What Darwin Didn't Know

[DJ_Ghost]

my point exactly you prosume a book stupid without knowledge of it or great study of it. you think its wrong because it doesnt fit what you want..

Are you reading the same thread as I am? The OP criticised the book because he HAD read it, and because he spotted mistakes in it. Not because it “did not fir what he wanted” but because it made mistakes.

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

He read a book from a person with i imagine has much higher creadintials then him and said it was full of lie.

That is a very dangerous assumption to make around here, since many of us are highly qualified in various fields. How do you know what the OPs credentials actually are? There are several PHds and many MA/MScs on this forum you know.

Ghost

 

[william jay schroeder]

He's a doctor, but big deal. I'm in medicine at the moment. I can tell you that medicine (for the most part) avoids the study of evolution - when it comes to credentials, we're the same.

The thing is, the problem is not with his human biology, it's with his evolutionary biology. The guy clearly doesn't understand it, or even understand science. He even trots out the 'it's just a theory' at one point.

If you want, I'll show you. Want an example?

1. He calls a chimp a monkey. He then trots off examples of how we're different to the average monkey, telling us that's why we're so different to chimps.

For example, he uses the vitaman c gene wrong. He says that it's broken in us, and not in monkeys, implieng that we are different. Suprise, it's also broken in chimpanzees, in exactly the same place, but of course.. he doesn't tell you that.

Then he makes a really big deal about tails. Of course, he doesn't tell you that no apes have tails. Nor does he tell you that humans are sometimes born with tails. He actually has the gall to tell us that this is a big reason why we are different to chimpanzees! Even though chimpanzees don't have frickan tails!

That's just one example. It's a lie, pure and simple.

So whats your point. does this person represent all creationist, no he doesnt though your implying he does by threading it here. Thats being devious which you acuses him of being. its called since hes wrong there all wrong. your not the only person to do this and i dont see your point except to give creationist a bad name. THAT IS ALL YOU WISHED TO DO HERE WITH THIS THREAD. And i do the same and get ridiculled for it. if not state your point of it. WE all know their are people who dont do everything right, it includes you evolutionist as well and im sure i can come up with a few. You all control the publishing and will not allow creationist to have egual time in them, or even a back page in them. look in any scientific journal and see if there is one page or half of a page that is for creationist arguement or conterthoughts. none.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

So whats your point. does this person represent all creationist...

No, but he is certainly representative of creationists. Evidently, he made laughable errors in basic facts and apparently lied flat-out to further his cause. It seems that all creationists engage in at least one of these activities regularly, sometimes both. Hovid and Ham are classic examples of men who are both scientifically illiterate and blatant liars. I do not think these are the sorts of people Christians would want representing them.

 

[Data]

So whats your point. does this person represent all creationist, no he doesnt though your implying he does by threading it here. Thats being devious which you acuses him of being. its called since hes wrong there all wrong. your not the only person to do this and i dont see your point except to give creationist a bad name. THAT IS ALL YOU WISHED TO DO HERE WITH THIS THREAD. And i do the same and get ridiculled for it. if not state your point of it.

My point is that the book is terrible, and ultimately misleading. No ulterior motive, other than wanting to know if anyone else had read it.

You all control the publishing

Except this book was published.

and will not allow creationist to have egual time in them, or even a back page in them. look in any scientific journal and see if there is one page or half of a page that is for creationist arguement or conterthoughts. none.

Ever thought that that may be because creationist arguments are not worthy of being published? No, it's not a big conspiracy, I assure you.

That is a very dangerous assumption to make around here, since many of us are highly qualified in various fields. How do you know what the OPs credentials actually are? There are several PHds and many MA/MScs on this forum you know.

Ghost

A PhD at 17?

 

[Mistermystery]

for one my post was in jest because of all the post on how the Bible is considered wrong and full of lies or fairytales, which as happened a lot here,

Yeah right, No one says that around here. People might say that *your interpretation* is stupid because they can be falsified.

if you read the last part of what i said you would see i wasnt all that seriuos

I didn't saw it, and please you are allowed to use a spellchecker. It's kind of embarrasing and difficult to read this. Making mistakes is no biggie, but you could put a little effort into it. Review this sentence for yourself please.

And read his thread he said he read all of 50 pages, which is about what i said i did and look at what i get from you all. is there a word for those who do this. I think there is but i wont say it.

What?

In all fairness, the point still remains: Why don't you read Darwin's book for yourself? Or someone elses? I mean it's not like it's unfair if you actually read what was being said about the theory of evolution by the people who are promoting it.

 

[Jet Black]

He's a doctor, but big deal. I'm in medicine at the moment. I can tell you that medicine (for the most part) avoids the study of evolution - when it comes to credentials, we're the same.

The thing is, the problem is not with his human biology, it's with his evolutionary biology. The guy clearly doesn't understand it, or even understand science. He even trots out the 'it's just a theory' at one point.

If you want, I'll show you. Want an example?

1. He calls a chimp a monkey. He then trots off examples of how we're different to the average monkey, telling us that's why we're so different to chimps.

For example, he uses the vitaman c gene wrong. He says that it's broken in us, and not in monkeys, implieng that we are different. Suprise, it's also broken in chimpanzees, in exactly the same place, but of course.. he doesn't tell you that.

Then he makes a really big deal about tails. Of course, he doesn't tell you that no apes have tails. Nor does he tell you that humans are sometimes born with tails. He actually has the gall to tell us that this is a big reason why we are different to chimpanzees! Even though chimpanzees don't have frickan tails!

That's just one example. It's a lie, pure and simple.

heh, what a plonker. he can't even get his basic facts right?

 

[Data]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0736913130/104-3740876-2303901?v=glance

What can I say, I found this book disappointing. Perhaps my expectations were too high. As a supporter of Intelligent Design, I expect books which are riding on the ID coattails to have a certain level of sophistication. This one didn't.

The front cover advertises, A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution. Unfortunately, the promise is never fulfilled. The book doesn't deal with evolutionary theory as anything more than a caricature. If you want a book that truly dissects the Theory of Evolution, I recommend The Biotic Message by Walter ReMine.

The book contains a great deal of anatomical and physiological trivia, and is therefore of some benefit, but the author fails to ever put the deatils together into any sort of coherent argument. The author relies upon what he terms the Whole Package Phenomena (WPP) which vaguely resembles Cuvier's Correlation of Parts and Behe's Irreducible Complexity but without the specificity.

His argument consists primarily of, look at this set of features, look at the complexity, look how they work together, it's inconceivable that they came about by chance mutations. Unfortunately, the features are described at such a high level that they don't seem to be all that complex and inter-dependence of the various parts is often not explained in sufficient detail to make it plain that one must have the whole package or none at all. Why it's inconceivable that these systems could not have come about through evolution is never quite explained and the reader is left with begging the question or circularity.

For a much better argument using biological phenomena, I would recommend Darwin'
s Black Box by Michael J. Behe.

I think that sums it up. From an ID supporter as well.

*burns the book

 

[Cassandra]

I can tell you from personal experience that Darwin was a loony. He used to run around wearing women's clothing he was alone, flapping his arms up and down in the hope that they would eventually evolve into wings so he could fly around and bomb people with panties.

I've course Darwin died before I was born, so I never actually met him.

Say! This is fun! No wonder the creationists like to make stuff up XD

To the OP: I haven't read the book, but judging from that review and what you've said, Data, I'm not going to.

 

[Everythings changed]

Ever thought that that may be because creationist arguments are not worthy of being published? No, it's not a big conspiracy, I assure you.

Way to be arrogant there.

 

[Jet Black]

Way to be arrogant there.

well not really. The papers submitted by creationists have been judged unworthy of publishing.

 

[Valkhorn]

Way to be arrogant there.

It's not arrogance, it's the truth.

 

[Dal M.]

Way to be arrogant there.

Apply some critical thinking here. Which is more likely:

a.) That the entire scientific community, a group of individuals who are essentially tripping over themselves in their rush to disprove old theories, is engaged in a massive cover-up which only creationists are bright enough to see through, or;

b.) That a collection of religiously-motivated people whose number includes geocentrists like Gerardus Bouw and Malcolm Bowden and Holocaust revisionists like Harun Yahya are actually wrong about something?

 

[Aduro Amnis]

In defence of william, I never read Origin of Species either

 

[DJ_Ghost]

A PhD at 17?

Erm... Oops?

All I can say in my defence is that I am growing accustomed to seeing creationists assume that the rest of us are relying on the say so of scientists, never stopping to consider that many of us ARE scientists, and it is beginning to bug me. Had I checked your age, I may have spotted that it is highly unlikely you would hold a PHd.

Mind you according to my profile I have been a Christian for longer than I have been alive, I know about the typing error I made when I wrote it and have just never gotten around to changing the first digit to a 2 instead of a 3 - so I guess I could have used the defence that “your age could have been a typo” but that would be fairly lame.

Nup, its a fair cop, I should’a checked.

Ghost

 

[Mistermystery]

In defence of william, I never read Origin of Species either

In your defence did you or did you not familiarise yourself with the theory of evolution? Both pro as con side? Have you familiarised yourself with the definition of the theory of evolution? If not then I would like to ask you to first get to know the theory of evolution.

Btw, since the origin of species is more then 100 years old, it's got not copy-right on it anymore. Therefor you can read it all over the net for free!

 

[Aduro Amnis]

I know what the theory of evolutio nis, it's just that I've never read Origin of Species.
But mind you evolution is a theory of science which means it's not subject to one book but to collected knowledge.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

In defence of william, I never read Origin of Species either

That's no defence of william. Like many, you haven't read Origin - there's nothing bad about that. But you don't then trash the book and its author. He does. That's the difference.

 

[Valkhorn]

well not really. The papers submitted by creationists have been judged unworthy of publishing.

Also, some papers are so outrageous and full of lies that they're afraid to publish it. Ken Hovind's dissertation hasn't been published, and even if you ask for it you won't get from what I've heard.

 

[tryptophan]

I've read excerpts from The Origin of Species, but not the whole thing. It was about 80 pages worth in an anthology by Philip Appleman. Perhaps somebody else here has read that.