Evolution is Not Science

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Get this, TC... Iceland is on a spreading center. There is water in the magma."
--Yes but why? I believe it is due to sea water leaching inward the magma chamber.

---

That is what I said. However, that is not the point. The point is that there is water in the magma erupted at the mid-ocean ridge.

quote:

---

"Now multiply this by millions of times and see what the effects of your CPT would be."
--First you need to address the origin of volatiles such as sulphur.

---

Three places. Prexisting rocks, sea water, and primordial sulfur. Not that it matters. The point is that there is sulfur there which results in SO2 which reacts to form sulfuric acid.

quote:

---

"Yes, and Iceland is on a spreading zone. So now you are telling me that even more toxic gasses would be released at the convergent boundaries during CPT even further toxifying the atmosphere. This is getting worse for Noah."
--I don't think it is, as it would have been much less than today's volatilic quantities.

---

LOL! Didn't we just get through the fact that there are volatiles in the eruptions? that they would be greater if the eruptions were magnified thousands fold? And that if this were the first degassing event, then there should have been more volatiles for later eruptions which are the one we see? There is no evidence to say for certain either way, but logic absolutely forbids your assertion. Unless you have another logical explanation? You are going to increase magmatism at the spreading zones thousands of times and increase magmatism at the convergent zones thousands of times but still have less volatiles injected into the atmosphere?

quote:

---

"Sorry, but the data is not on your side. Or are you saying that the argon that is such a problem for radiometric dating or the helium fluxes that show us how young the earth are somehow manufactured in the mantle to maintain a constant flux?"
--Sarcasm?

---

NOOOO!

quote:

---

"Besides, the point is that such eruptions, when extremely rapid and worldwide, would release such gasses. We know that it happens."
--No doubt there would have been much of this, though not at all the magnitude that you would believe as it would happen today.

---

Are you saying that a several orders-of-magnitude of increased eruptions would release LESS volatiles? Man, have I got a deal on beachfront property for you!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
***Need the actual raw scientific data with references from accredited science institutes, along with the institutes informational material of falsification test results of the raw data, and the identity of the scientists involved in the research before I can offer more information.

---

Hmm, funny that you do not require this degree of qualification for creationist ideas. How in the world were you convinced of YECism? Did Kent Hovind give you this kind of documentation?

quote:

---

To some Evos, this may seem alot to ask for, but if the information is truly available, it should no problem to fulfill my request.

---

Yes, it seems like a lot, but mainly in the fact that the request is coming from a YECist. Normally we spend most of our time trying to explain what evidence is and what a logical fallacy is.And actually, you have moved the goal posts here. Originally, you only asked for raw data, now you have uppped the ante. Why is that?

quote:

---

Surely the knowledgeable Evos, those totally convinced of the accuracy of the TOE, are privy to this information. How about sharing it with the rest of us.***

---

Surely not. Evolution is not as simple as you would like it to be. The data is highly technical and this has been a true shortcoming when dispensing these ideas to the public. THat makes it easy prey for creationist propagandists spouting things like "the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rock, ha ha ha!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
***Whether through a misunderstanding, or by mistaking me for someone else, you seem to be under the impression that I am a YEC. I am not.

---

I would never make such a mistake. But perhaps you could make yourself clearer on what you specfically think. In fact, I have noticed that you have not put your cards on the table, but still require extensive research and explanations from us.

quote:

---

As for the information that was requested, your reply was less than satisfactory, to say the least. Highly technical or not, the information must still be available.

---

I'm sure it is. However, most of what you ask is outside my own field. Perhaps when I have more time.

quote:

---

Also, if the information is too technical for the average person to understand, then what is the basis of Evos belief in evolution?

---

See above. I am only particularly aware of what goes on in my field, and even then I cannot stay on top of everything.

quote:

---

Is the reason they believe in evolution mired in the fact that they have simply been taught that evolution is the answer to an otherwise unanswerable naturalistic question, that being, where did man come from?

---

Wouldn't be jumping to conclusions here would we? I thought only evos did that.

quote:

---

Do Evos simply believe in evolution because a large number of unknown scientists have told them to? I do not expect an answer to these questions but I do still expect the more knowlegeable Evos to provide me with the information that I have already requested. To date, none of the Evos have been willing to, or perhaps able to, satisfy that request.

---

Or maybe they don't take you seriously. Or maybe the right persons are on vacation this week.Now, why not answer my question? You simply passed it off as to what convinced you of YEC, or ID, as the case may be. You seem to require a small thesis from us as evidence, but what is it that led you to your own viewpoint? Did someone give you all of the research data, backed up by credible research institutions with references, researcher's names and authors, and back up, etc., etc.? Do you hold your own side to the same standards as you do evolution? Could you give us the same data?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
***An observation of the problems involving the co-existance of
evolution and creation.***Jet

​

In conclusion, evolution is not a proven fact.

---

Oops! Losing credibility already, Jet. Do we have to explain to you about science again?

quote:

---

It is assumed to be true by many scientists, but they have offered no convincing proofs. There is no evidence for the evolution model. This can be seen in the many unproven assumptions held by evolutionists.

---

Just because you do not accept various lines of evidence, does not mean that others are not permitted to do so. You seem to fixated on the word "proof" here. This leads me to believe that you really do not understand science.

quote:

---

First, there is no evidence for spontaneous generation.

---

Do we have to explain this again, too?

quote:

---

The belief that life evolved from non-life contradicts both the cell theory and the law of biogenesis. The Miller-Urey experiments have failed to produce life in the lab (if they were successful, it would be evidence for the creation model not the evolution model).

---

I think this is called 'stacking the deck'. Not good science, but great propaganda technique.

quote:

---

Second, there is no evidence for the evolutionary assumption that the universe is eternal.

---

Hmm, can't find that one in my evo conspirator's handbook. Can you document this? Seems to me that the christians are the ones that have a world without end, etc. etc.

quote:

---

Evolutionists must accept this by faith. Evolutionists may assume that the universe evolved into existence from nothing, but this assumption goes against all available scientific evidence.

---

Well, considering that this is not part of evolution, I'll just have to go along with you on this one. By the way, just what evidence are you talking about?

quote:

---

Third, there is no evidence that intelligence could come from
non-intelligence. Intelligence shows evidence of design; it could not
have been produced by chance.

---

But information can come from a non-intelligent source, eh? Could you please explain what you think the role of chance is in evolutionary theory?

quote:

---

Fourth, no evidence has been found proving that multi-celled animals came from single-celled animals. (Even the human embryo does not evolve into a human; it has its full human genetic code at conception.63)

---

Sounds like you are parroting something you read from a creationist website... Do you mean other than some of the colonial animals that appeared after solitary, single-celled animals, but before specialized cells?

quote:

---

Fifth, there is no evidence for the evolution of animals with
backbones from animals without backbones.64 Though there should be
multitudes of transitional forms between the two groups, none have
been found.

---

Well, this divergence appears to have happened quite early. I wouldn't expect to find a lot of direct evidence.

quote:

---

Sixth, there is no evidence for the common ancestry of fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.65 Common anatomy could point to a common Designer; it does not necessarily point to common ancestry.

---

Yep, good old number 65! (Do you actually understand these arguments?). You are right: could'a, might'a, should'a...

quote:

---

All the major gaps that evolution must cross are assumed to have occurred; they have not been proven to have occurred.

---

Oh, man! We just can't prove anything for you!

quote:

---

Therefore, evolution itself is an unproven assumption.

---

Actually, evolution is a theory that explains the data. It is not intended to be proven. Now, I admit that in modern times, we have used the theory of evolution as a premise for further reasearch because that is how science works. The idea is to move ahead.

quote:

---

Those who dogmatically proclaim it as truth spend more time explaining away the scientific evidence against their view than they do providing evidence for their view.

---

But that has already been done. There is plenty of evidence. You simple choose not to accept it. And, frankly, it is a pain in the nect to have to counter all of these ridiculous arguments against evolution, like your number 65, or number 73, or 89 (that's a good one!). Could you please come up with something new one of these days!

quote:

---

Any scientific model which lacks plausibility should be abandoned.

---

I agree absolutely. Sort of what happend with YECism a hundred years ago.

quote:

---

Such is the case with evolution.

---

Oops, I thought we were making some headway for a moment.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 06-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
edge: Oops! Losing credibility already, Jet. Do we have to explain to you about science again? Just because you do not accept various lines of evidence, does not mean that others are not permitted to do so. You seem to fixated on the word "proof" here. This leads me to believe that you really do not understand science.

​

***No, but perhaps you do need to explain things to some of the Evos. Several seem to think that evolution is a "proven fact", and have stated as much. I would never expect the TOE to be "proven", because I know that it never can be. And as for your statement concerning the acceptance of "various lines of evidence", that, my friend, is a two-way street.***Jet

---

Hmm, now where did anyone here say that evolution is a "proven fact?"***It is very obvious from your post that you are a prime example of an illinformed Evo, who attempts to make a point by spouting endless drivel, offering no specific facts concerning the relative nature of the TOE while totally ignoring the countless unscientific assumptions and assertions that must be accepted in order to believe in the TOE. Talk about someone adept at parroting the mindless dogma of a bankrupt theory. You seem to have developed it into an art form. Kudos!***Yeah, well, you might consider the post that I had to work with. Just what are the specific facts that you deal with, by the way?

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Evolution is not science. It is not a testable hypothesis (that life originated from simple molecules) because it is history. Can you go back in time and see what happened? Evolution is a religion. The belief that life came from a primeval soup.

---

Well, your first paragraph is not very promising. It is just a rambling, disorganized litany of complaints. Perhaps you could keep it to one major subject at a time.

quote:

---

Now tell me about some of the "science" in evolution.
Take Ernst Haeckel's fudging of embryo diagrams.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp

---

Why do you ask us to tell you about science and then proceed to tell us about it? Perhaps Haeckel is not my favorite evidence or my best example of science.

quote:

---

has some pictures
Take ichthyosaurus, a forgery made from plaster.
BBC article about it-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid_1059000/1059825.stm

---

No, not another one of my choices.

quote:

---

Take peppered moths. Biologists stuck moths onto tree trunks. Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks during the day.
Take the supposed reducing atmosphere in early earth. Most evidence points to an oxygen rich atmosphere, as many rocks dated to that time could only form in an oxygen rich atmosphere. It is produced by photolysis of water vapour in the atmosphere, where hydrogen escapes gravitation and oxygen thereby increases in concentration.

---

I think I would like to talk to your language arts teacher about paragraph construction. Could you please repost this entire diatribe and organize it a little better. Perhaps pare the subject list down, also. It shows great disrespect for you audience when you will not take the time to be more cogent and develop your arguments. It is also very unflattering toward yourself.(rant snipped)

quote:

---

There are many other hoaxes by evolutionists.

---

Are you sure that you want to get involved in discussing hoaxes? What really do they have to do with the validity of a theory when they are not used as evidence and are not espoused by anyone in the scientific community? Are you prepared to find out that some of these hoaxes were perpetrated by creationists? Are you prepared to discusse the strawmen presented by your professional creationist leaders? I have found this to be a really fruitless endeavor. Why not discusse the most established facts and the most accepted concepts?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
After quite a long absense, it is refreshing to see that the typical response of the Evo diehards has not changed. "Evolution Revolution!" If nothing else, one has gotta love the chaos involved in this bankrupt theory, not to mention the diehards who are unwilling to allow their thought process to evolve along with the reality that this unscientific theory cannot evolve fast enough to keep up with the times. However, the same must be said of many of the creationists, whether YEC or OEC. Once a dogmatic position has been taken, few are willing to open their minds to new concepts, let alone the reality that Truth is an undeniable, unchangeable, and immoveable force that refuses to yield. And the beat goes on.......

---

I am so glad that you have moved to the middle of the road.