What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

[USincognito]

Where are the millions of years of decaying species evolution to support your thery? Why is it that we can't find all the links? Did they disolve? We have the dinasoaurs, but wher are the real remains of the millions of years of decaying evolutionary matter to support this theory of evolution aside from your natural selections.

I'm asking this sincerely because the phrases I've bolded in your quote are just so bizarre - is English your first language?

 

[us38]

Oh, but it is.

The thing about science, is that the perspective of the observer is the variable when we do not have all of the facts.

EXAMPLE: I live in Kansas, at what temperature does water boil?

How about a person who lives in Denver?...At what temperature does water boil for him?

Today, science has provided each of us with an understanding of this differentiation in altitude and barometric pressure, but before we understood all of those factors, science was at a loss to explain the phenomenon.

Here, today, we are discussing a situation for which we lack all of the factors.

And you respond by not saying that you don't know (as would be the case of different boiling points), but by inserting an unevidenced and unfalsifiable entity.

I have attempted to approach the issue from a "Monotheistic" perspective, others on this forum, have approached it from a "Polytheistic" point of view, and you have addressed this issue from an "Atheistic" perspective.

And you further show your ignorance of theology and science. I did not approach from an atheistic standpoint. No one has. We approached it from a scientific standpoint. Many theists are scientists.

As far as I can tell, the only differentiation between each of our views, assumptions, theories, and evidence, is your own particular snyde, rude, pampas, demeening, attitude toward civil debate.

And the fact that mine prove useful.

But perhaps it is my own ignorance of "your" theological truths that blind me to "your" reality.

And what, praytell, are my "theological truths"?

I can find fossilized cowboy boots, less than 60 years old, fossilized leather hats, recently petrified wood, etc... I'm sorry, but I haven't located a pigeon, but I presume that you would disregard any of these evidences, regardless. (Pigeon or not)

...what's the point of this?

But what greatly bothers me is the fact that I will go to bed this evening, resting safely in the arms of a well planned, and created universe.

You on the otherhand will lie down, just a blob of flesh floating somewhere in a vast vacuum of nothingness.

False. Either we are both going to bed in a well planned and created universe, or we're both blobs of flesh floating somewhere in the cast vacuum of nothingness. Our beliefs have no effect on reality.

I cannot prove to you that I am right, and you are wrong, (I wish I could)

I cannot prove to you that I am right, and you are wrong (I wish I could).

But your anger, and hostility over the matter do stand out quite visibly.

As does yours. What's your point?

I can only pray that you are not in a position of teaching these beliefs to our future generations.

Because it would be such a shame to teach children to question everything and only assert what they have evidence for, as opposed to finding a mindset that makes them happy and staying in it, regardless of the consequences of those beliefs.

May the Lord Bless you and keep you.


....and may that mean something to you one day.

Not too long ago, it would have meant something. Oh, wait, I forgot, "true christians" never deconvert.

 

[USincognito]

{snip bluster and preaching}
I can find fossilized cowboy boots, less than 60 years old, fossilized leather hats, recently petrified wood, etc... I'm sorry, but I haven't located a pigeon, but I presume that you would disregard any of these evidences, regardless. (Pigeon or not)
{snip bluster and preaching}

No you can't. The Iraan object is of dubious veracity to say the least and none of the other stuff you mention exists except in the "game of telephone" played by Creationists passing on stories they think validate their position.

And this thread is asking for weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Preaching, while I'm sure makes you feel comforted, is not addressing the question asked in the OP.

 

[Psudopod]

I have attempted to approach the issue from a "Monotheistic" perspective, others on this forum, have approached it from a "Polytheistic" point of view, and you have addressed this issue from an "Atheistic" perspective.

You can't apply these perspectives to science. If it is science, it will stand up in front of scruitiny from people of all faiths. That's why people of all faiths accept evolution, because the evidence is there for all to see, no matter what their religeous beliefs.

 

[Impaler]

The thing about science, is that the perspective of the observer is the variable when we do not have all of the facts.

No matter how much AiG tells you otherwise there are certain evidences that simply cannot be explained by anything other than evolution.

EXAMPLE: I live in Kansas, at what temperature does water boil?

How about a person who lives in Denver?...At what temperature does water boil for him?

Today, science has provided each of us with an understanding of this differentiation in altitude and barometric pressure, but before we understood all of those factors, science was at a loss to explain the phenomenon.

That's because science prefers "I don't know" to "Goddidit".

Here, today, we are discussing a situation for which we lack all of the factors.

Evolution lacks a few non critical factors, creationism lacks them all.

I have attempted to approach the issue from a "Monotheistic" perspective, others on this forum, have approached it from a "Polytheistic" point of view, and you have addressed this issue from an "Atheistic" perspective.

Science is agnostic. When you address it from any other perspective your adding unnecessary factors for which there is no evidence. If there were evidence for God you could include him in science.

As far as I can tell, the only differentiation between each of our views, assumptions, theories, and evidence, is your own particular snyde, rude, pampas, demeening, attitude toward civil debate.

Creationism isn't even close to evolution in terms of scientific evidence. Attempting to call it a tie isn't going to change that.

But perhaps it is my own ignorance of "your" theological truths that blind me to "your" reality.

No one has their own reality.

I can find fossilized cowboy boots, less than 60 years old, fossilized leather hats, recently petrified wood, etc... I'm sorry, but I haven't located a pigeon, but I presume that you would disregard any of these evidences, regardless. (Pigeon or not)

The point was not the time it takes for fossilisation but the probability of fossilisation. Evolutionists don't reject things out of hand because they disagree with our beliefs, that's creationism.

I can only pray that you are not in a position of teaching these beliefs to our future generations.

Thanks to a nice collection of court victories I'm afraid that will be so.

May the Lord Bless you and keep you.

And may you rot in the ground when you die.

 

[Baggins]

In other words, "We will MAKE the pieces fit the puzzle, Ye need not question the wisdom of "our faith."

I meant what I said, check your facts, you obviously didn't know what you were talking about, no 68 ma red blood cells have ever been found.

I don't know why you would stick to your guns in such a situation. You repeated a lie, you were corrected, if you continue to repeatthe lie it is you who is now lying.

Instead of believing what you read on creationist websites you should look at the scientific evidence and see what was really found, and how exceptional it was. It was truly one of the greatest palaeontological finds of all time, it wasn't 68ma red blood cells and it wasn't a problem for the palaeontological community to explain.

This is from New Scientist, this isn't peer reviewed but it is a respected scientific journal:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7195

IThis points out that the find is probably not as rare as first thought, it is just that palaeontologists hadn't expected to find material as well preserved as this so weren't looking for it before.

Even if you persist in believing that these pose a problem for palaeontologists you then have to disprove the whole of nuclear physics in order that the claimed date of 68ma ( that will be based on radioactive decay dating methods ) is wrong and a young earth correct.

Good luck with that, your nobel prize will await you

 

[Baggins]

Sorry, Actually I do know "All sorts of things."

But it wasn't my intention to upset anyone.

Anytime one theology encounters another in a debate, there will be differing opinions.

I was just attempting to offer evidence to support my faith along side of the evidence you have provided to support your own.

Science isn't a theology and your attempts to drag it down to your level to debate it will not work.

If you want to debate science you debate it on its terms using evidence.

The alternative is to look shifty and ignorant, as you do on this thread, and then end up preaching before making a hasty exit

 

[TheBear]

According to the video, high school textbooks claim that "whales evolved legs and became cows."

Where can I find this in high school textbooks?

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, but it is.

The thing about science, is that the perspective of the observer is the variable when we do not have all of the facts.

No matter who is sequencing the genomes of chimps and humans there are still nearly 200,000 ERV's that can only be explained through common ancestry. That is the thing about science, it relies on OBJECTIVE evidence, evidence that is the same for everyone. This is the opposite of theology which relies on PERSONAL REVELATION.

Science and evolution are not theologies.

EXAMPLE: I live in Kansas, at what temperature does water boil?

How about a person who lives in Denver?...At what temperature does water boil for him?

Kansas, pretty close to 100 celcius. Denver, around 97 celcius.

How about this scenario. Ten people measure the boiling point of water in Kansas. Will their measurements agree? Ten people measure the boiling point in Denver. Will their measurements agree?

The variable is not the observer. The variable is altitude.

Today, science has provided each of us with an understanding of this differentiation in altitude and barometric pressure, but before we understood all of those factors, science was at a loss to explain the phenomenon.

It's strange how science is able to figure out how nature works, isn't it?

I have attempted to approach the issue from a "Monotheistic" perspective, others on this forum, have approached it from a "Polytheistic" point of view, and you have addressed this issue from an "Atheistic" perspective.

I approached it from a scientific perspective.

As far as I can tell, the only differentiation between each of our views, assumptions, theories, and evidence, is your own particular snyde, rude, pampas, demeening, attitude toward civil debate.

The difference between you and I is that I work from evidence. You seem to be working from religious dogma.

But perhaps it is my own ignorance of "your" theological truths that blind me to "your" reality.

I am not the one claiming red blood cells were found in dino bones. That would be you.

I can find fossilized cowboy boots, less than 60 years old, fossilized leather hats, recently petrified wood, etc... I'm sorry, but I haven't located a pigeon, but I presume that you would disregard any of these evidences, regardless. (Pigeon or not)

Those fossils are concretions, not permineralized fossils.

But what greatly bothers me is the fact that I will go to bed this evening, resting safely in the arms of a well planned, and created universe.

And you still haven't found a weakness in the theory of evolution.

 

[MarcusHill]

How about this scenario. Ten people measure the boiling point of water in Kansas. Will their measurements agree? Ten people measure the boiling point in Denver. Will their measurements agree?

The variable is not the observer. The variable is altitude.

Even better - ten people measure the boiling point of water in Kansas and ten others, simultaneously, in Denver. Five of each set hop on planes, swap places and everyone repeats the experiment. Is it the observer, time or altitude that makes a difference?

 

[Split Rock]

*deleted*

 

[consol]

One of the 'Weaknesses of Evolution' is that it does not fight back,
it will also be there when we are long gone, believe in evolution or not,
it doesn't care either way.

Because our lives are so short and meaningless in the vast scheme of things,
anything that takes our minds off the inevitable is viewed as a good thing,
so if we can invent something that gives our time on earth some kind of meaning,
no matter how silly, some people will grab it with both hands, and who can argue with that?
if religion gives pleasure and relief what can be wrong with that?
unfortunately we all know what can be wrong with that, it is taken too far,
instead of giving pleasure and relief it's turned into the truth of all truths,
the reason why we are here, God is the creator, God is love, oh how we love God,
and madness breaks out like a rash, all over the world.

I suppose it's better to pray than fight, until the praying starts a fight,
and then it all comes down to who has the biggest God and is the least evolved.

Put simply, Evolution is, Creationism is not.

 

[s41nn0n]

ok but how do you (evolutionists) explain thought?

 

[Impaler]

ok but how do you (evolutionists) explain thought?

Simple, those that are smarter will survive better in some environments.

 

[consol]

ok but how do you (evolutionists) explain thought?

I see, you are looking for a reason for that and everything else,
because you can not explain something there MUST be an all powerful being behind it, that makes sense,
if you don't understand some thing, make it more confusing by adding something even more unbelievable,
we could go on for hours just adding confusion.

Why has there got to be a reason? just because you can think, you think there must be a reason why you exist,
and because you are able to imagine a God, there MUST be a God, WHY?

When you tell the dog to fetch the ball, the dog is thinking, does the dog have a God?
no, because the dog can not imagine a God, so why do you suppose we are any different from the dog?
because we are smarter and more imaginative?

Some people are born brain damaged, they have less brain than the dog,
so they can not imagine a God, but because they are human it doesn't matter,
because we can imagine a God for them.

I really can not understand how some people can be so easily conned.

Perhaps it has something to do with their upbringing?

 

[s41nn0n]

How do you kow if the og has a GOD or not have you ever been in a dogs mind or thoughts? NO so you cannot make such harsh conclusions for somehting you dont know.
and again have you ever been in the thoughts of a brain damaged person? NO. and why are we so different from the dog? we airnt we are both made up from the same things. ATOMS. and for all we know dogs could be way more intelligent than we are, but they canot show it for certain reasons.
Dogs have there own way of communication, they bark, and so how do humans know what they are saying.
For all we know dogs could know all. And maybe al they think about is God.

And you didnt answer my quesion how do you (evolutionists) explain thought?

 

[s41nn0n]

Simple, those that are smarter will survive better in some environments.

what is smater? destoying the world? NO so therefore we are not smater as we are destroying the things that keep us alive.

 

[Impaler]

what is smater? destoying the world? NO so therefore we are not smater as we are destroying the things that keep us alive.

So we're not smarter than when the only tools we had were used to smash open nuts? A nuclear warhead is no more complicated than a flint axe? Face it we're getting smarter. We're also getting greedy and selfish, but smarter.

 

[s41nn0n]

Yes but personally I think smater is looking after the Earth not destroying it.

 

[consol]

How do you kow if the og has a GOD or not have you ever been in a dogs mind or thoughts? NO so you cannot make such harsh conclusions for somehting you dont know.
and again have you ever been in the thoughts of a brain damaged person? NO. and why are we so different from the dog? we airnt we are both made up from the same things. ATOMS. and for all we know dogs could be way more intelligent than we are, but they canot show it for certain reasons.
Dogs have there own way of communication, they bark, and so how do humans know what they are saying.
For all we know dogs could know all. And maybe al they think about is God.

And you didnt answer my quesion how do you (evolutionists) explain thought?

Whatever you say.