Evoloution is Just Bad Science

[notto]

In that movie, I know for a fact that he majored in biology and even gives lectures on the subject.

Well then i'm guessing he is referring to some biology he had as he became a dentist 40 years ago. He wasn't a biologist, he was a dentist. Any word on Chucks scientific work?

 

[Arikay]

A good tip. Find a better source for your information. All three of your young earth claims are known to be false.

Still waiting for a source for statistics.

 

[michabo]

Vestigial structures have no function therefore they are not vestigial.

No, vestigial structures are those structures that used to have function, but have little or no function now.

For example, the appendix which you cite as helping the immune system, also kills many people. It used to function as a part of the digestive system, but now only gathers decomposing food and renders tertiary assistance to the immune system. It is vestigial.

Humans may grow tails - real tails - which are another good example. The hip in whales, toenails in manatees, wings in flightless beetles (in many species, they are sealed beneath the carapace and can not be used for anything), legs in snakes. Hovind will tell you that snake legs are used in mating, but that's like saying ears are used in human mating because we like to nibble on them during foreplay

There are countless examples of this, both in humans and in the rest of the animal world.

 

[Cirbryn]

In that movie, I know for a fact that he majored in biology and even gives lectures on the subject.

OK, just because you major in biology for your undergrad degree? - that doesn't make you a biologist. Especially if it was 40 years ago. Get a graduate degree, continue to publish original work in peer reviewed journals, then you can call yourself a biologist. And even then it doesn't mean you know diddly about evolution because there are a lot of areas of biology that don't focus on it. That's why we look at the evidence rather than blindly following authority figures.

[An example of an animal that couldn't have evolved]

1 animal. Giraffe

heart is 24 pounds and 2.5 feet long. it needs this heart to pump blood to its brain. What happens when the Giraffe bends down to get a drink? The intense pressure on its brain would literally explode. That doesn't happen. The Giraffe has a sponge-like material in between the valve from the heart, and the brain. When it bend down, the material absorbs the blood so it doesn't explode, then slowly releases it so it doesn't passout. If the giraffe didn't have this mechanism from the beginning, it would have died. Therefore, it couldn't have evolved this structure.

By "from the beginning" do you mean from the time of its short-necked ancestors? Think about it.

 

[Kripost]

dna is more like a recipe than a blueprint.

They are the same thing They are both instructions on how to create something.

Recipies and blueprints do specify how things are made, but they are essentially different. Blueprints are reversible, which means that given a certain object built using a blueprint, it is possible to reconstruct the blueprint from the object itself. On the other hand recipies are not reversible. This means that given a certain dish, you may guess part of the recipe, but it cannot be fully reconstructed.

Furthermore, by using blueprints analogy, it is misleading in the sense that it implies there exist specific genes which specify different part of the body. Instead, a more accurate way of looking at it is in the proteins which they 'code'.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

dna is more like a recipe than a blueprint.

They are the same thing They are both instructions on how to create something.

they are very different images or metaphors.
and it is not mine but a common one.

"DNA is commonly referred to in textbooks of molecular biology as the "blueprint" for an organism. I think it is better not to call it a blueprint. I would rather call it a recipe or it is a bit like a computer program.

The difference between a blueprint and a recipe is that a blueprint is reversable, and a recipe is not. If you have a house and you have lost the blueprint you can reconstruct the blueprint by taking measurements, but if you have got a well prepared dish in a great restaurant you may enjoy the dish and you may dissect it and look at it in every detail but you cannot reconstruct the recipe."

Richard Dawkins

here is a whole paper on the issue:
http://ligwww.epfl.ch/~thalmann/papers.dir/CAS99.pdf

it is an important difference that Dawkins especially deals on....

...

 

[Tomk80]

You think that all of the earth's scientists believe in evolution???
There are thousands (25,000) of scientists around the world that think evolution is impossible. That number is growing daily as the flaws of evolution and truths of Creationism are revealed.

I mean this seriously, as one who is a researcher in the life sciences. I think I have a pretty good picture on what these people think, as I'm working in one of the relevant fields. The vast majority of the scientists in the relevant fields are convinced that evolution is correct. If anyone told you otherwise, you have been lied to.

The 25,000 scientists, which fields of science do they work in? Are they capable of deciding whether evolution is correct or not? The field of biology alone has a lot more than 25,000 scientists worldwide. When looking at all the scientific disciplines, 25,000 is indeed not a big number relative to the number of people working in the field.

 

[Tomk80]

Maybe some of the more diplomatic evos can take turns introducing newbies to the CE board.

Notto, Tomk80, Vance, Gluadys, H2Whoa, Jet Black, Dale Usincognito, michabo,HRE, Sotek I can't think of others who have helped me to understand.

I learn from the less diplomatic here too but I don't take the jibes personally.

Just a thought

Oh, shuck Thanks

 

[Wonderfulcross]

A good tip. Find a better source for your information. All three of your young earth claims are known to be false.

Some Discussion. Please give a reason.

I said it before, but i'll say it again. From Chuck Missler, and InSix Days.

 

[Wonderfulcross]

The 25,000 scientists, which fields of science do they work in? Are they capable of deciding whether evolution is correct or not? The field of biology alone has a lot more than 25,000 scientists worldwide. When looking at all the scientific disciplines, 25,000 is indeed not a big number relative to the number of people working in the field.[/QUOTE]

Biology, Biochemistry, Medical research, Mechanical engineering, Physical chemistry, Genetics, Physics, Mathematical physics, Botany, Meteorology, and zoology. These are the fieldsof several of the scientists, that wrote InSix Days

 

[notto]

Biology, Biochemistry, Medical research, Mechanical engineering, Physical chemistry, Genetics, Physics, Mathematical physics, Botany, Meteorology, and zoology. These are the fieldsof several of the scientists, that wrote InSix Days

(you forgot dentistry and ministry)

So can we take it that you can't provide the source or any information on how this number was arrived at? How was the 25,000 determined? Who did the counting? How was it assessed?

Can you provide the names of 3 scientists who have abandoned evolution in the last year? You claimed (or Chuck claimed) it was happening almost daily. How was this determined? How do you (or Chuck) know?

Did they poll them? Do they have a list? How were they counted?

 

[Wonderfulcross]

By "from the beginning" do you mean from the time of its short-necked ancestors? Think about it.[/QUOTE]

Their ancestors' necks where still long compared to other animals. Just not as long as they are now. Besides, they would still die with those short necks. Their food source is at least 20 feet high. They couldn't reach it. Therefore, they would still die out.

 

[Wonderfulcross]

How was this determined? How do you (or Chuck) know?

Did they poll them? Do they have a list? How were they counted?[/QUOTE]

I was not there, I don't know exactly how they figured 25,000. But the only way to even come up with a statistic is by use of a poll. Which is probably what they did.

 

[notto]

I was not there, I don't know exactly how they figured 25,000. But the only way to even come up with a statistic is by use of a poll. Which is probably what they did.

Funny, I can't find any reference to this anywhere on the web. Amazing statistical information such as this based on a worldwide poll of scienctists should receive more publicity. Perhaps it was just a made up number. I wasn't there but that would seem to be the case. I don't think it is realistic to think that someone conducted a worldwide poll of scientists, which would certainly be a tremendous effort. I will assume it is just a made up number until I can find evidence to the contrary.

I mean after all, if you got this information from Chuck and if Chuck is indeed claiming to be a scientist (which he is not), it would seem to call into question his claims.

 

[Army of Juan]

Their ancestors' necks where still long compared to other animals. Just not as long as they are now. Besides, they would still die with those short necks. Their food source is at least 20 feet high. They couldn't reach it. Therefore, they would still die out.

No.

By your logic, baby giraffes should die out once they are winged from there mother, or do they nurse until they are full grown?

Also, at the time of the short necked ancestors, did it occur to you that maybe their food source was closer to the ground and that they necks slowly became longer as the food source also rose higher? I suppose not since that would have required you to think on your own.

 

[notto]

Their ancestors' necks where still long compared to other animals. Just not as long as they are now. Besides, they would still die with those short necks. Their food source is at least 20 feet high. They couldn't reach it. Therefore, they would still die out.

Giraffes long necks are most likely due to sexual selection, not based on their food source. Their food source is not at least 20 feet high.

 

[HRE]

How was this determined? How do you (or Chuck) know?

Did they poll them? Do they have a list? How were they counted?

I was not there, I don't know exactly how they figured 25,000. But the only way to even come up with a statistic is by use of a poll. Which is probably what they did. [/QUOTE]

See, this is an appropriate statistic:

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]According to Newsweek (June 29, 1987), "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% However, the American public thinks very differently.

This cites the specific source. You can go to the Newsweek archives and pull it up, where it will cite how the statistic was found and so forth.

Or, for a more recent statistic:

[/font] Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Robinson, B. A. 1995. Public beliefs about evolution and creation. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
Witham, Larry. 1997. Many scientists see God's hand in evolution. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(6): 33. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

See, this is how we cite sources. This is how we pursue information.

By the way, the 'quote' function on this board works like this:

[quote?=HRE]What you want to quote[/quote?]

Minus the question marks. of course.

 

[Wonderfulcross]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]According to Newsweek (June 29, 1987), "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% However, the American public thinks very differently.
I also read this on the internet. There very well might be 700 in the U.S. You obviously missed it when i said Global.
[/font]

 

[jwu]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] I also read this on the internet. There very well might be 700 in the U.S. You obviously missed it when i said Global.

That'd mean that only 2.8% of these creationist scientist would be U.S.-American. However, creationism is mostly an American thing, so this figure still seems extremely suspicious.[/font]

 

[HRE]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]According to Newsweek (June 29, 1987), "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% However, the American public thinks very differently.
I also read this on the internet. There very well might be 700 in the U.S. You obviously missed it when i said Global.
[/font]

Reading comprehension is our friend:

This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.