aboutorigins was a forum us evolutionists used to debate on thats nolonger functioning... sorry...
its TALKORIGINS.ORG
its TALKORIGINS.ORG
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What is Evolution?
- Thread starter goseyn
- Start date
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 20
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
It's an old rule of thumb called "Occam's Razor", named after, if memory serves, William of Occam. It's actually "do not unnecessarily multiply entities". In other words, if I hear a noise, and then I hear a cat running, and I come look, and the garbage is knocked over, I might have two theories:
1. My cat knocked the garbage over and scared himself.
2. Some other thing knocked over the garbage, scaring the cat.
Occam's razor says I should prefer the first explanation, unless there's something else (muddy footprints, or whatever) that make the first explanation not good enough.
Note also: Occam's Razor is *NOT* a way to find truth! It is a way to find simpler working hypotheses to use while you're looking for more information. In cases where there's not much additional data, it's often convenient to say "the simpler explanation is probably true".
This doesn't apply well to something like evolution. Occam's razor might say that, since we have pretty good evidence for life gradually forming on earth, including species very similar to our own, that we should not hypothesize that little green men in flying saucers were involved. They don't explain anything we haven't already got explained.
Some people use this to argue that we shouldn't believe in God. I think they're probably wrong, but it depends on what things you feel you need to explain. If you want to explain why light passes through glass and water, but not through concrete, "God made it that way" is a very poor explanation. If you want to know why an apparently random pattern of stars is beautiful, then maybe you need to start talking about God.
Upvote
0
THis is interesting, from that website.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
A more serious criticism is that the BSC is inapplicable in practice. This charge asserts that, in most cases, the BSC cannot be practically applied to delimit species. The BSC suggests breeding experiments as the test of species membership. But this is a test that is rarely made. The number of crosses needed to delimit membership in a species can be astronomical. The following example will illustrate the problem.
and
A final problem with the BSC is that groups that do not occur together in time cannot be evaluated. We simply cannot know whether two such groups would interbreed freely if they came together under natural conditions. This makes it impossible to delimit the boundaries of extinct groups using the BSC. One question will illustrate the problem. Do Homo erectus and Homo sapiens represent the same or different species? This question is unresolvable using the biological definition.
In other words, it is impossible to really know whether, using this particular method, species are indeed differentfor practical reasons. Not to say speciation is impossible, but I'm still having troubles finding a convincing case. Plant examples can be self polinating, for instance.
There's a section in there about why macroevolution is not a "tautology" but that has never been my problem with evolution. I simply do not believe it can ever be proven satisfactorily, nor disproven satisfactorily, and this quote from that web page reinforces that belief rather firmly.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
A more serious criticism is that the BSC is inapplicable in practice. This charge asserts that, in most cases, the BSC cannot be practically applied to delimit species. The BSC suggests breeding experiments as the test of species membership. But this is a test that is rarely made. The number of crosses needed to delimit membership in a species can be astronomical. The following example will illustrate the problem.
and
A final problem with the BSC is that groups that do not occur together in time cannot be evaluated. We simply cannot know whether two such groups would interbreed freely if they came together under natural conditions. This makes it impossible to delimit the boundaries of extinct groups using the BSC. One question will illustrate the problem. Do Homo erectus and Homo sapiens represent the same or different species? This question is unresolvable using the biological definition.
In other words, it is impossible to really know whether, using this particular method, species are indeed differentfor practical reasons. Not to say speciation is impossible, but I'm still having troubles finding a convincing case. Plant examples can be self polinating, for instance.
There's a section in there about why macroevolution is not a "tautology" but that has never been my problem with evolution. I simply do not believe it can ever be proven satisfactorily, nor disproven satisfactorily, and this quote from that web page reinforces that belief rather firmly.
Upvote
0
I like your writing style. For a moment I thought you might be an old friend of mine from online, but then I went and checked some of your posts and you have way too much knowledge of the Bibkle I think to be him.
Upvote
0
Here is an article I got from some one (my friend, Jason--I didn't write it). It is really good information. I know it is long, BUT PLEASE READ IT!
---------------------------------------------------------
The word evolution can be used in two different ways.
Firstly it can refere to what is known as micro-evolution which refers to small changes which come about within one species in adaption to its environment. Examples of this include rats that develop immunity to certain rat poisons or human beings in hot countries developing darker skin. These changes do not result in a species evolving into another. Rats remain rats and human being remain human beings. This is not unacceptable to evangelicalism and no-one would deny that these small changes take place.
The second, Macro-evolution is what people usually mean by the word 'evolution'. This is the theory that lower forms of life develop into higher forms by a process of natural selection. This indeed differs from micro-evolution and one must distinguish between the two. Those who point to examples of micro-evolution as evidence for Darwin's theory have failed to make this vital distinction and have become misinformed about the validity of Darwin's claims [Grudem 1994 p.280].
In his essay the word evolution will refer to macro-evolution.
Evolution has numerous scientific problems that have been raised by scientists who are Christians and non-Christians alike. The following points are enough to make any intelligent and sensible person seriously question why evolution is taken so for granted and taught as fact in our schools.
1. The theory of evolution relies heavily upon the notion of random mutations that allow a species to better survive in its environment. But can mutations really do all they are claimed to do?
Scientific study has shown that mutations are quite rare and are almost always harmful. Mutations were produced artifically. It was estimated that only one fruit fly out of one million would develop a mutation [Ryrie 1986 p.199]. Theodosius Dobzhansky who conducted many fruit fly experiments stated that "most mutants...are more or less disadvantageous" and that "the deleterious character of most mutations seems to be a very serious difficulty" [cited in Ryrie 1986 p.199].
The vast complex mutations required to produce complex organs such as a human eye could not have happen in tiny mutations over many thousands of generations because the individual parts of an organ on alone are useless. The chances of all the mutations necessary to produce such an organ happening at the same time (which would need to have happened if evolution is true) are practically zero [Grudem 1994 p.281].
Robert Kofahl and Kelly Segraves in their book "The Creation Explanation: A Scientific Alternative to Evolution describe the rather interesting "Bombardier beetle", which repels its enemies with a hot charge of two chemicals from a swivel tubes in its tail which when mixed together will explode. Apparently this unusual creature has an inhibitor substance that prevents the chemicals exploding while still inside it. Kofahl and Segraves ask if evolution can explain this amazing mechanism:
"Note that a rational evolutionary explanation for the development of this creature must assign some kind of adaptive advantage to each of the millions of hypothetical intermediate stages of the construction process. But would the stages of one-fourth, or half, or two thirds completion for example, have conferred any advantage? After all, a rifle is useless without all its parts functioning....Before this defensive mechanism could afford any protection to the beetle, all it's parts, together with the proper explosive mixture of chemicals, plus the intrinsic behaviour required for use, would have to be assembled in the insect. The partially developed set of organs would be useless. Therefore, according to the principles of evolutionary theory, there would have to be no selective pressure to cause the system to evolve from a partially completed stage toward the final completed system....If a theory fails to explain the data in any science, that theory should either be revised or replaced with a theory that is in agreement with the data" [Cited in Grudem 1994 p.281].
Where do new genes come from? New species or even new organs in an existing species have never been produced by mutations. But this would have to have happened if evolution is true. Protozoa for example do not have teeth. If we are evolved from protozoa as evolutionists claim, where did the genes that develop teeth come from. Mutations concern changes in existing organisms, they do not produce new ones. But if evolution is true new systems (like the hearing system) would have had to have produced within existing species. [Ryrie 1986 p.1986.]But how? In the words of Wayne Grudem, evolutionists are having to say that "it happened because it happened" [1994 p.281].
2. Natural selection is equally problematic. Experimental breeding of many kinds of plants and animals has been done for more than a hundred years. In all that time the amount of variation that has been produced by this intentional, not random, breeding is very limited due to the limited range of genetic variation in each type of living thing. So dogs selectively bred for many generations are still dogs, cats are still cats and fruit flys are still fruit flys etc. It is also known that many highly specialised breeds when returned to the wild rapidly perish and the survivors revert back to the original wild type (micro-evolution again!).
In 1859 the greatest problem for Darwin was the fossil record. Hundreds of fossils were available showing that many very many species had existed in the distant past. However Darwin could not produce one example of a transitional stage, that is a fossil showing some characteristics of one animal and some characteristics of the next developmental type. To this day with the discovery of many more fossils no such example has been found. In fact many ancient fossils resemble present day species suggesting that many species of animals have lived for millions of years unchanged [Grudem 1994 p.282].
This is such a grave problem for evolutionists that evolutionary scientists today have proposed that evolution came about in sudden jumps. But how hundreds or thousands of of genetic changes could take place all at once evolutionists can not explain. Again the evolutionist has to say that it happened because it happened [Grudem 1994 p.283].
3.Molecular structures of living organism can be shown to be similar. For example chimps are very genetically similar to humans in that there is only a 2ifference in the DNA. But the use of this fact as evidence for evolution is based purely upon the assumption that it points to a common ancestry (that the similar species seen today evolved from the same lower formed organism). The proof for this assumption has never been given. An alternative explanation for the similarities in animal species is that an intelligent designer, a creator God designed each species to be similar. The designer of a car might note that a certain device ****s well in one model and so uses the same device in another model. Similarities equally point to an intelligent master craftsman, the creator himself [Grudem 1994 p.283].
4. A very great difficulty for the Darwinist is explaining how life could have begun in the first place. The spontaneous birth of the simplest of life forms (the prokaryote bacterial cell)can not come about by random mixing chemicals. So complex is the intelligent design and craftmanship that no advanced scientific laboratory in the whole world has ever been able to do it [Grudem 1994p.284]. consider this metaphor by Johnson:
"That a living organism emerged by chance from a a pre-biotic soup is about as likely as that 'a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" [cited in Grudem 1994 p.284].
Grudem wisely states:
"Chance assembly is just a naturalistic way of saying 'miracle' [1994 p.284]."
Wayne Grudem also uses a very affective illustration to show that life on earth coming about purely by chance is an idea for those who love to talk nonsense:
"If I were to take my digital watch, hand it to someone, and say that I found it near an iron mine in northern Minnesota, and that it was my belief that the watch had come together by itself simply through the operation of random movement and and environmental forces (plus some energy from a few bolts of lightening perhaps), I would quickly be written off as mad" [Grudem 1994 p.284].
But one living cell on a leaf or in the human body is thousands of yearss more complex than Professor Grudems's watch. So even after 4.5 billion years the chance of just one cell emerging spontaniously is zero.
There are many other arguments that one might use against the theory of evolution, I have merely outlined some of the major problems with the theory. This is the theory that has been claimed by many to be an established fact. This is the theory that tragically continues to persuades people today that to be intelligent, sensible, thinking individuals one must accept it and reject the complete truthfulness of the Bible. What we have is a persistent myth that Christianity has been surpassed by evolution and as a result the doors of Heaven have been slammed in the face of many. Christians need to think very seriously about showing this theory up for what it really is; a load of complete nonsense.
---------------------------------------------------------
The word evolution can be used in two different ways.
Firstly it can refere to what is known as micro-evolution which refers to small changes which come about within one species in adaption to its environment. Examples of this include rats that develop immunity to certain rat poisons or human beings in hot countries developing darker skin. These changes do not result in a species evolving into another. Rats remain rats and human being remain human beings. This is not unacceptable to evangelicalism and no-one would deny that these small changes take place.
The second, Macro-evolution is what people usually mean by the word 'evolution'. This is the theory that lower forms of life develop into higher forms by a process of natural selection. This indeed differs from micro-evolution and one must distinguish between the two. Those who point to examples of micro-evolution as evidence for Darwin's theory have failed to make this vital distinction and have become misinformed about the validity of Darwin's claims [Grudem 1994 p.280].
In his essay the word evolution will refer to macro-evolution.
Evolution has numerous scientific problems that have been raised by scientists who are Christians and non-Christians alike. The following points are enough to make any intelligent and sensible person seriously question why evolution is taken so for granted and taught as fact in our schools.
1. The theory of evolution relies heavily upon the notion of random mutations that allow a species to better survive in its environment. But can mutations really do all they are claimed to do?
Scientific study has shown that mutations are quite rare and are almost always harmful. Mutations were produced artifically. It was estimated that only one fruit fly out of one million would develop a mutation [Ryrie 1986 p.199]. Theodosius Dobzhansky who conducted many fruit fly experiments stated that "most mutants...are more or less disadvantageous" and that "the deleterious character of most mutations seems to be a very serious difficulty" [cited in Ryrie 1986 p.199].
The vast complex mutations required to produce complex organs such as a human eye could not have happen in tiny mutations over many thousands of generations because the individual parts of an organ on alone are useless. The chances of all the mutations necessary to produce such an organ happening at the same time (which would need to have happened if evolution is true) are practically zero [Grudem 1994 p.281].
Robert Kofahl and Kelly Segraves in their book "The Creation Explanation: A Scientific Alternative to Evolution describe the rather interesting "Bombardier beetle", which repels its enemies with a hot charge of two chemicals from a swivel tubes in its tail which when mixed together will explode. Apparently this unusual creature has an inhibitor substance that prevents the chemicals exploding while still inside it. Kofahl and Segraves ask if evolution can explain this amazing mechanism:
"Note that a rational evolutionary explanation for the development of this creature must assign some kind of adaptive advantage to each of the millions of hypothetical intermediate stages of the construction process. But would the stages of one-fourth, or half, or two thirds completion for example, have conferred any advantage? After all, a rifle is useless without all its parts functioning....Before this defensive mechanism could afford any protection to the beetle, all it's parts, together with the proper explosive mixture of chemicals, plus the intrinsic behaviour required for use, would have to be assembled in the insect. The partially developed set of organs would be useless. Therefore, according to the principles of evolutionary theory, there would have to be no selective pressure to cause the system to evolve from a partially completed stage toward the final completed system....If a theory fails to explain the data in any science, that theory should either be revised or replaced with a theory that is in agreement with the data" [Cited in Grudem 1994 p.281].
Where do new genes come from? New species or even new organs in an existing species have never been produced by mutations. But this would have to have happened if evolution is true. Protozoa for example do not have teeth. If we are evolved from protozoa as evolutionists claim, where did the genes that develop teeth come from. Mutations concern changes in existing organisms, they do not produce new ones. But if evolution is true new systems (like the hearing system) would have had to have produced within existing species. [Ryrie 1986 p.1986.]But how? In the words of Wayne Grudem, evolutionists are having to say that "it happened because it happened" [1994 p.281].
2. Natural selection is equally problematic. Experimental breeding of many kinds of plants and animals has been done for more than a hundred years. In all that time the amount of variation that has been produced by this intentional, not random, breeding is very limited due to the limited range of genetic variation in each type of living thing. So dogs selectively bred for many generations are still dogs, cats are still cats and fruit flys are still fruit flys etc. It is also known that many highly specialised breeds when returned to the wild rapidly perish and the survivors revert back to the original wild type (micro-evolution again!).
In 1859 the greatest problem for Darwin was the fossil record. Hundreds of fossils were available showing that many very many species had existed in the distant past. However Darwin could not produce one example of a transitional stage, that is a fossil showing some characteristics of one animal and some characteristics of the next developmental type. To this day with the discovery of many more fossils no such example has been found. In fact many ancient fossils resemble present day species suggesting that many species of animals have lived for millions of years unchanged [Grudem 1994 p.282].
This is such a grave problem for evolutionists that evolutionary scientists today have proposed that evolution came about in sudden jumps. But how hundreds or thousands of of genetic changes could take place all at once evolutionists can not explain. Again the evolutionist has to say that it happened because it happened [Grudem 1994 p.283].
3.Molecular structures of living organism can be shown to be similar. For example chimps are very genetically similar to humans in that there is only a 2ifference in the DNA. But the use of this fact as evidence for evolution is based purely upon the assumption that it points to a common ancestry (that the similar species seen today evolved from the same lower formed organism). The proof for this assumption has never been given. An alternative explanation for the similarities in animal species is that an intelligent designer, a creator God designed each species to be similar. The designer of a car might note that a certain device ****s well in one model and so uses the same device in another model. Similarities equally point to an intelligent master craftsman, the creator himself [Grudem 1994 p.283].
4. A very great difficulty for the Darwinist is explaining how life could have begun in the first place. The spontaneous birth of the simplest of life forms (the prokaryote bacterial cell)can not come about by random mixing chemicals. So complex is the intelligent design and craftmanship that no advanced scientific laboratory in the whole world has ever been able to do it [Grudem 1994p.284]. consider this metaphor by Johnson:
"That a living organism emerged by chance from a a pre-biotic soup is about as likely as that 'a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" [cited in Grudem 1994 p.284].
Grudem wisely states:
"Chance assembly is just a naturalistic way of saying 'miracle' [1994 p.284]."
Wayne Grudem also uses a very affective illustration to show that life on earth coming about purely by chance is an idea for those who love to talk nonsense:
"If I were to take my digital watch, hand it to someone, and say that I found it near an iron mine in northern Minnesota, and that it was my belief that the watch had come together by itself simply through the operation of random movement and and environmental forces (plus some energy from a few bolts of lightening perhaps), I would quickly be written off as mad" [Grudem 1994 p.284].
But one living cell on a leaf or in the human body is thousands of yearss more complex than Professor Grudems's watch. So even after 4.5 billion years the chance of just one cell emerging spontaniously is zero.
There are many other arguments that one might use against the theory of evolution, I have merely outlined some of the major problems with the theory. This is the theory that has been claimed by many to be an established fact. This is the theory that tragically continues to persuades people today that to be intelligent, sensible, thinking individuals one must accept it and reject the complete truthfulness of the Bible. What we have is a persistent myth that Christianity has been surpassed by evolution and as a result the doors of Heaven have been slammed in the face of many. Christians need to think very seriously about showing this theory up for what it really is; a load of complete nonsense.
Upvote
0
TheBear
NON-WOKED
- Jan 2, 2002
- 20,653
- 1,812
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Zadok,
Thank you for the excellent research and posts!
Unfortunately, regardless what evidence or research results are presented, unlike the scientific community at large, who observe and measure data first, then draw conclusions and theories, the creationist starts with a conclusion, and then tries to find data to support it. This very process is dubious, at best.
John
Thank you for the excellent research and posts!
Unfortunately, regardless what evidence or research results are presented, unlike the scientific community at large, who observe and measure data first, then draw conclusions and theories, the creationist starts with a conclusion, and then tries to find data to support it. This very process is dubious, at best.
John
Upvote
0
LouisBooth
Well-Known Member
- Feb 6, 2002
- 8,895
- 64
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
"This doesn't apply well to something like evolution. "
Actually it does because it states the less assumptions you have to make the better. Evolution makes a lot of them..creationism makes one.
Actually it does because it states the less assumptions you have to make the better. Evolution makes a lot of them..creationism makes one.
Upvote
0
This is a rather disturbing assault on people who happen not to agree with your theory of God deciding to make up a fiction in order to describe something that God could just as easily have described literally. There is no reason in the world why God could not have told whoever wrote Genesis that the world was billions of years old, if that's the way it is.
The evolutionist makes fundamental assumptions about the nature of the universe before they do their research. And the research is flatly not provable, as the website posted firmly agrees, on many levels. How then do you just dismiss an opposing view so flipantly?
Not that I am all hot to have you change your belief system, but accusing people you don't know of making assumptions they don't make is way past "dubious".
If you read that FAQ all the way through you find that evolutionary scientists assume it works without definitive proof, and the website even admits this, and even points out that many scientists are convinced there is a large body of evidence for observed "speciation" (a word which the scientists themselves have a hard time defining satisfactorily). In fact there is not, especially in the BSC sense of speciation, which definition is necessary to describe how large portions of the animal kingdom could have a common ancestor at all.
Evolution therefore makes a hypothesis without observation of all the facts, just as you say they don't, they make assumptions favorable to their view, just as you say they don't, and they have a belief that can not be tested scientifically, so can never be adequately proven or disproven.
Why in the world should I pretend then that good sense dictates that I beleive this? It's an interesting possibility, but far from a factual assertion.
Upvote
0
Ha ha ha! That's hilarious! I was a research sceintist for years, studying the behavior of moths, and every aspect of scientific research BEGINS WITH A CONCLUSION and attempts to find data to support or negate that conclusion! It is called the Scientific Method.
You really don't know ANYTHING about science if you think that it is impartial observation of natural events!
Upvote
0
Creationists, now that you are familiar with evolution, I may suggest you get to know what the fossil record contains.
Prehistoric animals are some of the most spectacular beasts to ever exist. Even the mammals that paleo-indians hunted were unique beyond unique. They hunted and killed mammoths and mastodons, giant sloths, small three toed anscestors of horses, and a giant car sized armadillo called a glyptodon.
I feel that creationists knowledge of the fossil record goes hand in hand with their knowledge of evolution. Which isn't much beyond the word "dinosaur" or "wooly mammoth".
The fossil record contains such specimens as-
Flying reptiles (pterosaurs) with a forty foot wing span "Quetzalcoatlus"-
Giant sea serpents called "plesiosaurs" and "pliosaurs"-
10,000 species of Trilobites-
Giant shelled squids called "Ammonites" that could grow op to 15' across-
Learn such fabulous words as, Euryapsid, Anapsid, Diapsid...
Prehistoric animals are some of the most spectacular beasts to ever exist. Even the mammals that paleo-indians hunted were unique beyond unique. They hunted and killed mammoths and mastodons, giant sloths, small three toed anscestors of horses, and a giant car sized armadillo called a glyptodon.
I feel that creationists knowledge of the fossil record goes hand in hand with their knowledge of evolution. Which isn't much beyond the word "dinosaur" or "wooly mammoth".
The fossil record contains such specimens as-
Flying reptiles (pterosaurs) with a forty foot wing span "Quetzalcoatlus"-
Giant sea serpents called "plesiosaurs" and "pliosaurs"-
10,000 species of Trilobites-
Giant shelled squids called "Ammonites" that could grow op to 15' across-
Learn such fabulous words as, Euryapsid, Anapsid, Diapsid...
Upvote
0
Originally posted by lambslove
Ha ha ha! That's hilarious! I was a research sceintist for years, studying the behavior of moths, and every aspect of scientific research BEGINS WITH A CONCLUSION and attempts to find data to support or negate that conclusion! It is called the Scientific Method.
That is called an hypothesis, not a conclusion.
And unlike creationism, the scientific method provides a means to FALSIFY a hypothesis. This falsification process is an important part of gaining knowledge and formulating the next hypothesis. In essence, the scientific method forces scientists to go whereever the data takes them.
I have talked to many creationists, and not a single one will attempt to falsify their theory. They are only interested in finding supporting evidence and ignoring contradictory evidence.
You really don't know ANYTHING about science if you think that it is impartial observation of natural events!
You are being hyperbolic. Now I'm wondering why you are no longer a research scientist.
Upvote
0
By the way, a hypothesis is what you call the conclusion you are hoping to find from your observations. And you are correct, observation and data collection attempt to find the hypothesis false. But very often, hypothesis are written in such a way that they have to be false, no matter what the data shows. And sometimes they are written after the data is collected, if the conclusion is disappointing to the scientist.
I don't know why you think that Creationism has to be the opposite of Evolution, except that they both contain theories regarding the origins of us. Other than that, they diverge greatly.
I don't know why you think that Creationism has to be the opposite of Evolution, except that they both contain theories regarding the origins of us. Other than that, they diverge greatly.
Upvote
0
Originally posted by lambslove
By the way, a hypothesis is what you call the conclusion you are hoping to find from your observations. And you are correct, observation and data collection attempt to find the hypothesis false. But very often, hypothesis are written in such a way that they have to be false, no matter what the data shows. And sometimes they are written after the data is collected, if the conclusion is disappointing to the scientist.
Oh, I would never deny that there are 'bad' scientists. Scientists are people, after all, and have all of the same personality and intellectual flaws as everyone else.
But the scientific community, as a whole, will leave behind the bad scientists. When a scientist's "pet" theory is falsified, he may cling onto it anyway. But the rest of the community will leave him behind, following the evidence.
Thus we still have a few scientists clinging onto cold fusion -- a completely discredited and falsified theory. And when those scientists pass away, cold fusion will fade further into obscurity.
I don't know why you think that Creationism has to be the opposite of Evolution, except that they both contain theories regarding the origins of us. Other than that, they diverge greatly.
Well, I never said that they were opposite, but they are in many ways.
Evolution invokes a naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life. Creationism invokes the supernatural.
Evolution describes a gradual diversification of species over hundreds of millions of years. Creationism claims species were created fully formed and distinct.
Evolution is a scientific theory that makes predictions and is subject to falsification. Creationism makes no predictions, so it cannot be falsified, and is therefore not scientific.
By the way, a hypothesis is what you call the conclusion you are hoping to find from your observations. And you are correct, observation and data collection attempt to find the hypothesis false. But very often, hypothesis are written in such a way that they have to be false, no matter what the data shows. And sometimes they are written after the data is collected, if the conclusion is disappointing to the scientist.
Oh, I would never deny that there are 'bad' scientists. Scientists are people, after all, and have all of the same personality and intellectual flaws as everyone else.
But the scientific community, as a whole, will leave behind the bad scientists. When a scientist's "pet" theory is falsified, he may cling onto it anyway. But the rest of the community will leave him behind, following the evidence.
Thus we still have a few scientists clinging onto cold fusion -- a completely discredited and falsified theory. And when those scientists pass away, cold fusion will fade further into obscurity.
I don't know why you think that Creationism has to be the opposite of Evolution, except that they both contain theories regarding the origins of us. Other than that, they diverge greatly.
Well, I never said that they were opposite, but they are in many ways.
Evolution invokes a naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life. Creationism invokes the supernatural.
Evolution describes a gradual diversification of species over hundreds of millions of years. Creationism claims species were created fully formed and distinct.
Evolution is a scientific theory that makes predictions and is subject to falsification. Creationism makes no predictions, so it cannot be falsified, and is therefore not scientific.
Upvote
0
evolutionists often like to point out that there are many transitionals or intermediates in the fossil record, and tout it as proof that evolution has occured. But wait, if you use their definition of what constitutes a transitional organism then you must realize that there are transitionals alive and well today (amphioxis, laracean tunicates just to name a couple)- not just in the fossil record. Mention existing intermidiates to an evolutionist and watch his/her jaw drop to the floor because such things are forbidden in the theory of evolution.
Upvote
0
What??? I would qualify as an "evolutionist", and I regularly use the existence of modern transitionals as proof of evolution.
There is nothing in the theory of evolution that says animals are not still evolving. Who mistakenly told you that was a problem for evolution?
Upvote
0
Evolution is dead in the water. In one of the greatest ironies in science, the greatest evidence against evolution comes from biology. Yet for some infathomable reason, most people with backgrounds in biology cling to this outdated theory. Who knows why.
The evidence:
Transitional species. For years creationists have been calling upon evolutionists to show evidence of transitional species, and for years the evolutionists have fallen short. Oh, they come up with a few examples like ambulocetes, archeopterix or other species which are really not transitional at all. They show characteristics of other species, but each one in itself is a fully evolved species capable of surviving. The characteristics used are infact the best evidence against evolution. For instance, the claws on the wings of archeopterix are supposed to be retained primitive features from a dinosaur ancestor. Can you believe that a 40 foot T-rex is the ancestor to your pet canary. LMAO. Anyways, evolutionists claim that the claws were later lost in the process of evolution. Really, well then how do they explain the existance of claws on the wings of ostriches and at least 2 other kinds of birds. If this feature was lost, why is it still there. Another example is the hip bones of a whale, supposedly lost through millions of years of evolution. But wait, whales do have small hip bones under the skin. How is it that something lost by evolution is still there? How is it that snakes like the python have little tiny hips. Thats right hips in an animal that supposedly lost them through evolution. The best example I know of is eyeless cave dwelling salamanders. Supposedly the eyes were lost in salamanders that lived in the dark caves cause they didnt need them. But if you take an embyo of one of these salamanders and cut away a certain part of the mesoderm during the right time of devolopment, eyes will grow! How is it that these creatures knew their eyes were of no use, then lost them, then can still have them under the right conditions. It makes no sense at all.
So then, why would eyeless salamanders have the ability to grow eyes, why would pythons and whales have hips if they dont need them, why do some birds have clawed wings? Well, as Linneus demonstrated all live is based on similar plans. Design plans. Evidence for a design of intelligent origin is right there. Even an eyeless salamander could see it (LOL). There is a blueprint, and all animals are variations of the blue print. But legs on a whale would be worthless, so the legs are reduces in the design by the designer as to not get in the way. Had these features been lost through evolution, there would be no sign of them, no trace.
Another thorn in the side of evolution is the geographical distribution of animals. Why is it that kangaroos are only found in Australia, if they are so well adapted to live in the grasslands, why are they not in grasslands all over the world. Would that not be the logical consequence of evolution? There are many examples of animals with very restricted ranges, who do very well when released into foreign environments. Geographical barriers! is what evolutionistw will claim, but then why is that some species managed to cross these barriers and some didnt? The only explanation for the distribution of species is that they are the decendants of pairs of creatures from the ark. There were only 2 kangaroos, theymade their way to Australia and no where else. ANd what about llamas and camels. According to evolution science they are closely related, but wait they live on opposite ends of the earth how can that be. The atlantic and pacific are huge barriers. True, llamas and camels are variations of the same design, and like the kangaroo only had one pair who migrated to these areas after the flood.
Why do biology texts not illustrate these glaring inconsistancies in evolution. Why do they hold on to outdated beliefs and pass them on to new students. Because the dogma of science resists change. Because theories, once entrenched, cannot be easily ousted in the light of new evidence. Scientists only look at evidence that supports existing theories. Any open minded person who reads any theory of evolution based text will see it is full of half truths, inaccuracies and outlandish statements. Many times words like probably and inferred are used to back up a dead notion.
The evidence:
Transitional species. For years creationists have been calling upon evolutionists to show evidence of transitional species, and for years the evolutionists have fallen short. Oh, they come up with a few examples like ambulocetes, archeopterix or other species which are really not transitional at all. They show characteristics of other species, but each one in itself is a fully evolved species capable of surviving. The characteristics used are infact the best evidence against evolution. For instance, the claws on the wings of archeopterix are supposed to be retained primitive features from a dinosaur ancestor. Can you believe that a 40 foot T-rex is the ancestor to your pet canary. LMAO. Anyways, evolutionists claim that the claws were later lost in the process of evolution. Really, well then how do they explain the existance of claws on the wings of ostriches and at least 2 other kinds of birds. If this feature was lost, why is it still there. Another example is the hip bones of a whale, supposedly lost through millions of years of evolution. But wait, whales do have small hip bones under the skin. How is it that something lost by evolution is still there? How is it that snakes like the python have little tiny hips. Thats right hips in an animal that supposedly lost them through evolution. The best example I know of is eyeless cave dwelling salamanders. Supposedly the eyes were lost in salamanders that lived in the dark caves cause they didnt need them. But if you take an embyo of one of these salamanders and cut away a certain part of the mesoderm during the right time of devolopment, eyes will grow! How is it that these creatures knew their eyes were of no use, then lost them, then can still have them under the right conditions. It makes no sense at all.
So then, why would eyeless salamanders have the ability to grow eyes, why would pythons and whales have hips if they dont need them, why do some birds have clawed wings? Well, as Linneus demonstrated all live is based on similar plans. Design plans. Evidence for a design of intelligent origin is right there. Even an eyeless salamander could see it (LOL). There is a blueprint, and all animals are variations of the blue print. But legs on a whale would be worthless, so the legs are reduces in the design by the designer as to not get in the way. Had these features been lost through evolution, there would be no sign of them, no trace.
Another thorn in the side of evolution is the geographical distribution of animals. Why is it that kangaroos are only found in Australia, if they are so well adapted to live in the grasslands, why are they not in grasslands all over the world. Would that not be the logical consequence of evolution? There are many examples of animals with very restricted ranges, who do very well when released into foreign environments. Geographical barriers! is what evolutionistw will claim, but then why is that some species managed to cross these barriers and some didnt? The only explanation for the distribution of species is that they are the decendants of pairs of creatures from the ark. There were only 2 kangaroos, theymade their way to Australia and no where else. ANd what about llamas and camels. According to evolution science they are closely related, but wait they live on opposite ends of the earth how can that be. The atlantic and pacific are huge barriers. True, llamas and camels are variations of the same design, and like the kangaroo only had one pair who migrated to these areas after the flood.
Why do biology texts not illustrate these glaring inconsistancies in evolution. Why do they hold on to outdated beliefs and pass them on to new students. Because the dogma of science resists change. Because theories, once entrenched, cannot be easily ousted in the light of new evidence. Scientists only look at evidence that supports existing theories. Any open minded person who reads any theory of evolution based text will see it is full of half truths, inaccuracies and outlandish statements. Many times words like probably and inferred are used to back up a dead notion.
Upvote
0
Perhaps what is "infathomable" is your complete and utter lack of knowledge about the theory of evolution conjoined with your willingness to expose that ignorance by typing an endless stream of errors about it.
I am trying to figure out where you cut & pasted that from, because I cannot imagine how anyone could propagate so many falsehoods without ever actually stumbling across a book or a website written by someone who understands the theory.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
