Tópico: Site criacionista.

[UBorba]

Olha como os criacionistas conseguem distorcer as coisas:
<http://www.anointed-one.net/atheism.html>

[Dbohr]

O mais chato é ter que responder de novo e de novo aos mesmos argumentos falhos... blargh!   

[Luis Dantas]

Custei a conseguir acesso ao texto, por isso vou copiá-lo para cá:

Atheism is a lack of belief mentality which rejects the existence of anything
supernatural.  By default, atheists are also naturalists and evolutionists. They
believe there is a natural explanation for all circumstances and nothing has
ever occurred that has a supernatural answer.  While atheism does not break any
state or federal laws, it does break several scientific laws.  A scientific law
is defined as the observance and recognition of a repeatable process in nature. 
It is widely accepted as a statement of fact and a universal truth. Scientific
laws do not need complex external proofs. They are accepted at face value
because they have always been observed to be true.  A miracle is an event which
is inexplicable by the laws of nature.  A miracle contradicts natural,
scientific laws and atheists typically scoff at the suggestion that miracles
have ever occurred.  What scientific laws does atheism break?





___________________________________________________________ ____________________







The Laws of Conservation





The laws of conservation are basic laws in physics that state which processes
can or cannot occur in nature.  Each law maintains the total value of the
quantity governed by that law (e.g. matter and energy) remains unchanged during
physical processes.  Conservation laws have the broadest possible application of
all laws in physics and are considered to be the most fundamental laws in
nature.  In 1905, the theory of relativity showed mass was a form of energy and
the two laws governing these quantities were combined into a single law
conserving the total amount of mass and energy.  This law says neither matter
nor energy can be created or destroyed.  This fact leads to an inescapable
question.



 

If matter and energy cannot be created, how did they originate? 

Where did the entire physical universe come from? 





Again, it is impossible to create matter and energy through natural methods. 
However, they do exist, so we find ourselves in a quandary.  It would seem to
the unbiased either matter and energy made themselves from nothing or a
supernatural creator made them.  Both answers violate the law of conservation. 
The fact that matter and energy cannot be created is consistent with the claim
in Genesis which says God rested from his work and all he created.  This law of
science contradicts the notion that matter came from nothing through natural
means.  Bible believing theists understand the universe was framed by the Word
of God and  what is seen did not come from things that are visible.  God is the
one who calls those things that do not exist as though they did.





Why couldn't the universe have always existed?

Because nothing that has a beginning and an end could have always existed.





Today, virtually all scientists accept the Big Bang theory which says the entire
universe came into existence at a particular point in time when all of the
galaxies, stars and planets were formed.  The Law of Entropy says closed systems
go from a state of high energy to low energy and from order to disorder.  All
closed systems, including our universe, disintegrate over time as they decay to
a lower order of available energy and organization.  Entropy always increases
and never decreases in a closed system.  All scientific observations confirm
everything continues to move towards a greater state of decay and disorder. 
Because the available energy is being used up and there is no source of new
energy, the universe could not have always existed.  If the universe has always
existed, it would now be uniform in temperature, suffering what is known as heat
death.  Heat Death occurs when the universe has reached a state of maximum
entropy.  It is a fact that one day our sun and all stars in the universe will
burn out.  Electromagnetic radiation will disappear and all matter will lose its
vibrational energy.  Because the stars cannot burn forever and because they are
still currently burning, they could not have always existed because they would
have already burned out by now. 



Some believe the law of entropy cannot be applied to the universe because they
feel the universe is an open system and not a closed one.  A closed system is
defined as a system in which neither matter nor energy can be exchanged with its
surroundings.  Matter and energy cannot enter or escape from a closed system. It
has boundaries that cannot be crossed.  The definition of the word universe is
all matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies and the contents of
intergalactic space, regarded as a whole. 





If the universe is "all matter and energy", how could it be an open system?

If the universe is everything, how can there be something else out there to
provide more matter and energy?





The skeptic asks, "If God created the universe, then who created God?"  God is
the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question, "Who created God?" is
illogical.  A better question would be, "If the universe needs a cause, then why
doesn't God need a cause?  And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the
universe need a cause?"  Everything which has a beginning has a cause.  The
universe has a beginning; therefore, the universe has a cause.  It is important
to stress the words "which has a beginning".  The universe requires a cause
because it had a beginning.  God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so he
does not need a cause.  Einstein's general relativity shows that time is linked
to matter and space.  Time itself would have begun along with matter and space
at the beginning of the universe.  Since God is the creator of the whole
universe, he is the creator of time and is independent and outside of time.  He
is not limited by the time dimension he created, so he has no beginning in time.
   





There is not even one generally accepted scientific theory on the origin of
matter and energy.





___________________________________________________________ ______________________







The Law of Biogenesis





This law is composed of two parts.  The first part states that living things
only come from other living things and not from non-living matter.  Life only
comes from life.  The second part of this law states that when living things
procreate, their offspring are the same type of organism they are.  This is
consistent with the account revealed in Genesis which says all living things
reproduce after their own kind.  Sharks only come from other sharks, snakes from
other snakes, owls from other owls, orange trees from other orange trees, etc. 
Every living organism alive today is a product of and evidence for biogenesis.   
Some people feel biogenesis is not a scientific law, but biogenesis is a law
because no one has ever documented a single case of non-living matter coming to
life in self-replicating form. It is as true today as it has ever been.  On the
other hand, abiogenesis has been debunked many times over.  When someone
observes the first example of spontaneous generation which includes
self-replicating machinery (DNA and RNA), biogenesis will no longer be a law. 
Until that time, it remains one. 



If one stretched out a strand of DNA from the oldest and most basic organism
known to man, a bacterium, it would be almost 1,000 times longer than the
diameter of the bacterium itself.  Its DNA pattern is about 4 million blocks
long.  Where did all of this exquisite information come from?  The components of
a bacterium are far more complex than any machine mankind has ever made.  There
is absolutely zero scientific evidence of the existence of any organisms between
the supposed event of abiogenesis and bacteria.  This is the biggest missing
link of all.  There is absolutely no evidence any such organism is alive today
or was ever alive in the past.  Some feel it makes total sense no such fossils
exist because the creature would have been made up of parts which do not
fossilize well.  If this argument was valid, there would not be any fossils of
bacteria but there are.



Replication requires the complex machinery of DNA and RNA which are collectively
known as the genome. According to evolution, something like the genome could
only achieve its utter complexity through replication, cumulative selection and
mutation.





How could DNA and RNA evolve from something very rudimentary into their present
day intricacy when the organism containing the basic genome would require the
more complex, present day DNA and RNA to replicate? 





The Gene Emergence Project has sponsored an event called The Origin of Life
Prize. They are currently offering 1.35 million dollars to anyone who can offer
a credible, verifiable and reproducible explanation of the origin of life.  They
are by no means a creation science group.  Their advisors include biochemists,
molecular biologists, biophysicists, information theorists, artificial life and
intelligence experts, exo/astrobiologists, mathematicians and origin-of-life
researchers in many related fields.  The Foundation's main purpose is to
encourage interdisciplinary, multi-institutional research projects by
theoretical biophysicists and origin-of-life researchers with special focus on
the origin of genetic information/instructions/message/recipe in living
organisms.  They want to know by what mechanism initial genetic code arose in
nature.  They are requiring full reign be given to the exploration of
spontaneously forming complexity and to inanimate systems of self-organization
and replication.





There is not even one generally accepted scientific theory on the origin of
life.





___________________________________________________________ _____________________





Scientific Method





The scientific method is held in high esteem by most atheists and it is composed
of the following parts...





1) Careful observation of a phenomenon.

2) Formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomenon.

3) Experimentation to demonstrate whether the hypothesis is true or false.

4) A conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.





Nobody has ever observed the creation of matter or energy. 

Nobody has ever observed a molecular cloud collapse or any planet form.

Nobody has ever observed abiogenesis. 

Nobody has ever observed the evolution of any genome. 

Nobody has ever observed any phylum, class, order or family change.         





Evolutionists are excellent at Step 2 - Hypothesizing. 



The only problem comes on Steps 1, 3 and 4 - Observation, Experimentation and
Validation.



We read about their theories and the conclusions of the failed experiments they
performed in an effort to validate their opinions about a phenomenon that has
not only never been proven scientifically but has never even been observed. 



The definition of a miracle is an event which is inexplicable by the laws of
nature.  The fact is there are zero generally accepted scientific explanations
on these issues.  If you want to believe in naturalism it is fine with me but
please don't make the erroneous claim that "science" is on your side.     







What term is used to describe something you believe to be true but has no
empirical evidence?   



Faith.





The bottom line is we live in a universe which completely frustrates any attempt
to explain its origin and content by natural processes alone.  The best evidence
for the possible existence of a supernatural creator lies in the total lack of
any scientific evidence in these key areas.  Can God be scientifically proven? 
No, it would be nice but his existence cannot be proven scientifically.  The
reason is God is supernatural; he exists outside the natural, scientific world. 
While our scientific tools cannot prove God exists, they do provide us with
evidence we can use to determine if there is a better explanation for what has
taken place besides the existence of a supernatural creator. 



It is interesting how atheists reject any notion of the supernatural because of
what they perceive to be a lack of evidence when they could use that same
objectivity to reject their naturalistic world view.  Most atheists are not even
honest enough to apply the same burden of proof for naturalism that they demand
of supernaturalism. 



The laws of science falsify the notion that this physical, living world came to
be through natural means. These laws provide very credible evidence for the
possible existence of a supernatural being.  Atheism violates these basic laws
of science.  Atheism requires not only a tremendous amount of faith but also a
belief in miracles. And not only miracles but natural miracles, an oxymoron. 
Both naturalism and supernaturalism require faith and which one you place your
faith in is one of the two most important choices you will ever make.

Depois comento a... qualidade... desse texto.

[UBorba]

Estou com um nó na garganta, não consigo achar palavras suficientes pra esculachar o nivel do texto.

[Luis Dantas]

Esse aí merece um comentário detalhado.

Alguém mais está tendo dificuldades de acesso?  Eu acabei fazendo uma cópia adaptada em http://dantas.editme.com/files/textos/aoa.htm

A única outra forma de ler esse texto que encontrei foi através do Cache do Google.

No duro, é um bom texto para ilustrar falácias e/ou mostrar vulnerabilidades mais frequentes da argumentação criacionista.

[Eremita]

Luis, eu também só obtive pelo cache do Google.

Atheism is a lack of belief mentality which rejects the existence of anything
supernatural.  By default, atheists are also naturalists and evolutionists. They
believe there is a natural explanation for all circumstances and nothing has
ever occurred that has a supernatural answer.

Ok... até aí, nada demais.

While atheism does not break any
state or federal laws, it does break several scientific laws.  A scientific law
is defined as the observance and recognition of a repeatable process in nature.
It is widely accepted as a statement of fact and a universal truth. Scientific
laws do not need complex external proofs. They are accepted at face value
because they have always been observed to be true.  A miracle is an event which
is inexplicable by the laws of nature.  A miracle contradicts natural,
scientific laws and atheists typically scoff at the suggestion that miracles
have ever occurred.  What scientific laws does atheism break?

Aí começa a besteirada... a diferença de ateus e criacionistas é que os ateus LÊEM as teorias e leis científicas, e não esquecem metade delas propositalmente.

A lei da conservação da matéria

The skeptic asks, "If God created the universe, then who created God?"  God is
the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question, "Who created God?" is
illogical. 

E se a matéria não foi criada, logo, é idiota perguntar quem é o criador dela. Se a matéria não foi criada, ela pode ser plausivelmente eterna, dãããã. A partir do momento que os criacionistas acham que um deus criou matéria/energia, são eles que estão contrariando a lei da conservação.
O Big Bang seria, então, apenas uma mudança de estados da matéria.

Some believe the law of entropy cannot be applied to the universe because they
feel the universe is an open system and not a closed one.  A closed system is
defined as a system in which neither matter nor energy can be exchanged with its
surroundings.  Matter and energy cannot enter or escape from a closed system. It
has boundaries that cannot be crossed.  The definition of the word universe is
all matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies and the contents of
intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

If the universe is "all matter and energy", how could it be an open system?

AO MENOS, não citou cristais e baboseiras do tipo, que só na cabeça deles contrariam a entropia. Segundo Einstein, se não me engano, o Universo seria finito, porém, sem fronteiras. E "sistema fechado" não contraria "sistema em expansão", já que as "bordas" do sistema podem ainda estar se expandindo. Aff.

A lei da biogênese

This law is composed of two parts.  The first part states that living things
only come from other living things and not from non-living matter.  Life only
comes from life.  The second part of this law states that when living things
procreate, their offspring are the same type of organism they are. 

Intermediários, protovida, definição de vida... dessa parte eles sempre esquecem. Engraçado não terem citado o experimento de Pasteur, que seeeeempre tiram conclusões precipitadas e baboseiras dele.
Com esse experimento, que depois levou à lei da biogênese, Pasteur apenas provou que um caldo nutritivo mantido à temperatura ambiente por alguns dias e fechado em matéria (não em energia) não desenvolve vida. Porém;
*Nutritivo já pressupõe, nutritivo pra quem? Num sistema ainda sem vida, não é idiota falar em "nutritivo"?
*A Terra, nas condições do aparecimento da vida, tinha condições bem diferentes das de Pasteur. Zero oxigênio, UV fortíssimo (sem camada de ozônio), um manto bem mais ativo do que hoje. Eram condições bem mais energéticas (vide: hipótese de Oparin)
*O experimento de Pasteur, além de ter condições brandas (aka: ser pouco reativo), ainda por cima durou alguns dias. O surgimento da vida foi um processo longo.
*Organismos mudam de acordo com o meio, por sobrevivência e replicação vs. morte, sim. Há experimentos provando isso, como aquele velho: culturas de bactérias são inoculadas em um ambiente que tenha todos os outros alimentos, menos um dos essenciais. As bactérias são levemente diferentes em uma geração que na outra. As que sintetizam esse alimento sobrevivem, o resto morre.
Falácia comum dos criacionistas: "ou isso, ou aquilo". São bilaterais em questões mais complexas que duas alternativas. Como, por exemplo, o fato das bactérias mudarem, LENTAMENTE.
Oparin vs. Pasteur: experimentos foram feitos com objetivos diferentes, com metodologias diferentes, e visando explicar coisas diferentes.

How could DNA and RNA evolve from something very rudimentary into their present
day intricacy when the organism containing the basic genome would require the
more complex, present day DNA and RNA to replicate? 

Aminoácidos ---> proteínas simples ---> se uma das proteínas surgidas aleatoriamente, não importando quão simples seja, se autoreplica, depois de algum tempo tá cheio de cópias dela. Imperfeitas, coisa que UV e probabilidades fazem bem. Só que a quantidade de "alimento" dessa protovida é limitada, então, qualquer proteína que consiga mais eficientemente se manter replicando irá adotar o nicho do resto. RNA é bem mais estável que uma proteína... não desnatura... e vírus atuais vivem muito bem sem RNA. O RNA se replica... e um RNA que tenha a capacidade de permanecer a maior parte do tempo em dupla fita produz o primeiro DNA.

Método científico

Nobody has ever observed the creation of matter or energy.

Logo, atribuir que ela foi criada não é algo apressado demais?

Nobody has ever observed a molecular cloud collapse or any planet form.

Nuvem molecular... ele tá falando de orbitais? Ou tá falando de uma nuvem de moléculas gasosas se condensar em sólido? Bom, se for isso, tem a evidência dentro de qualquer freezer sem auto-clean. Agora, se for as partículas serem unidas pela força da gravidade em um bloco, você tem suficientes evidências da gravitação universal, sendo sua força medida até pra objetos menores que seres humanos [carece de fontes minhas].

Nobody has ever observed abiogenesis.

Oparin, de novo... gerando aa's a partir de metano e cia...
Aliás, vamos inverter... ninguém observou uma suposta criação divina pra afirmar que o Monstro Spaguetti Voador não estava lá.

Nobody has ever observed the evolution of any genome.
Nobody has ever observed any phylum, class, order or family change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
A divergência de genomas leva, a partir do momento que as espécies se separam, a mais tarde constituírem diferenças tão grandes que as espécies não encaixam sequer na mesma família... depois no mesma classe... etc. Devo lembrar que filos, ordens e classes são só um jeito bastante conveniente de se organizar as espécies.

Pffff. De resto, são só quase ad hominens.

[FZapp]

Esse aí merece um comentário detalhado.

Alguém mais está tendo dificuldades de acesso?  Eu acabei fazendo uma cópia adaptada em http://dantas.editme.com/files/textos/aoa.htm

A única outra forma de ler esse texto que encontrei foi através do Cache do Google.

No duro, é um bom texto para ilustrar falácias e/ou mostrar vulnerabilidades mais frequentes da argumentação criacionista.

Ei, o que você acha de fazer um texto demonstrando falácias através deste texto ? Vou trabalhar nisso parte do domingo...

[Dbohr]

Eu responderia item por item, mas preciso do meu tempo para estudar de verdade neste final de semana

[Luis Dantas]

Esse aí merece um comentário detalhado.

Alguém mais está tendo dificuldades de acesso? Eu acabei fazendo uma cópia adaptada em http://dantas.editme.com/files/textos/aoa.htm

A única outra forma de ler esse texto que encontrei foi através do Cache do Google.

No duro, é um bom texto para ilustrar falácias e/ou mostrar vulnerabilidades mais frequentes da argumentação criacionista.

Ei, o que você acha de fazer um texto demonstrando falácias através deste texto ? Vou trabalhar nisso parte do domingo...

Gostei da idéia.   Fico com vontade de fazer um documento HTML com âncoras para pontos específicos e código de cores para ilustrar certos tipos de falácias, mais ou menos como o Skeptics Annotated Bible faz.

[Sabretooth]

Porque não aceitar simplesmente que é natural ser ateísta em vez de queimar neurónios a escrever preconceitos?

Eu acho que a maioria dos ateus não baseiam o seu ateísmo numa convição científica do mundo. Um ateu não tem de ser evolucionista ou Darwinista. Fred Hoyle era ateu e achava o Darwinismo uma merda. E quanto ao materialismo e naturalismo? Freeman Dyson pergunta o que é a matéria? É dificil dar uma resposta a esta pergunta porque a física quântica mostrou o quanto ela pode ser estranha. E o naturalismo é simplesmente a ideia que a ciencia investiga aquilo que pode ver. Não é nada de outro mundo... nem sequer é um conceito oposto ao de sobrenatural. O sobrenatural é apenas aquilo que está acima da natureza e das suas leis (e não em oposição). Não sei bem o que possa ser. Para o religioso o sobrenatural interfere com o natural. Mas se interfere não pode ser absolutamente diferente da natureza. Tem de haver ligação entre as duas coisas. Por isso o conceito de sobrenatural é enganador. Se está ligado não é completamente separado (Dah). Acho o conceito inutil. Para mim, se Deus existir faz parte da natureza. Natureza pode ser tudo o que existe, este universo e outros universos "sobrenaturais" (com outras leis) caso existam.

[Sabretooth]

Não acho que valha a pena refutar ponto por ponto textos com conceitos mal definidos ou confusos como o conceito de sobrenatural ou a ideia de milagre. É perda de tempo...

[Sr. Jesus]

Perhaps the most devastating, non-scriptural argument against Evolutionism and for the Truth of the Bible and Creation is that of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law states that all things in the Universe tend to disorder - or as it is called by scientists, entropy. Scientists say that entropy rises and can never decrease. By this they mean that things will always get more disorderly. This is a scientific fact that can be seen in our everyday lives. Examples of this phenomenon include: a child's room will become more disorderly over time, but will never spontaneously clean itself up; buildings will crumble and decay, but will not repair themselves; people, who do "repair" themselves in the short term, will nonetheless grow old and more physically feeble in the long term.

When we consider the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we can see that science is in agreement with the Truth of the Bible - as it must be if science is to be of any value at all. Not only can we see the Second Law in action throughout the Bible (for example, the moral decay of Sodom and Gomorrah) but the very origin of entropy - the subject of the Second Law - is given to us in Genesis. In Eden, all was perfectly ordered. There was no entropy. When Man ate of the Tree of Life and was cast out, he was cursed with entropy. Since then, entropy has continued to rise and will do so until the end of time.


Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), noted Creation scientist and divinely-inspired discoverer of the Second Law. If it weren't for the Word of God, Man would not know of the Second Law. Sir William Thomson, the noted 19th century Christian scientist and the discoverer of the Second Law, found the inspiration for his discovery in the following line from the Bible: "all of them shall wax old like a garment" (Psalm 102.26). This scientific truth was revealed to Man via the Divine Truth of the Bible.


Sr. William Thomson, notável cientista criacionista e
o divinamente inspirado descobridor da Segunda Lei

The Second Law is just that - a Law. It applies everywhere in the Universe, without exception. Unlike mere theories such as Relativity and Evolutionism, the Second Law has been proven to be true and no reputable scientist would ever suggest that it wasn't. Amongst reputable scientists, suggesting something violates the Second Law would result in being considered grossly ignorant, a kook, or a charlatan. Even the US Patent Office has a standing order to ignore patent applications - such as those for perpetual motion machines - that violate the Second Law (the only such a priori restriction that the Patent Office makes) since it is known that such devices would just not work. To put it bluntly: there is just no getting around the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Evolutionism, however, does try to get around it, and that is why it is bad science. Evolutionism claims that life gets more complicated over time - that its entropy decreases. Specifically, it claims that the minuscule amount of genetic information that would have been in the first Godless proto-lifeform would have increased through the addition and ordering of random mutations.

Let's consider this proposal: The genome (the sum total of all genes in Man) contains information in the form deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) molecules. It is the order of this DNA that creates its informational content - a specific ordering of DNA molecules makes up a gene that produces a protein that in turn makes up part of our physical form. For information to be added or changed, it would be necessary for an addition of ordered DNA or reordering of existing DNA to occur. In other words, a decrease in entropy in direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Random mutations cannot add the ordered information that would be needed to turn a bacteria into a man. This is just a simple fact that can clearly be seen from looking at the Second Law. However it gets worse for Evolutionism, since - as was shown in the 1940's by Claude Shannon of Bell Labs - the addition of randomness to the genome increases the genome's entropy. This means that the exact opposite of what Evolutionism proposes is actually happening - we are getting more disorderly.

The science of Creation, on the other hand, is in complete accordance with the Second Law. Creation science teaches us that Man and God's other creations were all created with informationally dense, uncorrupted DNA. Adam had more genes and more robust genes than you or I have. This is evident in the extreme age that antediluvian men were able to reach which was due to their genes being free of the deleterious mutations that lower life expectancy today. Over the ten thousand years since Creation, our genes have degraded due to the entropy of randomness and we now suffer the consequences of the curse of entropy.



Furthermore, the very existence of the Second Law - and other so-called "Laws of Nature" such as the Laws of gravity and motion - is in and of itself a powerful testament to the existence of God. While Man may author the particular wording of these Laws that we see in textbooks, or express them in logical systems of his own devising, these Laws were not created by Man. The metaphysical reality of these Laws is Universal and Man merely represents them in his writings. The existence of these Laws compels us to ask the rhetorical question: "How can there be Laws without a Lawgiver?" To which we reply: "There can't be." So if Man is not the Lawgiver, then who is? Who could have the Power and Authority to proclaim Laws that affect the entire Universe? The inescapable answer is: "God. That's who!"

For more on the Second Law from a proper Biblical viewpoint, see:

Second Law: Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? - From ChristianAnswers.net

Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism - From TrueOrigins.org

[Dbohr]

Ceeeeeerto.

:suspiro:

É incrível. "Maldição da Entropia". "Ao contrário de meras teorias como a Relatividade e o Evolucionismo, a Segunda Lei foi provada além de qualquer dúvida (...)".

Esses caras nunca vão aprender. Não importa quantas vezes a gente explique, não importa quantos argumentos falhos sejam derrubados, os Criacionistas estão sempre levantando essa lebre.

... eu não sei porque ainda me importo ...

[FZapp]

Gostei da idéia.   Fico com vontade de fazer um documento HTML com âncoras para pontos específicos e código de cores para ilustrar certos tipos de falácias, mais ou menos como o Skeptics Annotated Bible faz.

O problema é traduzir a coisa toda antes... uahhhhhn...

[Buckaroo Banzai]

também acho meio perda de tempo se ser tão específico contra esse texto, não creio que seja uma representação de uma vertente criacionista mais importante. Algo melhor nesse sentido seria traduzir textos do Talk Origins e outros sites.

[PauloCesar]

O mais chato é ter que responder de novo e de novo aos mesmos argumentos falhos... blargh!   

É por isso que não discuto mais essa merda!

[Fabulous]

É engraçado.

[Zizou]

Vocês já viram esse?
www.darwinismrefuted.com

[Dbohr]

Eu tenho que admitir que esses caras são persistentes, mesmo face a extraordinárias evidências em contrário. O que não é virtude, mas pelo menos indica coerência de pensamento

Aliás, tem uma novidade (ao menos para mim). O cara é Turco e muçulmano. Não que eu tivesse quaisquer ilusões sobre a inexistência de criacionistas muçulmanos, mas confesso que é o primeiro que vi. E para meu desgosto, vi os mesmos argumentos batidos de sempre: termodinâmica, registro fóssil incompleto, etc. O que mostra que falta de originalidade não é prerrogativa dos criacionistas cristãos

Outra, dêem uma olhada nas fuças do gajo. Não parece aquele vilão do Batman, o Ra's Al Ghul?

[Marcus VBP]

Outra, dêem uma olhada nas fuças do gajo. Não parece aquele vilão do Batman, o Ra's Al Ghul?

tem razão. assustador.

[Dea Lin]

Criacionismo.
Aí que estararatata ... ratata ta tata!
Desenvolvido por nós é claro ... HI ... Covardia! Aproveitar! Tá.
É perfeito para a atualidade  extravagância,
dinâmismo e muito trabalho mas a luta sempre sera o corpo "a linguagem da vida" como um primeiro degrau ao topo  "de um fim" e o  ideal  é criacionismo?

(O nada é o fim).

"Reflexões robustas encorpadas" Por: Lorena Lins Capaz de tudo e nada de um fim muito rico ou sem nada...
O corpo é  a linguagem do principio que acaba.

[Fabulous]

Aí que estararatata ... ratata ta tata!

Ratatatá... esta música é podre!

[Dea Lin]

Fabulous eu tambem achei isso quando toquei pro cachorro do vizinho me deixar em paz sabe que funcionou!

[Dea Lin]

Mas ele ainda ta querendo me morder
"Algumas vezes da certo e eles mordem direitinho."

[Suyndara]

  que texto horrível :'(

  refutar criancionistas é tão desgastante...