Evolution is Not Science

Sorry to 'but' in, but ... [QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b]As requested by the EvC Forum Administrator, this deleted message is being reposted here, which should be a more appropropiate forum than the one in which it originated.Message origination:
Evolution versus Creationism
Is It Science?
A Christian (and creationist)'s condemnation of "Creation Science" (Page 4)Originally posted by minnemooseus:I think I'm striving for more of a "creationism and evolution can get
along" type topic, here. Creation by evolution. See also, the
Kenneth Miller: Finding Darwin's God topic.Have a nice day, Moose***An observation of the problems involving the co-existance of
evolution and creation.***Jet/b][/QUOTE]None of us should have to tell someone with your vast intellectual
background and reasoning ability that the above has nothing to do
with ToE.However ... how creating the conditions necessary for the spontaneous
generation of life would proove creation is beyond me.The experiment would be designed, sure, but it would be designed to
mimic conditions that would occur naturally ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

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

---

How is this relevent to evolution ... perhaps we need a definition
of evolution for this debate ... oh, wait what's in the glossary?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

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.

---

There is no evidence that it couldn't ... your point is ?Could you perhaps start a thread on the above so you could
present your reasoning, rather than just stating an assumption.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

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)

---

What about colony organisms like slime mould (which also exhibit
a rudimentary intelligence) ?Doesn't outright proove it I guess, but then (as with the
previous point) there is no evidence directly against it.There are observable organisms which indicate a potential route
from single to multi celled life though. Matter of interpretation,
perhaps.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

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.

---

This is a no transitionals thing ... and leads to the trite
but true absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

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.

---

There is no evidence of a common designer ... yet you accept that.Common anatomy could, I agree, equally reflect either common design
or common descent. It is evidence in isolation though, when
coupled with the other branches of ToE support it fits the theory
very well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

All the major gaps that evolution must cross are assumed to have
occurred; they have not been proven to have occurred. Therefore,
evolution itself is an unproven assumption. 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. Any scientific model which lacks plausibility should be
abandoned. Such is the case with evolution.

---

Sounds like the way you argue your side to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

Evolution needs God, but God does not need evolution. If evolution is
true, then God is needed to bring the universe into existence from
nothing, to bring life from non-life, and complex life forms from
simple life forms. In each case, a miraculous superseding of natural
laws is needed. However, if God exists, He doesn't need evolution. He
could have either started the long evolutionary process or He could
have created the universe in six literal days. God could have used
evolution, but if He did, He covered His tracks. He left no evidence.
Since God is not the author of deception, it is reasonable to conclude
that evolution is a myth, devoid of any scientific evidence.

---

Hmm .. you use existence of God (which can niether be prooved nor
disprooved) as refutation of evolution. Interesting. And you
say that some of us are narrow minded, with limited reasoning
ability!If God exists he didn't need the flood either. If he is powerful
enough to speak an entire universe into creation, surely he
is powerful enough to wipe out mankind without resorting
to a flood, or sending angels to rain fire and brimstone on
cities.And if God prizes free will in his creations, why try to terrify them
into doing as they are told ?If he is omniscient why would he have bothered since it has
clearly not worked ?If god created the earth 4.5 billion years ago, pinked some life
into existence and gave it the ability to evolve ... we would
see no evidence of his hand in the work. because his only hand
would be 4.5 billion years ago.If there is evidence in existence which can be interpreted as
evolution (and there must be otherwise the theory would not
exist) then (according to you) God put it there ... and that
opens a whole new can of worms.

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.

---

First, what you have described is NOT evolution.Second, that potential is testable ... because it's about chemistry.
Set up the right environment and see if you can produce organic
compounds ... didn't someone do that already ?Is archeology religion too ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

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
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

---

These are hardly linch-pins of evolutionary theory, and the
embriology stuff has been rejected via peer-review and
research ... which tends to suggest that evolution IS scientific.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Take peppered moths. Biologists stuck moths onto tree trunks. Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks during the day.

---

For photgraphs, perhaps, we cannot say they intended to
deceive.Where do they rest ? And what factors could have affected the
differences in colour distribution in the locations studied ?It is still evidence of population trait distributions changing,
which is all that was intended.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

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.

---

Not sure of the relevence of this to evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Then there is homology. Quote Dr Beer, ‘Because homology implies community of descent from a common ancestor it might be thought that genetics would provide the key to the problem of homology. This is where the worst shock of all is encountered [because] characters controlled by identical genes are not necessarily homologous [and] homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes’

---

Did you intend the wording above ? 'Not necessarily' and
'need not' imply that sometimes homology can be related to the
same gene doing the same thing. Common descent and convergent
evolution are both considered to be encompassed by ToE.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Then there's archaeopterx.
"as Wells points out, the position of Archaeopteryx as a transitional form is now very much in dispute, and in fact ‘its own ancestors are the subject of one of the most heated controversies in modern science’ (p. 112). Most paleontologists now agree this member of an extinct group of birds15 is not the ancestor of any group of modern birds, nor is it a link between reptiles and birds. Evolutionists conclude from cladistic studies (i.e. of shared common features) that bird-like dinosaurs would have lived in the Cretaceous period, which according to evolutionary dating methods was long after Archaeopteryx had supposedly become extinct. That leaves evolutionists back at square one: where are those countless missing links required by the theory, had birds evolved from reptiles"

---

OK. And that refutes evolution because ... ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Take Darwin's finches-Recent evidence shows that the supposed different species can reproduce with each other. A recent scientist (I don't remember who) found the supposedly different species mate. Also, the species are not locationally isolated. The species are found on all of the islands.

---

Still, it supports natural selection.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Fourwinged fruit flies-
"Geneticist Ed Lewis showed that three strains of laboratory mutant fruit flies could be interbred to produce four winged flies. The balancers or ‘halteres’ required for flight stability in the third thoracic segment were replaced by two new wings. The evolution-oriented textbooks use this to claim random mutations provide some useful changes on occasion, which natural selection then favours.

​

The exceeding unlikelihood of three such mutations, introduced in the laboratory, is never mentioned. More serious is that no muscles are attached to these wings and a hopelessly non-aerodynamic creature results, which could never survive nor mate in free nature. Duplicate organs may be interesting, but what is needed is evidence that novel functionality or organs can develop by random and unguided processes."

---

Unlikelihood is hardly relevent. It is unlikely for any one
person to win the lottery, doesn't mean no-one does (unless there's
a conspiracy I don't know about )The argument is that mutations can promote no-lethal changes that
are claimed to be impossible. How do we know that the absense
of flying ability is a disadvantage in all environments ... I mean
ants seem to do alright.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Fossil horses-Note that there are huge differences between the supposed species. Way to many. There are no transitional fossils found between these.

---

The fossil record is incomplete ... no one will tell you otherwise.Too many differences for what ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

Piltdown man is a famous example. "For over 40 years the Piltdown fraud had persuaded the leading scientists a missing link had confirmed man’s descent from ape-like ancestors. The skull belonged to a true human and the jaw fragment from a modern orang-utan. It turned out that the latter had been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil and its teeth had been deliberately filed down to make them look human. It took that long to discover this none-too-elaborate hoax because evolutionists thought they had evidence which they very much wished to believe. "

​

There are many other hoaxes by evolutionists.

---

So people pull off hoaxes, your point is ?Perhaps you are saying that ALL support for ToE has been
hoaxed and/or manipulated and that no-one has attempted to
do the same in support of creationist views.Perhaps these hoaxes were perpetrated BY creationists to
ultimately discredit ToE ... who knows.The existence of hoaxes does not detract from the many lines
of evidence which are not hoaxed.