Website review: Darwinism Refuted.com
Someone discovered this in Evolution
•8 reviews since Aug 8, 2005
evolution, religion, pseudoscience
•darwinismrefuted.com
People who like this website
- Kashmyre
Vancouver
- TheHNIC
Texas
- fire75034
Pilot Point
- Mustang-Kev
Henderson
- ericsheasby
Knaxville
- Trippy-Hippie
Shore
- Butok
Juiz De Fora
- ezra03
Abudhabi
StumbleUpon is the best way to discover great web sites, videos, photos, blogs and more - based on your interests.
Everything is submitted and rated by the community. Discover, share and review the best of the web!
Reviews of this website
slfsfslkmcsdguh rated 3 weeks ago- Huge creationist website committed to shitting all over 150 years of hard won scientific truths because it doesn't conform to their beliefs! DNA is not immune to mutations therefore, the only thing which separates micro-evolution from macro-evolution is time! The little half page article on plant life was a real selling point for me, from the page, "We find the same picture in the origin of plants as we met when examining the origin of animals. Plants possess exceedingly complex structures, and it is not possible for these to come about by chance effects and for them to evolve into one another." Clearly, the only alternative is for them to have been created! It seems the author(s) of this site might have wanted to actually study evolution before trying to refute it, but apparently this was just too much to ask!
- Reasonablib rated 6 weeks ago
- I only traveled a couple pages but, what I found was a bunch of straw dogs. This guy seems to base his criticism on a pop explanation of Darwinism and dos not take into account new evidence.
- Scolex rated 7 weeks ago
- Creationists are just the world's best satirists.
- mariclemmer rated 9 months ago
- right...take any class on evolution or vertebrate zoology and get back to me. If you actually understand evolution and the concepts behind it, its a bit harder to dispute.
- Habadakus rated 22 months ago
- In the "Huts and Footprints" section, the writers purport: "To put it briefly, these footprints that were supposed to be 3.6 million years old could not have belonged to Australopithecus. The only reason why the footprints were thought to have been left by members of Australopithecus was the 3.6-million-year-old volcanic layer in which the footprints were found. The prints were ascribed to Australopithecus purely on the assumption that humans could not have lived so long ago." Anyone of a reasonable scientific bend would understand that we don't know everything there is to know about our ancestry. We also do not "descend" from apes, but there are significant similarities which suggest a common ancestor. Since very little Australopithecine fossil remains below the neck exist, we do not know whether they walked upright as we do, or in a more ape-like fashion. To blindly assume that all evolutionists are wrong based on a single example would be as nonsensical as assuming that we were all created from one man and one woman. Well, technically we were, but we are all just mutants - get over it already. Oh, and incidentally: From www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/laetoli.htm : "Species: Australopithecus afarensis Age: 3.6 million years Date of Discovery: 1974-1975 Location: Laetoli, Tanzania Discovered by: Mary Leakey Roughly three and three-quarter million years ago, a volcano erupted in what is now northern Tanzania, blanketing the landscape with volcanic ash. Rain fell, causing the ashy surface to take on the properties of plaster, and across this ground numerous animals walked, leaving their footprints in the wet volcanic ash to be preserved as it turned into a hard cement. One of the creatures that passed across this landscape 3.6 million years ago was a member of the early human species Australopithecus afarensis. In fact, at least two individuals were present, walking along side each other. The importance of the fossil footprints at Laetoli cannot be overstated. They demonstrate incontrovertibly that 3.6 million years ago, early humans were bipedal (walking upright on two legs). Their big toes hardly diverged from the rest of the foot, this can be seen in the photograph at the top right of the imprint. In comparison, a chimpanzee has a highly diverged big toe, and is able to use it like a thumb. Additionally, it is pssoible to tell that the gait of these early humans was "heel-strike" (the heel of the foot hit first) followed by "toe-off" (the toes push off at the end of the stride); the way modern humans walk. Thus, bipedality was essentially developed by this time. Yet from other fossil finds we know that the morphology of the skull, particularly the brain, remained little changed from our ape ancestors in A. afarensis." Why can't we just assume that we were initially incorrect in our assessments that A. afarensis walked like an ape, rather than upright as we do? That would just indicate that our common ancestor occurred even farther back in the past than we can currently see.
- Trippy-Hippie rated 34 months ago
- Had to Tu cause I want to see more.They really are trying now, at least some Neosience backing dem up. Unitentionally humerous
- fire75034 rated 34 months ago
- There is no arguement for evolution it is a load in the drawers. When I see people debating for evolution I cant help but see them as fools.
- Mondo-Ron rated 34 months ago
- Good read...
Subscribe to updates