If Evolution, why care?

[mikeynov]

No case of macroevolution has ever been documented

This above preceded what were to be claims defending macroevolution in the webpage refer to by Irish(I'm not able to post it here). The claims do not account as scientific documents. This is a CLAIM. These are claims refering to more scientific endeavours into the research of macro evolution. The results are the same, there IS NO DOCUMENTED CASE OF MACRO EVOLUTION. These are claims to reinforce what evidence they do have to support macro evolution. It has already been established from within this research that the evidence is simply insufficient. If you want me to individual refer to each claim I will upon request.

Go to pubmed. Type in 'evolution speciation.' I expect > 1000 refutations on your part of the available ~1500 peer-reviewed research abstracts.

Thanks.

And if speciation isn't good enough for you, perhaps you can indicate what you 'mean' by 'macroevolution.' I'll guess its definition is 'whatever change we haven't seen such that I can claim no direct observational evidence exists.'

Even this is not the major point in the argument Evolution vs Creation. The major point is the proposal of spontaneous generation which by calculations is simply impossible. The chances of spontaneous life is a ridicuously small ratio.

For one so versed in science, it is confusing how you could fail to differentiate abiogenesis and evolution. If you don't believe me, ask a biology professor at your school.

Also, since you do not know the fundamental conditions in which life necessarily arose, your suggestion of any probability is moot. In effect, you are trying to calculate something without a formula to do so. I'd expect more out of somebody whose discipline revolves around mathematics.

To be honest and maybe a little mean, you do not know what science is. I am currently studying in the college of engineering and if you dont know what engineering actually is (as you dont know what science really is)...it is the application of science. Also considering a doctorate in physics if I choose to teach. This is just to show some credentials that I have some backing to what I am declaring. I will have a debate with anyone who disagrees that faith precedes science. Here is something to think about. The brilliant scientist, Albert Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." If you can tell me what he was refering to, you will know the true essence of science. BTW that's a great quote from Carl Sagan Irish.

I would suggest that you have a lot to learn before you understand anything meaningful on the subjects of evolution, abiogenesis, or science in general.

'Faith' is a loaded term in describing the philosophical presuppositions central to science as a subset of philosophy. All systems of belief and methods of knowledge acquisition ultimately depend on assumptions -- this is not a revelation, nor an indication that you understand science as a whole.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

More dishonesty from the creationist department:

Falsehood #1 - "There is no evidence at all for macro-evolution"
Rebuttal: The most obvious are retro-viral insertions and human chromosome 2. If a creationist will finally address these and show why they are not evidence, or stop spouting this ridiculous lie, my blood pressure will improve.

Falsehood #2 - "There have been countless frauds" (wrt human evolution)
Rebuttal: Absolute hogwash. There has been one - Piltdown Man. Can the creationists list at least another twenty or so? Doesn't "countless" imply many, many frauds?

When is the creationist propaganda machine going to evolve scruples, honesty or morality? It absolutely stinks, the lies it feeds out to these rank and file creationists. More shame on them they don't check the manure they're being fed.

 

[Praxiteles]

You obviously didnt understand what I said in an earlier post. I said that the argument of Evolution vs Creation was VOID basically meaning it does not exist. Or was that too high of a vocabulary for you to comprehend?

Firstly, I read what you wrote. In that same post you went on to argue against the Theory of Evolution, which kind of intimated to me that you did indeed believe that there is some kind of scientific contretemps underway. You then went on, in claiming that Evolutionary Theory is faith based, to show that you don’t have a clear understanding of what is stated in the theory.

Secondly, you tried to have a dig at my vocabulary. This is rich coming from someone who writes “pertainent”. I could be generous and put that down as a typo, but I don’t believe that it is.

Also I know that macro evolution does not involve the origins of the universe but the evolutionists' stance implicates that they do not agree with intelligent design but rather spontaneous generation. That is pertainent to the argument which was also a major point.

Spontaneous generation has been disproved, and no educated person agrees with it.

What you seem to have an issue with is abiogenesis. Many Christians accept the likelihood of life starting on earth as a result of abiogenesis. How would you respond to that? You seem to be using the word “evolutionists” as synonymous with “atheists”. It is incorrect to do so.

Engineering has nothing to do with science?!

I beg your pardon? Where did I say that? Perhaps if you do me the courtesy of reading my posts properly (as you have admonished me for not doing) you'll see that I say that engineering is not science - not that it has nothing to do with science.

You do not know what science is and you are making yourself look stupid and I will prove that also. Science is applicably pure science and technology. Pure science is what you call "coming up with scientific theories" and technology is the application of science which is engineering. The both exist together.

Right. If you say so. Perhaps you could tell me how many engineers are published in scientific journals.

 

[Praxiteles]

This whole microevolution-is-real-but-macro-is-a-myth schtick is getting very tiresome. It is exactly the same as arguing that millimetres are are real but kilometres are a fantasy. Exactly the same.

 

[yossarian]

unfortunately engineers have a habit of being completely clueless about biology

 

[Brahe]

Evolution does not equal atheism. (x48)

Don't mince words, David Gould, what are you really trying to say?

But seriously, I think we need to start being able to submit well-known and oft-repeated logical and factual blunders as being forum violations.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You know, there's a rule here on homosexuality threads that everything has to be supported with evidence.

We could do with that down here. Might make the threads even more like shooting fish in a barrel, mind.

 

[Logic]

Creationism is a void argument.

There, I fixed your sentence .

Both are supported by nothing but faith alone. Believing in evolution is faith and so is believing in Creation.

There's a small degree of faith in everything we believe, I think, but evolution is supported by a plethera of scientific evidence that was painstakingly collected, organized, and refined. If creationism is based on faith alone, why does a charlatan like Mr. Hovind cash rake in over a million a year selling creation science tapes?

Before you even get into saying "Well, evolution is supported by science" let me stop you because you need to take a look at this:

*Braces self*

There are 2 branches in evolution:
1)macro evolution
2)micro evolution

In biological evolutionary theory, there are many branches of lots of things that deal with dgradual changes.

Macro evolution is the theory that we evolved from simple life forms into complex lifeforms.

Not neccessarily, macroevolution is just the formation of a new taxonomic group. Macroevo is, however, the mechanism by which we get all the complex life we have today.

There is absolutely NO scientific evidence to support this.

micro+micro+...+micro=macro
1+1+1+...+1=1,000

There is no link between the apes and humans though there have been countless frauds.

Piltdown man, you guys have hoaxes too, paluxy tracks.
Saying there is no link is just a flat out lie.

Apes and humans are similar, yes; but there is no evidence that apes came from something nor a human evolving from an ape.

That needs to appear at least once in every thread.

Macro evolution also explains life as an impossible phenomenon: spontaneous generation. There is scientific evidence on this aspect that proves that life spontaneous existing is simply IMPOSSIBLE.

You need to read less propaganda and more factual information, abiogenesis is not impossible. http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/

Micro evolution is the theory that establishs adaptation, genetic mutation, survival of the fitness...and you know the rest.

Yep, just like macro evolution, only on a smaller scale, hence micro versus macro .

This IS supported by scientific evidence yet this is not the argument in Evolution vs. Creation.

It was for a long time, just like geocentricity was argued for a long time.

Evolution vs. Creation is refering to the conflict "Did we come to life by chance?" or "Did a God create us?"

Well, you're going to offend your christian friends here who believe in evolution, see David's post, the second post in the thread.

Thus, the argument Evolution vs Creation should be restated as:

*braces self again*

Macro Evolution vs Creation
Both stances would require that each believe in faith.

Creation!=creationism
Evolution!=atheism
Microevolution eventually=macroevolution
Evolution requires faith, just like germ theiry, the fundamental theory of calculus, or the theory of gravity.

 

[challenger]

Evolution vs. Creation is refering to the conflict "Did we come to life by chance?" or "Did a God create us?"

Evolution does not state that life came about by chance, nor does it deny a creator God.

 

[P4g4nite]

On behalf of all aspiring engineers I'd like to say that this person (felix102) does not represent us.

I have the same embarrassed feeling a parent must get when their child yells some bodily function at the top of thier voice in a crowded supermarket.

But well done felix102 and cryptobranchus, you have wasted no time in revealing to us the true quality of your character.

Scathing I know, but really...what sort of response were you hoping for?

I REALLY WANT TO KNOW THIS

What sort of response were you expecting???
You made it obvious you haven't come to learn anything...
So why are you here?

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

What amazes me is the condescending tone about other people's lack of comprehension combined with the middle school writing ability. You're gonna go for a doctorate with those lingustic skills? Are you sure you weren't the proof reader on Kent Hovind's "doctoral thesis"?

 

[Vance]

On behalf of all those who are intensely Christian (I like the way that sounds, and it actually describes me), but fully accepts evolution (macro, micro, etc), I take serious offense to the suggestion that these two are inconsistent with each other.

 

[Lonnie]

"Evolution is not faith." ~ Irish_Guevara
You can say that, and believe it all you want, but it still is not true.

Me and my friends(and many, many others) have found evolution is mostly based on poor theorys(false ones) and faith. And there is just way to many things against evolution, and there are way to many flaws in evolution.

You can argue other wise all you want, but it wont change the trueth. You can debate other wise all you want, but it wont change the trueth.

Later(I have stuck my fingures in enough pies for this week... I think)

 

[Hydra009]

"Evolution is not faith." ~ Irish_Guevara
You can say that, and believe it all you want, but it still is not true.

No, it isn't faith. And simply arguing that it is doesn't make it true.

Here's why it isn't faith: Faith, simply put, is "a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Evolution is a scientific theory that does rest on material evidence.

Me and my friends(and many, many others) have found evolution is mostly based on poor theorys(false ones) and faith. And there is just way to many things against evolution, and there are way to many flaws in evolution.

Maybe you should bring those flaws to the scientific community to get them peer-reviewed.

 

[P4g4nite]

I can't remember who said this..

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts"

..but I like it.

Take that whatever way you like Lonnie...

 

[Lonnie]

"Maybe you should bring those flaws to the scientific community to get them peer-reviewed."
Me, and many other people, have already brought them up into the science community. And we have reviewed them. And have inferred that evolution is false.

 

[Brahe]

Me and my friends(and many, many others) have found evolution is mostly based on poor theorys(false ones) and faith. And there is just way to many things against evolution, and there are way to many flaws in evolution.

Lonnie, when you repeat falsehoods again and again, do you really think it gains you converts? If you at least addressed the evidence given in and number of threads, it would at least show that you're willing to discuss your claims. But you don't; you completely ignore the evidence, as though if you have enough faith it doesn't exist, it'll stop existing.

Now, if you genuinely think that there is no evidence, perhaps you should read a few of the FAQs at the talk.origins archives. If you find something you disagree with, bring up a specific criticism and the forum members can discuss it.

You can argue other wise all you want, but it wont change the trueth. You can debate other wise all you want, but it wont change the trueth.

A hint for you, Lonnie: assertions without support do not change the "trueth," nor do they convince anyone except creationists. If you want a discussion, bring up arguments. If you cannot support your claims, then I suggest you stick around in the creationists' debate-free zone.

 

[Hydra009]

"Maybe you should bring those flaws to the scientific community to get them peer-reviewed."
Me, and many other people, have already brought them up into the science community. And we have reviewed them. And have inferred that evolution is false.

Yes, that's why creationism is now the dominant scientific explaination of Earth's biodiversity.

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't respond to my other point. Should I infer that you have realized that it was baseless attack?

 

[P4g4nite]

Me, and many other people, have already brought them up into the science community. And we have reviewed them. And have inferred that evolution is false.

Are you implying that you are the scientific community?

 

[Arikay]

Lonnie, Can we see these papers that supposably show evolution to be false?
Are they on the same caliber with ICR's K/Ar dating papers?