What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

[lemmings]

This is not entirely correct, Lemmings. Petrification is not the same as fossilization. Fossilization happens over millions of years, while petrification can happen quite quickly. This is because in fossilization all the carbon parts of the fossilized organism are exchanged for minerals, something which doesn't happen with petrification.

Thank you. I wasn’t aware of the difference.

 

[Tomk80]

I am not going to elaborate on these because I do not have enough knowledge about them to be able to do that but I have been learning online about things on both sides of this issue, as fast as I can (in between posting here) and I will continue to learn. You will have to look them up for yourself as I have been doing. I realize that it isn't the most concise argument but it is what I have for now. The more I do learn the more I realize that evolution does not always add up. I am still convinced of Creation as God's divine design. It is too wonderful and complex to just "happen" from nothing.

Just be sure to be concise when you research these arguments. Don't just accept the arguments of creationists, the same way as you don't just accept the arguments of evolutionists.

Be aware for example that when you are talking about petrification, you are talking about a very different process than when you are talking about fossilization, even though the result may look the same at first glance. Ask yourself why this is not elaborated on in the source you read. Is it relevant? Shouldn't this be important when they are telling you about this? Why are they omitting ths very important piece of information in the text you read? Are they completely honest with you? Important questions, which are not easy to answer by casually reading the texts.

 

[Tomk80]

Yeah Yeah Yeah I know you have explained the findings but what I am saying is that it doesn't EXPLAIN the conclusions or convince me of the conclusions.

I am having a hard time understanding what you say here. I can definitely understand that the arguments raised wouldn't directly convince you. But what do you mean with "it doesn't EXPLAIN the conclusion"? For example with the twin-nested hierarchy. Descent with modification will always give groups within groups (ie, a nested hierarchy). That is explained by the fact that with descent with modification there is always a splitting of already existing groups, instead of an overlap between groups. Vice versa, it also explains the conclusion. We draw the conclusion because descent with modification is the only thing we know of that would be in accordance with a twin-nested hierarchy. If we would see something different, this could not be explained by descent with modification and thus a different conclusion would be needed.

So what do you mean when you say "it doesn't EXPLAIN the conclusion"?

And did you WANT me to be able to explain these?

If creationism would be science, it should be able to explain these. So yes, that would be nice. My problem is that in all the years I am in these discussions now, I have never had them adequately explained to me. Not by lay creationists, and not by professional creationists. So I do not expect you to be able to explain them. But if you can, I will always be willing to think about the explanation you give.

I have done what you have done and read the results of these. I haven't memorized them so that I could really explain them back to you but I don't think you wanted that. Weren't you saying that I haven't EXPLAINED my conclutions of these findings? I could have an "idea" (just as scientists do) or I could also, surmise, (as scientists do) but will that change your mind? Of course not. That is not what you want. What you want is fodder to prey upon. I don't begrudge you that, I like the idea of a good joust myself. But you KNOW my conclusions. I agree that there is evidence of evolution BUT I DO NOT agree that this is evidence that creation did not take place. No matter what I say your mind is all made up and you will not be satisfied with my answer. I don't even think you could be satisfied to say "Okay there are people out there who don't agree with us, and even though they are wrong (from your viewpoint) I can accept it." I don't think you can accept this. I could be wrong but it seems that way to me. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I said all that to say this. I'm no even going to try to explain.

I find what you say above a bit disingenuous in several levels.

1. You make it seem like we just read the article, didn't think about it any further and just repeat it here. But reading something and understanding what it says and what it's ramifications are, are two different things. I would suggest to you that many here have not only done the reading, but also the studying and understanding of the reasoning part.

2. Again, as I mentioned in the other thread, you try to suggest that the language scientist use invalidates their conclusions. I find this disingenuous, as the language they use indicates that they might be wrong. However, that they might be wrong does not suddenly mean that it is likely that they are wrong. I would put to you that it is very important to distinguish between those two.

3. You say that no matter what you say, our minds are all made up and you will never convince us. But you say so before you have even tried. So how do you know? Don't presume that you yourself are the "high arbiter of truth (tm)". Don't presume that because your arguments are not accepted you are right and the rest doesn't want to listen. It might just be that you are wrong. And definitely do not say of us that we will not listen before you have even given any arguments.

4. The statements you make above portray of you the very attitude you ascribe to us. Before you have seen all the evidence and show a good understanding of them you make statements about the evidence. You say we "KNOW your conclusions". The way you state this implies about you that no matter what we would say or do, you would not change them.

I am very willing to change my conclusions depending on the arguments given. I have done so before in these discussions (going from "evolution is not a well-supported theory to "evolution as a theory is extremely well supported") as in others. But your reasoning will have to be sound and I will try to shoot holes in anything you throw at me. I am not convinced easily, but if your arguments are good I will be.

 

[BigDug]

testing this post count

 

[BigDug]

Tom K said:

Just be sure to be concise when you research these arguments.

Wiccan_Child said:

Shouting phrases isn't the most concise of arguments.

Ok first of all, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what the word 'concise' means. Here is a dictionary definition which might help you out:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...:concise&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

So in fact Inan was expressing these concepts not only in a concise manner, but in the most concise manner possible.

Ah, I see... so, you decided Creation is correct BEFORE looking at the evidence, and are now trying to find evidence to support your prior assumptions

Second, before you get whisked away with an overblown sense of your own scientific prowess I think you might recall that you yourself, as well as every other human being on the planet starts with an opinion about creation well before they get a chance to "look at the evidence". A larger, definitely more intelligent question would be to ask yourself why people tend to start with these default opinions in the first place.

Also, Im not aware of any scientific process which does not use evidence to support a prior hypothesis.

And this 'evidence' your talking about seems very scarce indeed, I think it is the height of hypocritical ignorance to accuse Inan of not producing any evidence when after browsing this thread for the last few days I have certainly seen zilch from you yourself in the way of "evidence for evolution". At least Inan seems to be putting forth an effort, whereas the majority of those replying to him dont seem to be dragging up much at all in terms of content.

Evolution is a BIOLOGICAL Theory, not Geology.

Umm, no. ToE follows many distinct lines of inquiry, not the least of them being biology, paleontology, and geology. Since gradualism uses environmental changes as a catalyst to natural selection, it is logical to include the study of geology in any body of information which contributes to the ToE.

As a matter of fact it was uniformitism itself which led to initial questions of origins.

Since geology is the main instrument in determining ages of earth in various fossil contexts(through radiometric dating techniques) I would think any one interested in the ToE would recognize the relevance of geology. Thats just basic common sense as far as Im concerned.

 

[BigDug]

creationism would be science, it should be able to explain these. So yes, that would be nice. My problem is that in all the years I am in these discussions now, I have never had them adequately explained to me. Not by lay creationists, and not by professional creationists. So I do not expect you to be able to explain them. But if you can, I will always be willing to think about the explanation you give.

No, first of all something does not need to be modern science in order to have explanatory power. The Judeo_Christian creation story is certainly an explanation of the existence of all life. Whether or not this explanation is testable is another issue altogether, but it certainly has explanatory power. So your statement that if "creation were science, it should explain x,y, or z is definitely wrong. Any hypothesis can have an instrinsic power to explain the natural world, it just remains to be seen of that hypothesis can be tested and or supported by facts.

Second, judging by the age in your profile, and the relatively recent access to newsgroups and forums by the "average user" I would guess that the "years" your talking about would be relatively few, perhaps you'd care to tell me how many years we are talking about here.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ok first of all, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what the word 'concise' means. Here is a dictionary definition which might help you out:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...:concise&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

So in fact Inan was expressing these concepts not only in a concise manner, but in the most concise manner possible.

I am aware of what concise means. However, he simply shouted words. This is not an argument, and so is not a concise argument. Notice your definition said: [SIZE=-1]expressing much in few words. He did not express an argument, and thus did not express a concise arguement.[/SIZE]

Also, Im not aware of any scientific process which does not use evidence to support a prior hypothesis.

The theory of gravitation, for starters. Do you think people sat down and said, 'I hypothesis that masses attract one another according to this formula that I pulled out of my bum', and then went about dropping things off cliffs and measuring the motion of the planets? No. They saw that masses attract one another (or, at first, that things are attracted to the Earth), and created an explanation for why.

And this 'evidence' your talking about seems very scarce indeed, I think it is the height of hypocritical ignorance to accuse Inan of not producing any evidence when after browsing this thread for the last few days I have certainly seen zilch from you yourself in the way of "evidence for evolution". At least Inan seems to be putting forth an effort, whereas the majority of those replying to him dont seem to be dragging up much at all in terms of content.

He said he has evidence against evolutionary theory and for Creationism, and so we asked for it. Noone has yet asked for evidence for evolutionary theory, though, so is it so unreasonable that none has been presented?

Umm, no. ToE follows many distinct lines of inquiry, not the least of them being biology, paleontology, and geology. Since gradualism uses environmental changes as a catalyst to natural selection, it is logical to include the study of geology in any body of information which contributes to the ToE.

As a matter of fact it was uniformitism itself which led to initial questions of origins.

Since geology is the main instrument in determining ages of earth in various fossil contexts(through radiometric dating techniques) I would think any one interested in the ToE would recognize the relevance of geology. Thats just basic common sense as far as Im concerned.

Noone is disputing the fact that geographical analysis has bolstered evolutionary theory, but attacks on geography do not, strictly speaking, constitute attacks on evolution. Evolution holds up on it's own biological footing; evidence from non-biological fields are simply the icing on the cake.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, first of all something does not need to be modern science in order to have explanatory power.

No, but something must have explanatory power in order to be modern science.

The Judeo_Christian creation story is certainly an explanation of the existence of all life. Whether or not this explanation is testable is another issue altogether, but it certainly has explanatory power. So your statement that if "creation were science, it should explain x,y, or z is definitely wrong.

Equivocation (of sorts). Explanatory power does not imply scientific validity, but scientific validity requires explanatory power.

Second, judging by the age in your profile, and the relatively recent access to newsgroups and forums by the "average user" I would guess that the "years" your talking about would be relatively few, perhaps you'd care to tell me how many years we are talking about here.

Ad hominem. The age and/or experiance of a poster is irrelevant to his or her post. This is tantamount to flaming, which I'm sure you'll recall is against the rules.

 

[NailsII]

Also, Im not aware of any scientific process which does not use evidence to support a prior hypothesis.

And this 'evidence' your talking about seems very scarce indeed, I think it is the height of hypocritical ignorance to accuse Inan of not producing any evidence when after browsing this thread for the last few days I have certainly seen zilch from you yourself in the way of "evidence for evolution". At least Inan seems to be putting forth an effort, whereas the majority of those replying to him dont seem to be dragging up much at all in terms of content.

OK, ignorance of the scientific method as well.
The big difference is that if the evidence doesn support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is wrong and can be changed.
As a theist, if the evidence doesn't agree with scripture then the evidence must be wrong.....

Umm, no. ToE follows many distinct lines of inquiry, not the least of them being biology, paleontology, and geology. Since gradualism uses environmental changes as a catalyst to natural selection, it is logical to include the study of geology in any body of information which contributes to the ToE.
......

Since geology is the main instrument in determining ages of earth in various fossil contexts(through radiometric dating techniques) I would think any one interested in the ToE would recognize the relevance of geology. Thats just basic common sense as far as Im concerned.

Evolution by natural selection is purely a biological theory.
It is however, strongly supported by geological evidence as well as physics and paleantology.
If you asked a serious, professional physicisist about 'his' theory of evolution he would just laugh at you.
To him, ToE would probably mean Theory of Everything....

OK, you asked for evidence.....

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=researchers-find-fossils

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=850544AF-E7F2-99DF-3116AD8195470090&sc=I100322 (although I don't agrre with all of the conclusions - I feel the sex-selection line to be totally satisfactory on its own)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/abs/nature05989.html

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n8/full/nrg2158.html

Shall I continue?
Or shall I give you a few weeks to read this little lot.
Any questions, please feel free to PM me and I will explain any big words.

 

[BigDug]

I am aware of what concise means.

Obviously not, why would you lie?

However, he simply shouted words.

Nobody was shouting anything, thats another lie.

[SIZE=-1]He did not express an argument[/SIZE]

Obviously you don't know what an argument is either..it is an expression of disagreement, which certainly qualifies Inan's statements.

The theory of gravitation, for starters. Do you think people sat down and said, 'I hypothesis that masses attract one another according to this formula that I pulled out of my bum', and then went about dropping things off cliffs and measuring the motion of the planets? No. They saw that masses attract one another (or, at first, that things are attracted to the Earth), and created an explanation for why.

Yes but plenty of evidence is used to support gravity. The initial observation is seperate from the explanation which is also seperate from evidence and possible tests. Obviously you have no knowledge whatsoever of the scientific method, which is not surprising since you seem to be unable to learn what simple words such as concise, argument, and shout mean.

Its unclear what point you are trying to make here, I dont see what connection this has in any way to what I had said. Its ridiculous.

but attacks on geography do not, strictly speaking, constitute attacks on evolution

What do you mean? Attacks on geography? geography has little to do with geology, which is the field of study in question. This is yet another word that you need to go back and look up. There is a big difference between geography and geology. And who is attacking anything? Your the one making claims about people shouting things.

If you had at least admitted that you used the word concise and others incorrectly, and accepted correction I would be able to take you seriously, but this form of sidestepping obvious simple errors on your part points to a complete disregard for the truth.

Evolution holds up on it's own biological footing;

How does evolution hold up on its own "biological footing"?

 

[Tomk80]

No, first of all something does not need to be modern science in order to have explanatory power. The Judeo_Christian creation story is certainly an explanation of the existence of all life.

How is "goddidit" in any way an explanation of any specific issue?

If you have the question why there are pseudogenes in the genome, stating that 'goddidit' doesn't explain anything, because God could just as well have done it any other way.

Whether or not this explanation is testable is another issue altogether, but it certainly has explanatory power. So your statement that if "creation were science, it should explain x,y, or z is definitely wrong. Any hypothesis can have an instrinsic power to explain the natural world, it just remains to be seen of that hypothesis can be tested and or supported by facts.

It is not wrong. As you yourself state, any hypothesis can have an intrinsic power to explain the natural world. I would go one step further, any scientific hypothesis has the power to given an explanation of the natural world. The reason for this is that any scientific hypothesis needs to make testable claims, and the basis for this testable claim almost invariably needs to be an explanation of some sort.

Next to this, the goal of science is to explain things. If creationism wants to purport to be science, it should be able to create an explanatory framework why we see one thing but not something different. The efforts of creationists in this direction are minimal, if they exist at all.

Second, judging by the age in your profile, and the relatively recent access to newsgroups and forums by the "average user" I would guess that the "years" your talking about would be relatively few, perhaps you'd care to tell me how many years we are talking about here.

Around 7 or 8, that enough for you? Although I had glimpses at the issue since the age of 12, I have studied the issue in ernest since around 19/20. Books have always been available for both sides of a lot of issues, including creationism/evolution. Whatever you may think of people of 'my age', some of us do use books, you know. Neither has the evolution/creation issue ever been limited to news forums only. AIG's website goes at least back 8 years, and talk origins goes back at least 10 to 15 years if not more. In this time I have read a range of creationist literature, dating back to the start of creationists, ie the '70s. Next to this I worked through college and university level material on biology in my spare time, while studying environmental health science (lots of physiology, genetics, ecology etc) and epidemiology (lots of statistics, comes in handy when trying to understand cladistic analyses) at university.

But none of that is actually necessary. If creationism would be a scientific endavour, I shouldn't have to look for a year before finally stumbling on something with explanatory or testable value by coincidence. If creationism would be science, both lay and professional creationists should be able to beat me around the bush easily with explanations, testable non-falsified hypotheses and a coherent framework, or at least differing coherent frameworks and a good internal discussion on those. None of those are even close to present, or if they are the professional creationists sure take a lot of effort to hide them.

 

[Tomk80]

Yes but plenty of evidence is used to support gravity. The initial observation is seperate from the explanation which is also seperate from evidence and possible tests. Obviously you have no knowledge whatsoever of the scientific method, which is not surprising since you seem to be unable to learn what simple words such as concise, argument, and shout mean.

The explanation is not seperate from the possible tests. The reason being that the possible tests derive from the explanation. The explanation is also not seperate from the evidence, it is build on the evidence. They are different things, yes, but they are very much interrelated. Especially the explanations and tests.

<snip ad hominems>

snipped irrelevance

How does evolution hold up on its own "biological footing"?

Through the evidence from genetics and morphology. For example, the twin-nested hierarchy points to descent with modification, because that is the only process we know of that would result in the observation of a twin-nested hierarchy. Evolution was already concluded on the basis of these (and other) findings before there was a clear enough picture from geology/paleontology.

Of course, the two are interconnected. Paleontological findings have provided the longer the more support for the theory of evolution. But this evidence has long been scarce and is not in itself necessary for the conclusion of evolution.

Of course, if the geological record would clearly show a young earth and the fossil record would lead to completely different conclusions than the evidence from morphology and genetics, there would be a problem. Then we would see that our biological observations point to one conclusion, the geological record to another one and philosophers of science would have a field day writing books about paradigm shifts, the theoretical basis of observations etc etc, and they would maybe even be listened to. Discord in science, the wet dream of the philosopher of science.

Problem for the philosphers is that this is not what we find, which is very bad for their book sales and career opportunities .

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Obviously not, why would you lie?

Loaded question: you presume I lied.

Obviously you don't know what an argument is either..it is an expression of disagreement, which certainly qualifies Inan's statements.

In case you hadn't noticed, this is a forum for debates. An argument is a conclusion logically derived from premises. Inan's post was not an argument.

Yes but plenty of evidence is used to support gravity. The initial observation is seperate from the explanation which is also seperate from evidence and possible tests.

Irrelevant. The inital observations came before the explanation.

Obviously you have no knowledge whatsoever of the scientific method, which is not surprising since you seem to be unable to learn what simple words such as concise, argument, and shout mean.

Obviously.

Its unclear what point you are trying to make here, I dont see what connection this has in any way to what I had said. Its ridiculous.

'I don't understand, so therefore it's ridiculous'. How trite.
My point is that the theory of gravitation is, ultimately, an a posteriori explanation. You claimed that no scientific theory is a posteriori; or rather, that all scientific theories are a priori. As I demonstrated, this is not true: the theory of gravitation is but one a posteriori theory.

What do you mean? Attacks on geography? geography has little to do with geology, which is the field of study in question. This is yet another word that you need to go back and look up. There is a big difference between geography and geology.

It was a typo, nothing more. Calm down. Besides, my point stands as geography is as beneficial to the ToE as geology.

And who is attacking anything?

Inan attacked the theory of evolution via geology.

If you had at least admitted that you used the word concise and others incorrectly, and accepted correction I would be able to take you seriously, but this form of sidestepping obvious simple errors on your part points to a complete disregard for the truth.

In case you hadn't noticed, I explained why I used the words 'concise' and 'argument' as I did. I will not admit to something I did not do, nor concede a correction where none is need.

How does evolution hold up on its own "biological footing"?

Sympatric isolation and subsequent speciation has been observed. This was predicted by evolutionary theory, and has thus been supported by biological evidence.
I won't insult your intelligence by explaining the extensive theory behind evolution.

 

[BigDug]

How is "goddidit" in any way an explanation of any specific issue

Dont know what an explanation is, eh? Guess what, if you cant figure out basic English I dont feel responsible to teach you.

If you have the question why there are pseudogenes in the genome, stating that 'goddidit' doesn't explain anything, because God could just as well have done it any other way

Wait, your thinking that the existence of pseudogenes and other junk DNA shows a bad design? Is that your "point"? Thats ridiculous.

Next to this, the goal of science is to explain things. If creationism wants to purport to be science, it should be able to create an explanatory framework why we see one thing but not something different

Well basically you are agreeing with me here but what specifically do you "see one thing but not something different", a little too much if a generalization.

Around 7 or 8, that enough for you?

Enough for me? Your the one who brought it up, so since you are the one making an appeal to your "years of experience" perhaps the more intelligent question would be: Is it good enough for YOU? Personally I never stop learning, and I am never presumptuous enough to think that after 4 or 5 or ten years that I cannot learn anything new. Its very "unscientific" thinking...especially for those who claim science to be their intellectual foundation.

If creationism would be science, both lay and professional creationists should be able to beat me around the bush easily with explanations, testable non-falsified hypotheses and a coherent framework, or at least differing coherent frameworks and a good internal discussion on those

True, but the same could be said for evolution, and the fact that your years of experience have not gotten you any closer to understanding concepts which you disagree with really make it difficult for me to accept that you had been studying the issue for 7 or 8 years(unless you were reading very slowly). In only months of reading about things I was able to instantly understand the fruitless nature of a well supported scientific theory of origins on either the creation or evolution side. Apparently, with all the time you have had into it, your having a difficulty grasping it.

Evolution by natural selection is purely a biological theory.

We are not JUST talking about natural selection, we are talking about the entire theory, and the entire theory depends upon many different lines of inquiry. Besides, natural selection is probably studied closer by zoologists and specialists such as herpetologists, rather than being a "purely a biological theory"

If you asked a serious, professional physicisist about 'his' theory of evolution he would just laugh at you.

really? well as it happens I was just talking to a post doctorate physicist the other day who seemed to find a lot of evidence of a inherent design in the universe he observes every day.

The big difference is that if the evidence doesn support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is wrong and can be changed.

Well then, you are preaching to the choir, but now its your turn to tell me why science hasnt discarded the theory of evolution.If in your own words: "it is wrong and can be changed" then why hasnt it been changed?

Or shall I give you a few weeks to read this little lot.

Oh so giving me a list of url's is your way of outlining evidence? No. I think I'd be much more interested in your interpretation of the information on those websites.

Any questions, please feel free to PM me and I will explain any big words

In what world do you live in to think that I would ever PM you for anything?

Ad hominem. The age and/or experiance of a poster is irrelevant to his or her post.

I agree, why then would he bring up his experience?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

really? well as it happens I was just talking to a post doctorate physicist the other day who seemed to find a lot of evidence of a inherent design in the universe he observes every day.

quite possibly. However I bet he would laugh in your face if you asked him to confirm a universe that is only thousands of years old.

Rather beside the point though, since the universe can be as designed as all get out, that STILL doesn't disprove evolutionary theory

 

[NailsII]

Forgive me if I only answer your points that directly involve my quotes, I will allow the others to answer you themselves.
I'm sure they have a mind of their own.

Wait, your thinking that the existence of pseudogenes and other junk DNA shows a bad design? Is that your "point"? Thats ridiculous.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago. #379

We are not JUST talking about natural selection, we are talking about the entire theory, and the entire theory depends upon many different lines of inquiry. Besides, natural selection is probably studied closer by zoologists and specialists such as herpetologists, rather than being a "purely a biological theory"?

I'm afraid you are a little confused here, evolution by natural selection is a theory of biology, zoology in particular.
To narrow it down any further is fruitless as the links between species, orders and phylums hinges on its completeness to unify all of biology.
The entire theory is biological in nature, it makes no predictions as to any other field of science.
It is however supported by other fields of science as I have previously explained.

really? well as it happens I was just talking to a post doctorate physicist the other day who seemed to find a lot of evidence of a inherent design in the universe he observes every day.?

Can you provide any evidence?

Well then, you are preaching to the choir, but now its your turn to tell me why science hasnt discarded the theory of evolution.If in your own words: "it is wrong and can be changed" then why hasnt it been changed?

If there were any credible evidence that refuted evolution, then that is exactly what would happen.
Not overnight, granted.
As yet, there is none. not any, not even a scrap.
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the most complete theories ever proposed an is almost unique in that respect, there are not even any small contradictions which science explains away as the exceptions that prove the rule - chemistry has a few of these.

Oh so giving me a list of url's is your way of outlining evidence? No. I think I'd be much more interested in your interpretation of the information on those websites.

i have give you my interpretaion, you asked for evidence. This is independant evidence that has been peer reviewed and regarded by the scientific community as true to the best of our current knowledge.
Please make your mind up as to which you would prefer.

In what world do you live in to think that I would ever PM you for anything?

To ask for help without embarrasing yourself.
If i feel out of my depth, I often ask for help. I was only trying to be friendly, i am supprised that you have thrown it back in my face. That's not very christian of you, is it?

 

[Tomk80]

I would beforehand ask you to lay off the insults. Thank you in advance. Also, I only responded to the points that I raised. Could you in the future put names with quotes? Because I got confused whether I had said the last things or not, which really doesn't help much.

Dont know what an explanation is, eh? Guess what, if you cant figure out basic English I dont feel responsible to teach you.

Feel free to explain. God is not an explanation because God can be used to explain any observation you see. We observed a twin-nested hierarchy? God designed it that way. Wait, we don't see one. God designed it that way. Because God 'explains' anything you can come across, no matter what the observation is, it actually explains nothing. God is not an observation.

Wait, your thinking that the existence of pseudogenes and other junk DNA shows a bad design? Is that your "point"? Thats ridiculous.

No, that is not what I was thinking. What I was thinking is that God does not explain pseudogenes because whatever is observed about them, you can claim 'goddidit' in all those cases.

Well basically you are agreeing with me here but what specifically do you "see one thing but not something different", a little too much if a generalization.

Start with pseudogenes then. Why do we observe pseudogenes in the DNA, instead of not seeing them. The theory of evolution explains this due to the nature of inheritence. A gene that was necessary in the past becomes unnecessary because natural selection doesn't act on it anymore. Hence, the gene deteriorates due to random mutations.

Now, how does 'goddidit' explain pseudogenes?

Enough for me? Your the one who brought it up, so since you are the one making an appeal to your "years of experience" perhaps the more intelligent question would be: Is it good enough for YOU? Personally I never stop learning, and I am never presumptuous enough to think that after 4 or 5 or ten years that I cannot learn anything new. Its very "unscientific" thinking...especially for those who claim science to be their intellectual foundation.

Yes, I was saying that I have been in the discussion for years and have never encountered a coherent framework for creation science. You put into question the amount of years that was, hence my (sarcastic) question whether that was enough for you. You were the one asking.

And yes, I keep learning. Nothing in my posts indicated that I have ever stopped doing that, so what the relevance of your little rant at the end is I have no idea. I would hope that if you respond in the future, you hold of the presumptions as well as the insults. You know nothing about me and have no basis for them.

True, but the same could be said for evolution, and the fact that your years of experience have not gotten you any closer to understanding concepts which you disagree with really make it difficult for me to accept that you had been studying the issue for 7 or 8 years(unless you were reading very slowly). In only months of reading about things I was able to instantly understand the fruitless nature of a well supported scientific theory of origins on either the creation or evolution side. Apparently, with all the time you have had into it, your having a difficulty grasping it.

I see that you have nothing to offer but insults here. If you have a general framework of creation science to offer that goes beyond 'goddidit', let me know. I speak in ernest that I never have. For you to presume beforehand that this is because I haven't looked is quite disingenuous.

 

[BigDug]

To ask for help without embarrasing yourself.
If i feel out of my depth, I often ask for help.

Good, however, I'm not so friendly as you I guess because I'm quite busy, and I would never have time to answer your questions by pm, especially since you don't seem to understand the basic principles I have outlined already. So if you need help, and you feel out of your depth, I personally will not be able to help you at all. And though I appreciate your willingness to help me if I have a question, I am not the type of person who asks questions on forums, I usually find the answers for myself.

an example:

I'm afraid you are a little confused here, evolution by natural selection is a theory of biology, zoology in particular.

As I said before, we are talking about more than just natural selection here, and you failed to understand me the first time, therefore I would hesitate to answer any questions you might have.


your post is so riddled with such misunderstandings and bias that it is worthless for me to reply.

 

[TheOutsider]

"Goddidit" isn't an explanation, it is an excuse.

 

[monkeypsycho62]

Underwear gnomes diddit.