Evolution/Creation on Trial

[RickG]

I wish that were true. When the drug company submitted the research to the government. But you can bet your last dollar if the study does not support their claim they try to hide that study. Just like the Atkins people are trying to hide the report that shows Dr Atkins died at 71 after multiple heart attacks and he weighed 265 pounds. So much for the high fat - high protein, low Carb diet. But they still want to cash in on selling that diet so they try to hide the evidence that it is harmful to your health.

Yes, the drug companies are well know for that. However, you are referencing private industry, not the peer review process used in the greater scientific community. The fact is, scientific research outside of private industry is open for anyone to review and express their approval and disapproval of. In fact, it is a common practice for scientists to share raw data, which are not seen in the publications, with other scientists to evaluate, whether they agree or disagree with it. In fact there is a lot of this data you yourself can obtain. Much is published online.

 

[RickG]

Of course not. Do you approve of misrepresenting Collins' position on evolution?

I don't approve of anyone deliberately misrepresenting information of any kind.

 

[justlookinla]

I don't approve of anyone deliberately misrepresenting information of any kind.

Why then is Collins referenced as embracing evolution when in fact he only embraces a certain view of evolution and rejects the evolutionary view of Dawkins, for example? Why is it suggested that there is only one view of evolution, when in fact it's not?

Why the misrepresentation?

 

[RickG]

Why then is Collins referenced as embracing evolution when in fact he only embraces a certain view of evolution and rejects the evolutionary view of Dawkins, for example? Why is it suggested that there is only one view of evolution, when in fact it's not?

Why the misrepresentation?

I can only speak for myself. Furthermore, I am not even familiar with the Collins reference cite. With only the information you stated I see no misrepresentation, I see no problem. You need to be more specific.

 

[Goonie]

I can only speak for myself. Furthermore, I am not even familiar with the Collins reference cite. With only the information you stated I see no misrepresentation, I see no problem. You need to be more specific.

Don't mind me but I think the difference between collins and dawkins refers whether evolution is the mechanism that god uses to achieve his/her goals(collins) and the idea that evolution does not require god(dawkins).

Interesting article
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2011/03/tlog-collins-vs-dawkins/

 

[justlookinla]

I can only speak for myself. Furthermore, I am not even familiar with the Collins reference cite. With only the information you stated I see no misrepresentation, I see no problem. You need to be more specific.

You're not familiar with the claim that Collins embraces evolution? Haven't you made that very claim yourself, or was it others who claimed that?

I embrace evolution. Collins embraces evolution. Dawkins embraces evolution. Behe embraces evolution. Is that misleading?

 

[justlookinla]

Don't mind me but I think the difference between collins and dawkins refers whether evoltion is the mechanism that god uses to achieve his/her goals(collins) and the idea that evolution does not require god(dawkins).

Exactly. When Collins embraces evolution, it's one thing, when Dawkins embraces evolution it's another.

 

[Goonie]

Personally just like the theory of gravity, evolution is a scientific theory that says little about the existance of a god, but it does have implications on the nature of said being, ie it does argue strongly against a young earth, and other creationist myths.

What TOE does give is a mechanism for how live developed once it got started. We only have hypotheses for a theory of creation, personally I strongly suspect science will provide an answer to this, since it has a strong record in filling the gaps where religion has failed.

 

[Syamsu]

Actually, even if the associations with social darwinism, atheism, Nazism, communism, etc., were substantial (a dubious proposition to start with), those would be the wrong reasons to reject evolution, since that would be an appeal to consequences, which is a fallacy.

No. The emotive phrasing of natural selection theory in terms of differential reproductive "success", "struggle for" survival, "advantageous" mutations, is the same as ideological phrasing. That is why social darwinism = natural selection theory.

I would also reject gravity theory if it was phrased as differenrial falling success of rocks in the struggle for depth.
.

 

[RickG]

Don't mind me but I think the difference between collins and dawkins refers whether evolution is the mechanism that god uses to achieve his/her goals(collins) and the idea that evolution does not require god(dawkins).

Interesting article
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2011/03/tlog-collins-vs-dawkins/

Thanks Goonie.

 

[RickG]

You're not familiar with the claim that Collins embraces evolution? Haven't you made that very claim yourself, or was it others who claimed that?

I embrace evolution. Collins embraces evolution. Dawkins embraces evolution. Behe embraces evolution. Is that misleading?

It depends upon how it is presented. A difference in opinion is one thing, but to take a statement, process, etc., and represent it to be something other than what it was intended for is a problem. Thus quote mines, and saying "science says", when in fact it doesn't is dishonest. Quote mines for the most part are most prevalent in evolution, while misrepresenting geological processes and dating methods are in the area of "science says", when in fact it doesn't.

 

[SkyWriting]

They are whatever they want to be. Whatever they want to call themselves. Most blacks in America are descended from the slave masters and their "fancy" slave girl friends.

I'd like to see your data on that. Interesting research.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is either random - or it is designed - designed to adapt to most situations except those catastrophic ones.

Not exactly. I dated a mechanical engineer in HS and she explained that nothing is random.
There are processes we don't understand, but with complete knowledge of conditions,
everything can be predicted.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If evolution were false we would?

Not at all, there are plenty of far better explanations. It is just the best science can do right now with what they have to work with.

 

[bhsmte]

Not at all, there are plenty of far better explanations. It is just the best science can do right now with what they have to work with.

What explanations would those be?

Please be specific and provide objective evidence to support your alternative explanations.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'd like to see your data on that. Interesting research.

Better go with this guy, your more likely to accept what he has to say about it.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.2.html

 

[joshua 1 9]

What explanations would those be?

Please be specific and provide objective evidence to support your alternative explanations.

Your not ready for that yet.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

A caterpillar doesn't turn into a butterfly like a embryo to a human. Again you don't seem to understand metamorphosis. The caterpillar cells trigger cellular death thus the caterpillar dies while the butterfly cells which lays dormant spread out the caterpillar's body. A butterfly is a "born again" caterpillar. Metamorphosis doesn't make sense in light of evolution since both body plans needs to be in place from the start. This requires foresight and planning. Again it two different body plans created out of the same DNA.

Its not true it uses the same DNA. It uses the same genome, but different parts to create the alternate body plan.

In another words evolutionist just dismiss, as always, all the evidence contradicting their world view which is why they continue deny intelligent design in life. Evolutionist have set it up so it's impossible to falsify their story telling. Just as Jones wrote they have to cherry pick the data to make it fit their assumptions.

Its perfectly possible to falsify evolution, but of course since evolution isn't false, its just that you won't find any natural evidence to falsify evolution. Butterfly metamorphosis of course isn't a falsification of evolution.

With a well-resolved tree, it becomes possible to more confidently infer evolution of convergent traits."
Convergent evolution is used explains away all contradictions to evolutionist trees which mean there is no way to prove any tree matches "reality".

The fact of convergent evolution is necessary due to the fact we all have the same world in which we live; so whales and fishes have similar looking shapes, the better to speed through water. But in detail, you can tell the differences between them, including which way the tails go (up and down or sideways?), how they get oxygen (lungs or gills?)

The details support the postulated tree of life. Your objection is invalid.

 

[joshua 1 9]

?????????????????????????????????????

You do not understand about choice? Lets look at what Moses says about it:

Deu 30:19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

 

[bhsmte]

Your not ready for that yet.

Around here, if you make a claim, be ready to support it.