|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How does evolution explain the gaps? | |||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Pehaps you can outline a few such scientific studies for us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
So, I guess you were simply using empty (false) rhetoric.
How surprising. Of course, since you have all the answers in your religious literature, perhaps you can provide the begats and begots from Adam to me. If you cannot, then surely your Faith is foundationless. [This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-24-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Your replies were meant to show the implausability of your "challenge." Speaking for myself, I meant to show you the double-standards employed by creationists. Your response essentially validates my position. It should be far easier for the creationist to name each and every parent, grandparent, etc. of any living individual than for an evolutionist to name all transitional species from "microbe to man" if for no other reason the fact that the creationist only has to deal with 0.0005% of the time that the evolutionist does.That you blew it off as not sunstantive demonstrates your inability to live up to your own standards. quote: You can say that. You can even believe it. It does not make is so. The creationist relies upon attacks on evolution for 'evidence'. Claiming, for example, radiometric dating is wrong does NOT by any stretch of the imagination mean that the earth is only 10,000 yewars old. Can you not see that? Here is a claim by creationists: DNA equals shape. They say this in an attempt to minimize the impact of molecular phylogenetic studies indicating that evolution - even the dreaded macroevolution - has occurred. So, let us test the creationist claim: Whose DNA is more similar to a whales - a hippo's or a shark's? Answer that question and you will have a substantive answer (thank you RR and/or PP)quote:That seems to be because you employ double standards and otherwise cannot 'explain' scientifically anything about creationism. quote: And thus you dive headlong out of the realm of science and into the realm of the supernatural. Another layer of double standards.quote: I am always amazed at the supreme confidnce the creationists have - especially when dictating what it is evolutionists must or must not accept/understand/adhere to/etc...quote:Your point? One can test hypotheses. I did it all the time in graduate school. It does not require supreme knowledge or revelation. It does not require a time machine. It does not even require knowledge of a long litany of intermediates.It just requires knowing what to look for, and apparently, the creationist does not know what to look for. quote: I can give you along list of papers that do this. You can find them, too. Go to: http://www.ncbi.nih.gov choose 'publication' in the search menu. Type in some key words like Primate and evolution. I think you will be shocked at what you see, for it will quite contrary to what Sarfati and co. will tell you...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Actually, as an evolutionist, one would only make an implicit statement of fact if one had already checked...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Could not have said it better myself... Of course, when an 'evo' says something like that, it is because they are 'elitist', arrogant, trying to browbeat, etc...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: It is interesting that you write this. On the ARN forum, anti-Darwinists have been saying this very emphatically for some time. They insist that only by adopting theistic science/Intelligent Design, can any true progress be made. A few days ago, someone posted an interesting response to these claims. This fellow mentioned one Dean Kenyon, "former evolutionist", whose previous area of expertise was abiogenesis. He even wrote a popular text on the issue. Then, in the early seventies, if I recall correctly, he had a conversion. The usual "witnessing" replays it as he concluded that evolution was untenable because of his research, but it all seems to have coincided with a religious conversion (funny how that seems to work...). Anyway, if what the creationists say has merit - that evolution is a dead-end, that ID/creationism is the way to go, that so many real scientists are 'changing sides' because of this, it stands to reason that Kenyon should have been churning out papers since his conversion. Did that happen? Since this conversion, Kenyon has co-authored a popular creationism "textboook", "Of Pandas and People". And that is about it. No original research. Nothing. In nearly 30 years... Funny how that works... No wonder so many real scientists are sticking with the 'dead end' that evolution is...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: message 40:Jet: "...and every day more scientists are becoming aware that the TOE is a dead end road." That is certainly the implication.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Uh, no, 'we' don't. And frankly, I find that claim to be patently absurd.I have seen sound refutations of the supposed 'evidences' you provide. You are at best out of the loop, scientifically. But you do project well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
So, you are just being elitist, arrogant, etc.?
Or is this the latest in a long line of creationist double-standards?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Almost as funny as the creationist blatantly distorting the words of an evolutionist. I'm shocked... ------------------(2) "A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia," which manifests itself in several ways: ...(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against...(4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. ..
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote:quote: Especially interesting is the fact that most creationists claim the exact opposite - that there is no "geologic column" anywhere. And they that that THAT is evidence of 'the flood'. Maybe these guys should get together once in a while to get their stories striaght?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024