESTY of the author of this article.





But I can give you a specific example of a MISQUOTE.



Take the Francis Crick quote: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."



But the quote cuts Crick off in mid-sentence, and does include the rest of the paragraph:



". . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote74

Answer 4

Essentially everything on this web page is CRAP...



Here is a technique used by creationists...



Throw out many, many statements with wild unsupported claims...



If a person carefully debunks one claim - the creationists wins because all the rest go uncontested...



Why do they go uncontested? Because it is much more difficult to carefully debunk a single claim than it is to come up with ten wild claims...



The "Cambrian Explosion" lasted 55 MILLION years and, yet, they treat it like it happened in an instant.



"In fact every phyla represented today are in the Cambrian. There were 26 phyla in the Cambrian and all those phyla have not changed at all to this date. " WRONG...



There are currently 36 animal phyla, 11 plant phyla, 6 fungal phyla, 29 bacterial phyla and 5 archaeal Phyla...



The key deception here is to choose the almost highest rank in the In biological classification system. They could have chosen "Kingdom" but they would have looked silly as there are only a few - Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, Bacteria...



So, they went one down to Phyla. But that rank is very general, too...



The fact that many of today's phyla had evolved BY THE END of the 55 million year long "explosion" is not surprising. Evolution produces new designs BUT it also can make many sets of organisms as a "variations on a theme" which is what a phyla is.

Answer 5

Creationists trust the universe exists or is guided with information from some variety of wise effect. That earth exists is undeniable. Evolution is the concept that existence in the international transformations with time, and costs for fossil information in sedimentary rock strata showing convinced time sessions with many species now extinct. Evolution, does no longer exclude an intelligence crafting the universe, yet why might want to a God make vestigial organs in people that serve no function? even if faith anwers all questions with an person-friendly anwer, "God made it that way". technology only seeks to understand the universe because it truly is, or looks with the perfect 'wager' of the on the spot in accordance with records that exists in concrete variety as actuality. The link decrease than has some references. good success, keep in innovations Scopes lost the 'monkey trial'. have interesting yet do not get in hassle..

Answer 6

the only things i saw that weren't outright lies/misrepresentations were the definition of some of the terms (but not even all of them, several were oversimplifications or strawmen)





suffice it to say, the VAST majority of what's said on that page is, to put it frankly, crap. it's rather clear it's author either is purposely deceitful, or grossly ignorant of the subject and is parroting information from other deceitful/ignorant people...