Evolution is not science

[Subduction Zone]

Pyramidologist;64465167]20 Points For Evolution

1. Evolution has been observed

Evolution has been observed and leading evolutionists have even admitted evolution can be witnessed in the lifetime of an observer. The case for evolution is therefore most clearly recognized by the fact that more than one has seen it happen.

2. Evolution relies upon observable time periods

The theory of evolution relies upon vast periods of time, billions or millions of years. However these time periods are observable and repeatable, therefore falling inside of the scientific method.


3. Evolutionists know how to define a species



4. Speciation has been observed

Speciation has been observed.

T. H Morgan: ‘‘Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another.’’


5. Evolutionists do not really care to much what started evolution


6. Fossil evidence for evolution exists

Fossils have shown a transitional structure.



7. Evolution meets the requirements for the scientific method

Evolution is observable and repeatable, so it can be put to the scientific method.


Henry M. Morris: ‘‘Science requires experiments that can be replicated. Evolution cannot be replicated, so it is not science’’ (I left in this quote by this well known liar and idiot for laughs.)

8. Evolutionists know the origin of species


9. The theory of evolution does qualify as science

Science is defined as: ‘‘The systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms’’

Or more simply:

‘‘Knowledge attained through study or practice’’

Evolution however is observable and can be experimented or replicated.


10. Evolution is based on facts

Since there is actual concrete evidence for evolution, evolutionists have no problem proving their case in court. You know, where creationists always lose.


11. Evolution is a mathematical certainty.

The theory of evolution is based on mutation over very long periods of time. Math however in terms of probability speaks strongly for evolution.

12. Mutations do cause evolution

Mutations in nearly all instances cause a change of information, very often a gain - as the theory of evolution requires. So mutations do cause evolution.



13. Evidence for common descent from similarities

The existence of similarities in different organisms is evidence for common descent.


14. Vestigial Organs do support evolution

Vestigial organs do give credit to the theory of evolution, this is mainly due to the fact in recent years many have been found to actually have functions. And as biologists know the change in function that vestigial organs undergo supports evolution.
’

15.Almost anyone can interpret fossils,evolutionists do it correctlyh.

Fossils evolutionists use to support their theory can be observed. Fossils are direct evidence for evolution. Over the years some top zoologists have come to recognize this fact.



16. Evolutionists do not create frauds because they have plenty of evidence

The theory of evolution has very little fraud, for example Piltdown man is brought up so often that it is laughable. If frauds proved that an idea wsa incorrect then Christianity has been disproven thousands of times. Haeckel’s embryological drawings are often cited by creationists. Unfortunately for them they were not fraudulent at all and they cannot even say how they were supposedly fraudulent. "Frauds are only made when no evidence for a theory is presentable" is a foolish claim made by creationists who forget about all of the Christian frauds, from small town crooks to major country wide deceptions. As you see if this was true Christianity would not be believed by anyone.


17. Many missing links, in fact so many that it is like watching a movie picture of animals evolving. It is laughable how creationists try to claim a new "missing link" has been made every time a transitional fossil is found.


18. Minor gaps in the fossil record. Which any real stratigrapher would understand and expect.

There are numerous minor gaps in the fossil record which pose no problem for the theory of evolution.


19. Evolutionist reconstructions are honest

Since evolutionists have real evidence for evolution, they use hypothetical reconstructions to show common ancestry.


20. Evolution is pure science

Evolution can be observed or experimented; it is therefore scientific. Many notable academics have noted upon this.

Fixed that for you. I took out all of the improper quote mines. You have to remember rule number 1 for creationists, if you are going to quote a person that supports evolution you must include a proper link to a valid source. Otherwise it is clear that you are not telling the truth. I also took out all of the errors and untruths in your list.

You should enjoy #16 the most.

You are welcome!

 

[gungasnake]

Pyramidologist;64465167]20 Points Against Evolution...

They're going to accuse you of "quote mining(TM)"...

Basically, every halfway honest person with any brains and talent who has taken any sort of a hard look at evolution in the past 60 years has given up on it and many have denounced it. A listing of fifty or sixty such statements makes for an overwhelming indictment of that part of the scientific community which goes on trying to defend evolution and they (the evolosers) have a favorite term ("quote mining") which they use to describe that sort of argument.

My own response to that is to note what I view as the ultimate evolution quote by the noted evolutionist (actually, FORMER evolutionist) Jeffrey Dahmer:

"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…"

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

Dahmer converted to Christianity before he died. The basic tenets of true religion appear to be inprinted upon most of us biologically which is the only reason that Islammic societies and "secular humanist" societies like Britain and Canada function at all. A psychopath like Dahmer is basically somebody on whom that imprint did not take. For those guys, it has to be written down somewhere, and it has to be written down accurately; the bible does that. Telling somebody like Dahmer that we all evolved from "lucky dust" is a formula for getting people killed.

 

[bhsmte]

They're going to accuse you of "quote mining(TM)"...

Basically, every halfway honest person with any brains and talent who has taken any sort of a hard look at evolution in the past 60 years has given up on it and many have denounced it. A listing of fifty or sixty such statements makes for an overwhelming indictment of that part of the scientific community which goes on trying to defend evolution and they (the evolosers) have a favorite term ("quote mining") which they use to describe that sort of argument.

My own response to that is to note what I view as the ultimate evolution quote by the noted evolutionist (actually, FORMER evolutionist) Jeffrey Dahmer:





Dahmer converted to Christianity before he died. The basic tenets of true religion appear to be inprinted upon most of us biologically which is the only reason that Islammic societies and "secular humanist" societies like Britain and Canada function at all. A psychopath like Dahmer is basically somebody on whom that imprint did not take. For those guys, it has to be written down somewhere, and it has to be written down accurately; the bible does that. Telling somebody like Dahmer that we all evolved from "lucky dust" is a formula for getting people killed.

I don't think you want to get into a roll call of the percentage of scientists agree with evolution.

You would lose, big time!

 

[Subduction Zone]

They're going to accuse you of "quote mining(TM)"...

Basically, every halfway honest person with any brains and talent who has taken any sort of a hard look at evolution in the past 60 years has given up on it and many have denounced it. A listing of fifty or sixty such statements makes for an overwhelming indictment of that part of the scientific community which goes on trying to defend evolution and they (the evolosers) have a favorite term ("quote mining") which they use to describe that sort of argument.

My own response to that is to note what I view as the ultimate evolution quote by the noted evolutionist (actually, FORMER evolutionist) Jeffrey Dahmer:





Dahmer converted to Christianity before he died. The basic tenets of true religion appear to be inprinted upon most of us biologically which is the only reason that Islammic societies and "secular humanist" societies like Britain and Canada function at all. A psychopath like Dahmer is basically somebody on whom that imprint did not take. For those guys, it has to be written down somewhere, and it has to be written down accurately; the bible does that. Telling somebody like Dahmer that we all evolved from "lucky dust" is a formula for getting people killed.

Sadly he was. Do you know what quote mining is? It is when you quote out of context to try to make a point. For example I can show you where it says in the Bible "God does not exist". Now if I quoted that and tried to claim that the Bible supported atheism you would rightly call me a liar. Creationists have a terrible history of lying this way and that is why they are required to provide a valid source when quoting in this fashion. Just as I would be required to provide a source and link if I made my the Bible says "God does not exist" quote. It is not a requirement for just creationists.

 

[gungasnake]

Sadly he was. Do you know what quote mining is? ...

In fact I have a much better grasp of this stuff than YOU do. In real life, if you wish to avoid being quoted as having said something, there is a terrifyingly easy way to accomplish that:

DON'T SAY IT!!!!

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Basically, every halfway honest person with any brains and talent who has taken any sort of a hard look at evolution in the past 60 years has given up on it and many have denounced it.

I dare you to substantiate this assertion.

 

[lasthero]

In fact I have a much better grasp of this stuff than YOU do. In real life, if you wish to avoid being quoted as having said something, there is a terrifyingly easy way to accomplish that:

DON'T SAY IT!!!!

But that's the whole problem - quote mining doesn't take what people say, it takes what people say out of context. If you manipulate a person's words enough, if you take things out of context, if you cut out certain words or whole sentences, you can make people say just about anything you like. All it takes is a little editing in all the right places.

In 'real life', this sort of thing is the mark of shoddy journalism and cheap politics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In fact I have a much better grasp of this stuff than YOU do. In real life, if you wish to avoid being quoted as having said something, there is a terrifyingly easy way to accomplish that:

DON'T SAY IT!!!!

So then the Bible was right when it says "There is no God." Got it.

Thank you very much.

 

[Heissonear]

.

The OP recently included 20 items against evolution. A point by point refute has not occurred.

Let me take just one point as I have in past posts and emphasize: for any Naturalist to show me in the sedimentary rock record over the past 500 million years to show one Ancestral "species" to Descendent "species" transition fossil series as real world proof of evolution.

That's just 1 of the 20 on the list to refute.

Suduction Zone couldn't do it. Let's see if any one else can "prove" evolution by, you got it, evidence.

If evolution is based on science then prove it.

.

 

[bhsmte]

But that's the whole problem - quote mining doesn't take what people say, it takes what people say out of context. If you manipulate a person's words enough, if you take things out of context, if you cut out certain words or whole sentences, you can make people say just about anything you like. All it takes is a little editing in all the right places.

In 'real life', this sort of thing is the mark of shoddy journalism and cheap politics.

Sounds like how some people choose to interpret the bible.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The OP recently included 20 items against evolution.

You mean that cavalcade of rectally-extracted naked assertions that scientists have answered countless times before?

I dare you to substantiate a single one.

 

[gungasnake]

The Fossils In General

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing'
evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the
most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record.
Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does
not provide them ..."

David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology)
Head Curator, Dept of Geology, Stoval Museum
Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps;
the fossils are missing in all the important places."

Francis Hitching
The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong
Penguin Books, 1982, p.19

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been
a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
"Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?"
Paleobiology, vol 6, January 1980, p. 127

"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when
they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line,
there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight
argument."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist,
British Museum of Natural History, London
As quoted by: L. D. Sunderland
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 89

"We do not have any available fossil group which can categorically be
claimed to be the ancestor of any other group. We do not have in the fossil
record any specific point of divergence of one life form for another, and
generally each of the major life groups has retained its fundamental
structural and physiological characteristics throughout its life history
and has been conservative in habitat."

G. S. Carter, Professor & author
Fellow of Corpus Christi College
Cambridge, England
Structure and Habit in Vertebrate Evolution
University of Washington Press, 1967

"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with
gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during
their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the
same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a
species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
Natural History, 86(5):13, 1977

"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed,
why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth?" (p. 206)

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such
intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely
graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest
objection which can be urged against my theory (of evolution)." (p. 292)

Charles Robert Darwin
The Origin of Species, 1st edition reprint
Avenel Books, 1979

 

[gungasnake]

The Abundance of Fossils

"Darwin... was embarrassed by the fossil record... we are now about
120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been
greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the
situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still
surprisingly jerky and, ironically, ... some of the classic cases of
Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse
in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more
detailed information."

David M. Raup, Curator of Geology
Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago
"Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology"
Field Museum of Natural History
Vol. 50, No. 1, (Jan, 1979), p. 25

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological
exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely
more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been
discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are
filled with over 100-million fossils of 250,000 different species. The
availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit
objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What
is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major
groups of organisms have been growing even wide and more undeniable. They
can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection
of the fossil record."

Luther D. Sunderland (Creationist)
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems,
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 9

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more
than 40 years have completely failed. ... The fossil material is now so
complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack
of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of
material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."

Prof N. Heribert Nilsson
Lund University, Sweden
Famous botanist and evolutionist
As quoted in: The Earth Before Man, p. 51

Evidence for Creation ?

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in terms of a
particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that
it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"

Dr.. Tom Kemp, Curator
University Museum of Oxford University
" A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record"
New Scientist, Dec 5, 1985, p. 66

"Much evidence can be advanced in favour of the theory of evolution -- from
biology, biogeography and paleontology, but I still think that to the
unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.
... Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from
the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The
evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would
break down before an inquisition."

E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany,
Cambridge University, England
Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought,
Quadrangle Books, 1971, p. 97

"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there
is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of
conservative creationists, that God created each species separately,
presumably from the dust of the earth."

Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose
Emeritus Prof of Cell Biology, University of London
The Nature and Origin of the Biological World
John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164

 

[gungasnake]

The Geologic Column

"In many places, the oceanic sediments of which mountains are composed are
inverted, with the older sediments lying on top of the younger."

"Mountain Building in the Mediterranean"
Science News, Oct 17, 1970, p. 316

"2/3 of Earth's land surface has only 5 or fewer of the 10 geologic periods
in place. ... 80-85% of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic
periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order." (p. 46)

"Since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a
significant portion of the geologic column, it becomes an overall exercise
of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary -
uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods.
The claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time
of ten biochronologic 'onion skins' over the earth is therefore a fantastic
and imaginative contrivance." (p. 69)

John Woodmorappe, Geologist (Creationist)
"The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary
Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment"
Creation Research Society Quarterly
June 1981, pp. 46-71.

 

[gungasnake]

Circular Dating

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of
rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never
bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth
the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be
hard-headed pragmatism."

J.E. O'Rourke, Evolutionist researcher
"Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy"
American Journal of Science, Jan 1976, p. 48.

"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint,
geologist are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has
been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and
the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms
they contain."

R.H. Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology
Cambridge University
Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956, vol 10, p 168

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Quotes are worthless. I dare you to present some actual data in support of your position.

 

[gungasnake]

Catastrophism

"The scientific establishment's acceptance of worldwide catastrophism and
mass extinction does not signify their abandonment of materialistic
evolution. Neither has their grudging acquiescence to the fact that great
catastrophes caused the deposition of many of the fossils forced them to
consider that virtually no fossils are in the process of forming on the
bottom of any lake or sea today. This is a verboten subject. When I asked
the editors of several of the most prestigious scientific journals the
reasons for this silence, I was met with more silence."

Luther D. Sunderland (Creationist)
"Mass Extinction & Catastrophism Replace
Darwinism & Uniformitarianism"
Contrast: The Creation Evolution Controversy,
Vol 4, No. 2, 1986, pp.1-2

"We can accumulate great quantities of sediment in a given area very
rapidly. This has changed our whole thinking about the processes that came
to lay these layers here in the Grand Canyon." "One thing that supports
this view is the fact that these layers are continuous for mile after mile
through the Canyon. You can pick any one of these layers and follow it
through for a 100 or 200-miles in the Canyon, with very little change. This
kind of continuity and uniformity suggests that deep water was involved in
the process."

Dr. Arthur V. Chadwick (Creationist geologist)
The Fossil Record (film)
Films for Christ Assoc, 1983

"A week's study of the Grand Canyon should be a good cure for Evolutionary
geologists as it is a perfect example of Flood geology with its
paraconformities and striking parallelisms of the under strata. The whole
area was obviously laid down quickly, then uplifted and then the whole
sedimentary area split open like a rotten watermelon."

Albert W. Mehlert, Former Evolutionist &
paleoanthropology researcher
"Diluviology & Uniformitarian Geology -- A Review"
Creation Research Society Quarterly
Vol 23, No. 3 (Dec 1986) p. 106

 

[gungasnake]

Probability

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a
number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and
the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this
planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random,
they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

Sir Fred Hoyle
Nature, Nov 12, 1981, p. 148

"...in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive
earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if
not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical
evolution rates would have been negligible. ... It is becoming clear that
however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged
from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis.
We may therefore with fairness call this scenario 'the myth of the
prebiotic soup.' " (p. 86)

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Could you at least come up with your own crappy non-arguments, instead of cutting-and-pasting them from somewhere else?

 

[gungasnake]

DNA/RNA (information code)

"...an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy
would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then
doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima
facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not
just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a
message sequence." (pp. 211-212)

Charles B. Thaxton (Creationist)
Ph.D. Chemistry, Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard,
Staff member of the Julian Center
The Mystery of Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories
Philosophical Library, 1984

"At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate
between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching
halt

I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician
Member NY Academy of Sciences
Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America
Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities
New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4