Evolution is an elaborate fairy tale

Arikay · #**721** 7th December 2003, 03:36 PM

Can you Give us a basic definition of the theory of evolution?

Can you explain how evolution is a religion, but, germ theory is not?

Originally Posted by JunkYardFrog

I didn't notice them. I'll have to get back to you some other day. I'm extremely busy and out of time right now.

Later.

Pete Harcoff · #**722** 7th December 2003, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by JunkYardFrog

1. I believed in evolution. That made me an evolutionist.

But did you actually understand it?

2. The evolution hypothesis is full of assumption and assertion. It is a belief system with no facts, so it is essentially a religion. You should see how some of the fundamental evolutionists behave when their claims are investigated.

That evolution has "no facts" is a lie, pure and simple. Evolution is based upon empirical data (facts). That is the whole reason the theory was forumulated in the first place. Attempting to label it a religion is a typical creationist ploy that fails the minute the evidence gets brought to the table.

3. Nice ad hom.

I just call 'em as I see 'em.

4. Actually, evolution is purely a con job. Fortunately I took the time to research the facts.

And yet you label it a religion with no facts. So, I am skeptical of your "research".

5. Wrong again. I don't bother with creationist sites. I think most of them (the YEC ones) are wrong. I read a few of them years ago and contacted some of them because I think they are making honest mistakes. None of them replied, which was disappointing, so I dropped it.

The only people that dispute evolution in any capacity are creationists. Furthermore, nobody but creationists tries to classify the theory of evolution as a religion. Therefore, I find it suspect that you decided evolution was a religion without being influenced by creationist propoganda.

But if you want to prove me wrong, then I'll eat my words. You can start by explaining what evolution is (biologically speaking), and what research you did that made you decide it is a belief system with no facts.

Mr_Coffee · #**723** 7th December 2003, 10:28 PM

Why is it so difficult to accept things that work "in theory"? Evolution isn't much different than any other of the scientific advancements in the past half a century. The "It's a theory, and there's no evidence there it works" argument seems to only be applicable to evolution, and not space flight, in vitro cloning, laser eye surgery and heart transplants. We can see these things occur since they're feasible in a short enough time frame to entertain the human attention span. The same isn't so with evolution.

Put it this way, evolution and nuclear bombs are similar since they both work in theory. It's just that nuclear bombs take a fraction of a second to work. Personally, I've never seen one work, therefore should I be skeptical since I've personally never seen physical proof (with my own eyes) that the theory is indeed true? The documentation of effects are there, therfore I can only infer that they work - and no sane person can deny that they work.

Moreover, we've got proof that human beings evolved from apes. We've got skeletons from different eras that show undeniable sequential process that this happened. If one requires more proof than that, it's obvious that they'd need nothing less but to view every detail of Earth's biological changes from the past 2 billion years condensed in a two and a half minute Arman Hamm documentary.

Personally, I'd have a more difficult time being convinced that a single bomb has the potency to destroy an area the size of Britain rather than the physical change involved with adaptations and the concept of natural selection.

bevets · #**724** 8th December 2003, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by Cantuar

Those, as usual for your "quotes," are misquotes. Just like all those "quotes" by Richard Dawkins which appeared to say something different from what he was really saying.

If you intend to impeach the integrity of my quotes, please cite specific examples.
http://bevets.com/misquotes.htm

Originally Posted by Pete Harcoff

The part I disagree with of his testimony was of labeling himself an "evolutionist". No one who knows anything about evolution (or science for that matter) would label it a "religion".

Originally Posted by bevets

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ~ Michael Ruse

Originally Posted by Cantuar

As far as the Ruse quote, did you miss this part of it which came a bit later?

Originally Posted by Michael Ruse

"Darwinism is a terrific theory that stimulates research in every area of the life sciences.

I do not contest the fact that the advent of the evolutionary idea, due mainly to the Origin, very greatly stimulated biological research. But it appears to me that owing precisely to the nature of the stimulus, a great deal of this work was directed into unprofitable channels or devoted to the pursuit of will-o’- the-wisps. I am not the only biologist of this opinion. Darwin’s conviction that evolution is the result of natural selection, acting on small fortuitous variations, says Guyenot, was to delay the progress of investigations on evolution by half a century. Really fruitful researches on heredity did not begin until the rediscovery in 1900 of the fundamental work of Mendel, published in 1865 and owing nothing to the work of Darwin. ~ W.R. Thompson Introduction to The Origin of Species 6th Edition

Originally Posted by Michael Ruse

In the human realm, for instance, discoveries in Africa trace our immediate past in ever greater detail, while at the same time the Human Genome Project opens up fascinating evolutionary questions as we learn of the molecular similarities between ourselves and organisms as apparently different as fruit flies and earthworms. Surely this is enough. There is no need to make a religion of evolution. On its own merits, evolution as science is just that -- good, tough, forward-looking science, which should be taught as a matter of course to all children, regardless of creed."

Originally Posted by Cantuar

He's simply saying what the science-friendly posters here keep saying and what poor old Lucaspa says about ten times a day - not that any of the creationists are paying attention - which is that the extension of evolution beyond the parameters of science should not be done, and he's criticising the people doing it.

I am not aware of any Creationist that would discourage investigation of the physical data (and that is as far as Ruse goes with his illustration). The problem Creationists have is not the data but the interpretation of the data -- specifially, the extrapolation of theory that goes beyond the data. Everyone agrees that mutations occur (evolutists pretend this ends the argument) What has not been demonstrated is that these naturally occuring mutations can add up to major anatomical variations that are beneficial. As I have alluded to in my opening parable: evolutionists claim to be billionaires (goo to you) but have pennies to show for it (the rare cases are small and legitemately disputed) They will never show a natural transition between reptile and bird. It is impossible. You are required to make a leap of faith based on pennies' worth of evidence.

Originally Posted by Michael Ruse

All too often, there is a slide from science to something more, and this slide goes unmentioned -- unrealized even.
For pointing this out we should be grateful for the opponents of evolution.

Arikay · #**725** 8th December 2003, 01:27 AM

So basically all bevets has against evolution is quotes of the opinions of people. Luckily when it really comes down to it, its the evidence, not the opinions that count.

Charles Darwin · #**726** 8th December 2003, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by bevets

They will never show a natural transition between reptile and bird. It is impossible. You are required to make a leap of faith based on pennies' worth of evidence.

"It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered. In fact, one skeleton of Archaeopteryx that had poorly preserved feathers was originally described as a skeleton of a small bipedal dinosaur, Compsognathus."

that is from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsid...aeopteryx.html

perhaps you should take a look

bevets · #**727** 8th December 2003, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by bevets

They will never show a natural transition between reptile and bird. It is impossible. You are required to make a leap of faith based on pennies' worth of evidence.

Originally Posted by Charles Darwin

"It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird.

Apparently you have missed the opportunity to read my previous argument.

Originally Posted by bevets

Original Post
A Parable:
Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire."
You say "Prove it."
He says "ok", and he points across the street at a bank. "My money is in that bank there." (The bank is closed.)
You say "What does that prove?"
He says "Everyone knows banks have money in them"
You say "I know there is money in the bank, but why should I believe that it's YOUR money?"
"Because it's GREEN" he says.
"What else can you show me?"
He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire."
You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask.
"I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?"

Originally Posted by bevets

#20 The question of origins is a question of History (whatever happened only happened once) not science.

Please explain how the scientific method applys. i.e. observe, predict, experiment, repeat -- how do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history? Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.

Charles Darwin · #**728** 8th December 2003, 02:08 AM

The difference between the parable and my post is that i am giving worthwhile evidence. Your parable is along such third grade thought patterns that i cant give it any credibility. Let me point out how it can be used against creationism. Change the billionaire to someone claiming there are saved through christ. Prove it. My proof is in the bible. The bible is words, how do i know its gods words? Well heres a passage saying im saved. Wow, a passage, too bad i have some supporting evolution. But my book is the Bible. Ok, thats just a title. i could call mine the Bibel, that doesnt make it special, no.

As to repeating the transition, please prove to me through repeating it how anything can go from dust to a living, fully formed human.

Arikay · #**729** 8th December 2003, 02:10 AM

Apparently you missed all the criticism to both your parable and your strawmen.

Since we can not reproduce your birth in the lab bevets, I guess scientifically you dont exist.

Cantuar · #**730** 8th December 2003, 03:15 AM

If you intend to impeach the integrity of my quotes, please cite specific examples.

We already went through that with the stuff you posted from A Devil's Chaplain. You ignored the contexts once provided, pretended you'd never asked for the quotes in full, and eventually made one minor change while ignoring the major ones. What makes you think people have that sort of time to waste?