Arguments against evolution?

[jesuskunk]

YO, there was a similar thread here yesterday, some guy Bob Moore argued for creation (YEC), and anything he brough on was completely and utterly refuted with scientific facts/figures/pictures/links/everything...

If you ever needed any proof that creationists were talking complete claptrap its there...check it out

 

[jesuskunk]

found it its the thread called: evidence to change a skeptics mind...

or something veeeeery similar

 

[andy j]

Why is it that some Christians can't reconcile the reality that is evolution, with their faith?
A deep, committed Christian faith, and a belief in evolution are by no means mutually exclusive terms.
Similarly, I don't understand why people deconvert from Christianity, because they find the arguments for an evolutionary development convincing.

In some respects, the concept of evolution reinforces the idea that there is an intelligent creator God.

Aj

 

[Jet Black]

because they have an insatiable desire for false dichotomies.

 

[AirPo]

Similarly, I don't understand why people deconvert from Christianity, because they find the arguments for an evolutionary development convincing.

Perhaps it's because they learned their Christain belives from the same source as their creationist believes. Once they realize that source was wrong aboout creation, that source loses it's credibility with respect to Christianity as well.

 

[JohnR7]

Why is it that some Christians can't reconcile the reality that is evolution, with their faith?

Maybe it is because the theory of evolution is a bunch of nonsense. I use to be YEC, but then when I saw the evidence for an old earth, so now I see the "gap" theory is much more accurate.

But when I look at the evidence for the theory of evoluion I see nothing to convince me to believe in that theory. There is no doubt that things evolve. I just do not see where the theory of evoluion, explains that process.

Evolutionists believe that their man made theory explains things, and a lot of christians do not think their theorys are accurate or true, because they simply do not line up with the Bible.

 

[Meatros]

Maybe it is because the theory of evolution is a bunch of nonsense. I use to be YEC, but then when I saw the evidence for an old earth, so now I see the "gap" theory is much more accurate.

Perhaps you should actually look into the evidence for evolution; you'll find it's just as compelling, if not moreso, then the evidence for an old earth.

I've found that you just tend to dismiss evolution, JohnR7, but you never put up any substantial arguments against it. Yet you state that it's nonsense. If it's nonsense, then why haven't you been able to put up a substantial argument against it?

But when I look at the evidence for the theory of evoluion I see nothing to convince me to believe in that theory. There is no doubt that things evolve. I just do not see where the theory of evoluion, explains that process.

Perhaps you should look in the right places. Have you read Talkorigins?

Evolutionists believe that their man made theory explains things, and a lot of christians do not think their theorys are accurate or true, because they simply do not line up with the Bible.

Perhaps it's those Christian's manmade interpretation of the bible that is to blame

 

[SVRP]

I agree with the 22 distinguished biologists. If a better theory came along with evidence, I would drop evolution like a rock too. I think their wording in the exibition is rather too cautious though, since so far evolution is not merely one of many ideas, it is the only supported one -

Thank you for the comment, Jet Black, but not all share that view. According to Professor Louis Bounoure, he declared, “Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” (The Advocate, March 8, 1984, p. 17) (Professor Louis Bounoure was former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, and later Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.)

 

[toff]

Thank you for the comment, Jet Black, but not all share that view. According to Professor Louis Bounoure, he declared, “Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” (The Advocate, March 8, 1984, p. 17) (Professor Louis Bounoure was former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, and later Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.)

Whoever said that quote - Professor Bounoure - was either joking or is completely ignorant of biological science for the last century or so. To say that the Theory of Evolution has helped nothing in science is simply ludicrous.

 

[USincognito]

Thank you for the comment, Jet Black, but not all share that view. According to Professor Louis Bounoure, he declared, “Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” (The Advocate, March 8, 1984, p. 17) (Professor Louis Bounoure was former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, and later Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.)

1. Quotes mean nothing, evidence does. Why is that so hard to understand?
2. Bogus quotes are even more worthless.
3. Why would someone be discussing evolution in a homosexual publication like "The Advocate?"

 

[Meatros]

Why is it that creationists tend to dishonestly quotemine?

I just wish there were a commandment against bearing false witness...

 

[trunks2k]

3. Why would someone be discussing evolution in a homosexual publication like "The Advocate?"

To be fair, "The Advocate" is not just a gay publication. There are other "Advocate"s out there. Here's just some of "The Advocate"s that a google search produced:

The Advocate - A newspaper in Stamford
The Advocate - The gay publication
The Advocate - newspaper in Ohio
The Advocate - Austrailian Newspaper

Not to mention a large amount of "The _blank_ Advocate" which many people may just refer to as "The Advocate".

 

[Jet Black]

Thank you for the comment, Jet Black, but not all share that view. According to Professor Louis Bounoure, he declared, “Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” (The Advocate, March 8, 1984, p. 17) (Professor Louis Bounoure was former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, and later Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.)

check your facts duder. Louis was never the director of the SZM, and the first part (evolution is a fairy tale for grown ups) wasn't even said by him, but by Jean Rostand, a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy. The end part of his quote could only be derived from his book determinism and finality:

"That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."

------------

be careful when digging in the quote mine, you might hit a fools gold seam or uncover a gem of Hovindian mistruths

 

[Puff Father]

re: Based on real science.

"Those who are convinced that evolution is the mechanism by which species diversified into their present forms base their opinions on the conclusions of a vast body of real-world research conducted in the scientific field of biology and corroborated by the research results of a number of other scientific disciplines."


I guess I part company with some Creationists in that I wouldn't even presume to try to prove creation by scientific means. However, I do reserve the right to draw my own conclusions from what I observe. Based upon my beliefs? Absolutely.

I look at the disrespect that I was shown for voicing my opinion in this forum here a few days ago. My honesty was questioned, as was my intellectual capacity. Sneering and flaming people doesn't make your point to me, it just displays your own conciet.

Evolutionists reach conclusions about thier findings based on either their belief that evolution can be proven or because of pressure to find evidence that can support the theory from slipping away. Evidence that doesn't fit the model they are looking for will be ignored or even misrepresented. It happens. There is money and potential prestege in it.

Where's the evidence??? Where is it? Hidden in texts in colleges around the world? Why isn't it presented to those of us who are not scientists? We can't understand it? Are all evolutionist-believers that much more intelligent than those who don't buy it? A lot of you speak out of arrogance to those who believe in creation like they're idiots. So where's your proof of anything changing from one species to another?

There isn't any and there never will be. It doesn't exist. Yet you go on buying the artist renderings generated from tiny fossil fragments. Later, when they are discerned to be from a pig or an extinct species of ape, you still point to them in texts and say; "See? There's proof!". If you're so disgusted with bad science, better look in your own back yard.

I'm through reading in this forum. Reads like any broken record evolutionist forum aside from occasional glimmers of light from reasonable minds. Some aren't intellectually honest enough, or maybe not bright enough, to even admit that they ascribe to a belief system or that I have just as much right to ascribe to mine. It has been fed to them since they were young children and they can't even seem to discern that they follow it like sheep. IMO

I have many friends and family who believe in evolution too, yet they aren't as smug as some of you have been. In a way, some of your attitudes are the strongest evidence I have yet seen in support of evolution. Hmmm..., I'll have to give that some thought.

My apologies to those who have been civil.



"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
Mark Twain

Puff out.

 

[Arikay]

Maybe before you go you can provide evidence to back up your statements, such as the statement that evolutionists ignore evidence. I have heard this many times, but so far no one has ever backed up their claim.

 

[revolutio]

I'm through reading in this forum. Reads like any broken record evolutionist forum aside from occasional glimmers of light from reasonable minds. Some aren't intellectually honest enough, or maybe not bright enough, to even admit that they ascribe to a belief system or that I have just as much right to ascribe to mine. It has been fed to them since they were young children and they can't even seem to discern that they follow it like sheep. IMO

Assuming that those who disagree with you are mindless sheep is not a safe assumption. I make sure to have no such dillusions about people I disagree with. I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume their beliefs are just as well thought out and supported as the ones I have.

Everyone has a right to ascribe to any belief system they want. Heck people can ascribe to Norse mythology if they fancy to. Some people just happen to have evidence supporting there's, this no way removes the rights of other's to believe as they will.

Also you are under the badly flawed assumption that everyone who believes in evolution has been raised that way. If I recall a poll from a while back correctly the majority of the evolutionists on this forum were at one point creationists or atleast didn't have an opinion.

 

[MartinM]

My honesty was questioned, as was my intellectual capacity

So obviously, the best possible response was a post riddled with ignorance and demonstrably false statements.

 

[USincognito]

Hi Puff Feather. Thanks for passing through. I do hope you stick around this particular sub-fora, but I suspect you won't.

 

[Charismaniack]

Go to www.DRDino.com
Evolutionist=person who is so desperate to disprove the existence of God that they are clinging to a desperate theory that is failing miserably. I used to be an evolutionist, if you watch a real organized debate between a realy educated creationist and a realy educted evolutionist than you will notice that they do not use the common arguments that you guys post up here. The evolutionist know that the information that they would normally use has been several times disproven and doesn't work on a real creation scientist. Evolution is not even posible. Devolution is the only thing that is possible. Stop trying to use Micro-Evolution and Devolution to prove Macro evolution. Micro=Rearanging genes, Devolution(Natural Selection)=Eliminating certain genes, Macro=Adding and creating new genes<THIS HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED!!(And it is not possible scientifically)

 

[MartinM]

Go to www.DRDino.com

No thanks. I don't feel like being lied to today.

Evolutionist=person who is so desperate to disprove the existence of God that they are clinging to a desperate theory that is failing miserably

Two lies in one sentence. Evolution is doing just fine, and most Christians accept it, so it's not about disproving God. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about God.

I used to be an evolutionist

From your post, it's abundantly clear that you never knew much about it.

if you watch a real organized debate between a realy educated creationist and a realy educted evolutionist than you will notice that they do not use the common arguments that you guys post up here

Of course they do. Where do you think we get them? Some people here are themselves 'realy educted evolutionists'.

The evolutionist know that the information that they would normally use has been several times disproven and doesn't work on a real creation scientist

Another lie. Pick up a textbook and try learning something about the subject before you comment on it.

Evolution is not even posible. Devolution is the only thing that is possible. Stop trying to use Micro-Evolution and Devolution to prove Macro evolution. Micro=Rearanging genes, Devolution(Natural Selection)=Eliminating certain genes, Macro=Adding and creating new genes<THIS HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED!!(And it is not possible scientifically)

Firstly, these definitions do not appear in the scientific literature, you are simply making things up. Secondly, the evolution of new genes has indeed been observed. Look for threads in this forum started by Shenzhou for more information.