Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is Not Science
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 229 of 270 (11659)
06-16-2002 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Jet
06-16-2002 6:25 PM


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!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 6:25 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 9:17 PM edge has replied

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 270 (11668)
06-16-2002 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by edge
06-16-2002 7:08 PM


***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. 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. Also, if the information is too technical for the average person to understand, then what is the basis of Evos belief in evolution? 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? 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.***
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by edge, posted 06-16-2002 7:08 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by edge, posted 06-17-2002 12:46 AM Jet has replied

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 270 (11669)
06-16-2002 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Percy
06-16-2002 6:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
When you visit a museum and see the fossil reconstructions you're looking at raw scientific data. The link I provided about speciation contained references to scientific papers, so you obviously didn't even follow the link. The books on evolution that most of us here rely upon here reflect the findings of scientific papers and journals. If you'd really like to see "raw scientific data" for yourself then I suppose you could find it in a university library.
--Percy

***Your reply simply proves a point that I have made time and time again, that being, that the majority of Evos haven't got a clue when it comes to the raw scientific data that supposedly supports their belief in evolution. And as to your statement that "When you visit a museum and see the fossil reconstructions you're looking at raw scientific data.", I think this is at the least a spurious statement, if not an outright cop-out. You know full well that a reconstructed fossil is not a good example of raw scientific data. It may indeed be the end result of some scientific endeavor, but that is not what I asked for. You also stated, "The books on evolution that most of us here rely upon here reflect the findings of scientific papers and journals.", so why not provide the references to those scientific papers and journals, if you are already privy to that information? Why is this request for information so difficult for Evos to fulfill? This is not an unreasonable request.***
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Percy, posted 06-16-2002 6:42 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Percy, posted 06-16-2002 10:13 PM Jet has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 232 of 270 (11672)
06-16-2002 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Jet
06-16-2002 9:39 PM


You wanted "raw scientific data", I mentioned fossils, and what could be more raw than the actual fossils from the ground? I provided you a link with references to papers about observed speciation, you don't seem interested in those either. I'm willing to discuss any facet of evolution at the level of knowledge I possess. If you'd like to discuss anything I stand ready.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 9:39 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 10:38 PM Percy has not replied

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 270 (11674)
06-16-2002 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Percy
06-16-2002 10:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
You wanted "raw scientific data", I mentioned fossils, and what could be more raw than the actual fossils from the ground? I provided you a link with references to papers about observed speciation, you don't seem interested in those either. I'm willing to discuss any facet of evolution at the level of knowledge I possess. If you'd like to discuss anything I stand ready.
--Percy

***OK, open one of those books that you mentioned, check the back of the book for the reference sources of the material provided within, and supply me with that reference material. I will then use that information on my next trip to the library. OK?***
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Percy, posted 06-16-2002 10:13 PM Percy has not replied

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 270 (11680)
06-16-2002 11:24 PM


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
scientific_case_against_evolution.htm[/URL]
[Shortened too-long link. --Admin]
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstein
[This message has been edited by Admin, 06-17-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by edge, posted 06-17-2002 1:27 AM Jet has replied
 Message 243 by Peter, posted 06-19-2002 12:05 PM Jet has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 235 of 270 (11684)
06-17-2002 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Jet
06-16-2002 9:17 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 9:17 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Jet, posted 06-17-2002 8:46 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 236 of 270 (11686)
06-17-2002 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Jet
06-16-2002 11:24 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 11:24 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Jet, posted 06-21-2002 12:56 PM edge has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 237 of 270 (11688)
06-17-2002 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Jet
06-16-2002 2:59 PM


quote:
Point #1
Jet: There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Point #2
***Actually, Marks reply is well taken so my only response is in regard to what actually qualifies as evolution, IMHO. Micro is not debatable, but, as I have stated before, I do not classify it as evolution. I will expound on my reasons for this belief upon request. As for Macro, it is, as yet, unobserved and, IMHO, an unobservable event and therefore macro-evolution is completely untestable, unfalsifiable, and unscientific. Obviously, this is my personal opinion and I eagerly await the scientific data that can show me otherwise. Unless you are able to provide true science, with true scientific results, including all data from A to Z, you won't be able to convince me that it is scientific.***Jet
The following references should answer both points. You wanted scientific data — in the raw — here it is. Please note that these are only a few selected papers out of thousands on this issue. Happy reading.
Ahlberg, P.E. 1991. Tetrapod or near-tetrapod fossils from the Upper
Devonian of Scotland. Nature 354:298-301.
Barnosky, A.D. 1987. Punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism:
some facts from the Quaternary mammalian record. Chapter 4, pp 109-
148, in: Current Mammalogy, volume 1, ed. H.H. Genowys. Plenum
Press, New York.
Berta, A. 1994. What is a whale? Science 263:180-181. [commentary on
discovery of Ambulocetus natans]
Bolt, J.R., R.M. McKay, B.J. Witzke, & M.P. Adams. 1988. A new Lower
Carboniferous tetrapod locality in Iowa. Nature 333:768-770
Chaline, J., and B. Laurin. 1986. Phyletic gradualism in a European
Plio-Pleistocene Mimomys lineage (Arvicolidae, Rodentia).
Paleobiology 12:203-216.
Chevret, P., C. Denys, J.J. Jaeger, J. Michaux, and F. Catzeflis. 1993.
Molecular and paleontological aspects of the tempo and mode of
evolution in Otomys (Otomyinae: Muridae: Mammalia). Biochem. Syst.
Ecol. 21(1):123-131.
Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1991. Fish-like gills and breathing in the
earliest known tetrapod. Nature 352:234-236.
Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1990. Polydactyly in the earliest known
tetrapod limbs. Nature 347:66-69.
Daeschler, E.B., N.H. Shubin, K.S. Thomson, W.W. Amaral. 1994. A
Devonian tetrapod from North America. Science 265:639-642.
Edwards, J.L. 1989. Two perspectives on the evolution of the tetrapod
limb. Am. Zool. 29:235-254.
Fischman, J. 1993. Paleontologists examine old bones and new
interpretations. Science 262: 845-846.
Gingerich, P.D. 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of
evolution at the species level in early Tertiary mammals. Am. J.
Sci. 276:1-28.
Gingerich, P.D. 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals.
Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 8:407-424.
Gingerich, P.D. 1982. Time resolution in mammalian evolution:
Sampling, lineages, and faunal turnover. Third North Am. Paleont.
Conv., Proc., 1:205-210.
Gingerich, P.D. 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate
fossil record. J. Geological Education 31:140-144.
Gingerich, P.D. 1985. Species in the fossil record: concepts, trends,
and transitions. Paleobiology 11(1):27-41.
Gingerich, P.D., B.H. Smith, & E.L. Simons. 1990. Hind limb of Eocene
Basilosaurus: evidence of feet in whales. Science 249:154-156.
Harris, J., & White, T.D. 1979. Evolution of Plio-Pleistocene African
Suidae. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. 69:1-128.
Hopson, J.A. 1991. Convergence in mammals, tritheledonts, and
tridylodonts. J. Vert. Paleont. 11(suppl. to 3):36A [abstract]
Horner, J.R., D.J. Varrichio, and M.B. Goodwin. 1992. Marine
transgressions and the evolution of Cretaceous dinosaurs. Nature
358:59-61.
Krishtalka, L., and Stucky, R.K. 1985. Revision of the Wind River
Faunas. Early Eocene of Central Wyoming. Part 7. Revision of
Diacodexis (Mammalia, Artiodactyla). Am. Carnegie Mus. 54:413-486.
Kurten, B. 1964. The evolution of the polar bear, Ursus maritimus
(Phipps). Acta Zoologica Fennica 108:1-26.
Laurin, M. 1991. The osteology of a Lower Permian eosuchian from Texas
and a review of diapsid phylogeny. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 101:59-95.
Lee, M.S.Y. 1993. The origin of the turtle bodyplan: bridging a famous
morphological gap. Science 261:1716-1720.
Lucas, S.G., and Z. Lou. 1993. Adelobasileus from the upper Triassic
of west Texas: the oldest mammal. J. Vert. Paleont. 13(3):309-334.
MacFadden, B.J. 1985. Patterns of phylogeny and rates of evolution in
fossil horses: Hipparions from the Miocene and Pliocene of North
America. Paleobiology 11:245-257.
MacFadden, B.J. 1988. Horses, the fossil record, and evolution: a
current perspective. Evol. Biol. 22:131-158.
MacFadden, B.J., & R.C. Hubbert. 1988. Explosive speciation at the
base of the adaptive radiation of Miocene grazing horses. Nature
336:466-468.
MacFadden, B.J., J.D. Bryant, and P.A. Mueller. 1991. Sr-isotopic,
paleomagnetic, and biostratigraphic evidence of horse evolution:
evidence from the Miocene of Florida. Geology 19:242-245
Maglio, V.J. 1973. Origin and evolution of the Elephantidae. Trans.
Am. Phil. Soc., New Ser. 63:1-149.
Milner, A.R., and S.E. Evans. 1991. The Upper Jurassic diapsid
Lisboasaurus estesi -- a maniraptoran theropod. Paleontology
34:503-513.
Reisz, R., & Laurin, M. 1991. Owenetta and the origin of the turtles.
Nature 349: 324-326.
Reisz, R., & Laurin, M. 1993. The origin of turtles. J. Vert.
Paleont. 13 (suppl. 3):46
Rensberger, J.M. 1981. Evolution in a late Oligocene-early Miocene
succession of meniscomyine rodents in the Deep River Formation,
Montana. J. Vert. Paleont. 1(2): 185-209.
Rose, K.D., and Bown, T.M. 1984. Gradual phyletic evolution at the
generic level in early Eocene omomyid primates. Nature 309:250-252.
Rowe, T. 1988. Definition, diagnosis, and origin of Mammalia. J.
Vert. Paleont. 8(3): 241-264.
Rougier, G.W., J.R. Wible, and J.A. Hopson. 1992. Reconstruction of
the cranial vessels in the early Cretaceous mammal Vincelestes
neuquenianus: implications for the evolution of the mammalian
cranial vascular system. J. Vert. Paleont. 12(2):188-216.
Sanz, J.L., Bonaparte, J.F., and A. Lacassa. 1988. Unusual Early
Cretaceous birds from Spain. Nature 331:433-435
Sanz, J.L and Bonaparte, J.F. 1992. A new order of birds (Class Aves)
from the lower Cretaceous of Spain. in K.E.Campbell (ed.) Papers in
Avian Paleontology. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County,
Science Series No.36
Sereno, P.C. and Rao, C. 1992. Early evolution of avian flight and
perching: new evidence from the lower Cretaceous of China. Science
vol.255, pp.845-848.
Shubin, N.H., A.W. Crompton, H.-D. Sues, P.E. Olsen. 1991. New fossil
evidence on the sister-group of mammals and early Mesozoic faunal
distribution. Science 251:1063-1065.
Thewissen, J.G.M., S.T. Hussain, and M. Arif. 1993. Fossil evidence
for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science
263:210-212.
White, T.D., G. Suwa, and B. Asfaq. 1994. Australopithecus ramidus, a
new species of early hominid from Aramis, Ethiopida. Nature 371:306-
312.
Wible, J.R. 1991. Origin of Mammalia: the craniodental evidence
reexamined. J. Vert. Paleont. 11(1):1-28.
Wood, B.A. 1994. The oldest hominid yet. Nature 371:280-281.
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Jet finds my posts "utterly worthless". Sorry Jet, just ignore this.
***OK, open one of those books that you mentioned, check the back of the book for the reference sources of the material provided within, and supply me with that reference material. I will then use that information on my next trip to the library. OK?***[/QUOTE]
I guess this answers your request, no?
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 06-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 2:59 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Jet, posted 06-17-2002 8:54 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 270 (11692)
06-17-2002 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by edge
06-17-2002 12:46 AM


Originally posted by edge:
Or maybe they don't take you seriously. Or maybe the right persons are on vacation this week.
***Or maybe, just maybe, it is as I suspect, that the average Evo hasn't got a clue as to what the facts are concerning this so-called evolutionary science, and the majority of Evos believe simply because they have been taught to do so. I readily acknowledge that a large number of "religious" people are guilty of this same offense. That is made quite evident by their following the doctrines of men, even when those doctrines are clearly contradicted by the Holy Word of God. It seems evident that some participants in both camps, creationists and evolutionists alike, are guilty of following the doctrines of men.***Jet
***This next part of your response requires that I take it point by point. So here goes.***Jet
Point #1
Edge: 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?
***While I willingly acknowledge that my beliefs concerning ID and OEC do require a certain degree of faith, Evos say they need no faith to believe in evolution. They claim they have the evidence, though they seem extremely reluctant to elaborate when pressed for that evidence. Many are capable of parroting the popular evolutionary dogma, but when it comes to providing skeptics with the hard facts, they tend to use the same tactic that you have used here.
My own personal viewpoint is not based upon what I have been taught by men, but rather, it is based upon what I have learned by involving myself in continual study and research. It is based upon trial and error, and putting the Holy Word of God to the test. Based upon my studies, coupled with honest practical application of the Holy Word of God and my subsequent experiences and observations based upon that application, I have discovered that the Bible contains greater truth than all of the books combined that Evos say they rely upon.***Jet
Point #2
Edge: 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.?
***No one "gave me all of the research data", as you put it. I had to aquire much of it by continual devotion of my time, as well as at my own expense. But all of the material you mentioned is widely available to anyone who is willing to examine it honestly and openly. Most Evos that I have encountered have never been willing to do so.***Jet
Point #3
Edge: Do you hold your own side to the same standards as you do evolution?
***In actuality, I hold "my side", as you put it, to a much higher standard. This is of necessity. Evolution chooses only to address those things that are perceived as being part of the natural world. As a creationist, I must address those things that pertain to both the natural and the spiritual. The bar is set much higher for creationism, and even so, it has never been able to be discounted. Denied, yes, due in part to willful ignorance. But discounted? Never, not even once. Even a few honest evolutionary scientists have been willing to admit to the possibility of a Creator as the reason for the existance of the universe. They remain evolutionists, but acknowledge, the possibility at least, of the reality that a Supreme Agency, a Creator, is due full credit for the existance of the material universe.
Point #4
Edge: Could you give us the same data?
***Sure I could, but I doubt Percy would allow me to actually provide such material here. Links to that information is probably the most that Percy would allow me to provide for you. You would also have to do as I have done, that being, invest much time and some money in your pursuit for the Ultimate Truth, a Truth that rests only in the Creator of all that exists, both natural and spiritual. Truth is an absolute, and the Creator is Absolute Truth.***Jet
***Here are a few links to get you started on your path to that Ultimate Truth. I wish you much success.***Jet
http://www.trueorigin.org/index.asp
http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/
http://home.hkstar.com/~johnfok1/rightframe.htm#Acknowledgement
http://www.auracom.com/~gmilroy/index.htm
http://www.evidence.info/
http://www.planetkc.com/puritan/EvolutionIsNotScience_f.htm
http://evolution.htmlplanet.com/
http://www.fhu.com/findgod_book.htm
http://www.creationists.org/switch.html
http://www.thinkquest.org/library/lib/site_sum_outside.html?tname=18757&url=18757/historyofevolution.htm
http://members.aol.com/dwr51055/Creation.html
http://members.tripod.com/faith_defense/
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html
http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Research_Center/Apologetics/
http://www.onlinebible.net/links.html
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth18b.html
http://www.realworldnews.net/
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol1.htm
http://home.primus.com.au/bonno/evolutionTEXT.htm
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Index.htm
http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Lockwood/Germaine/Charles/1930/Cosmos/
http://home.att.net/~jamspsu84/ttocmain.html
http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/main.htm
http://www.genesisquest.org/worldofscience/
***As with any worthy undertaking, research of all material provided is essential, followed by cross-checking and cross-referencing all of the available data. To simply accept something based on nothing other than the fact that someone actually bothered to write it down is to defeat the intended purpose of true study and research. You are on your own as to what you choose to do, or not do, with all of this information. The Ultimate Truth is out there. You only need to be willing to search for it. Limit yourself to any single arena, and you limit your potential for understanding.***
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by edge, posted 06-17-2002 12:46 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Percy, posted 06-17-2002 10:41 AM Jet has not replied

  
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 270 (11694)
06-17-2002 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Quetzal
06-17-2002 5:11 AM


Originally posted by Quetzal:
The following references should answer both points. You wanted scientific data — in the raw — here it is. Please note that these are only a few selected papers out of thousands on this issue. Happy reading.
I guess this answers your request, no?
**Yes Quetzal, this should be of immense help. Thank you very much. I knew someone should be able to provide me with this type of information. I have already printed this list. My next dozen or more trips to the library should be very informative. Again, many thanks.***
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Quetzal, posted 06-17-2002 5:11 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 240 of 270 (11700)
06-17-2002 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Jet
06-17-2002 8:46 AM


Jet writes:

Evos say they need no faith to believe in evolution. They claim they have the evidence, though they seem extremely reluctant to elaborate when pressed for that evidence.
The first evidence discovered for evolution, and still the most accessible and persuasive, is the fossil record. Mining, road construction and other activities related to the Industrial Revolution during the first half of the 19th century brought to light a fossil record of increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth.
Even if we had learned and discovered nothing else over the past two hundred years, this record of change over time is still sufficient evidence by itself for evolution, and it is the evidence that persuades me that evolution has happened.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Jet, posted 06-17-2002 8:46 AM Jet has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 241 of 270 (11702)
06-17-2002 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Jet
06-16-2002 2:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
As requested by Percy, this is a reposting from another thread.
Well, let's take this point by point.
Point #1
Jet: There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Mark: Yes there are. Tell me, what would you expect a reptile mammal transitional to look like?
***Mark chooses to respond in a somewhat typical Evo fashion. Rather than give examples of transitionals and intermediates, followed by the references to the scientific tests performed that led to the scientific explanation of how these were determined to be so, followed by the scientific attempts at falsification of this data, etc., Mark simply says "yes there are" and then moves into a non'supportive question.***Jet

LOL, well? Since you want scientific quality evidence, I only thought it reasonable that we embark on a scientific mode of enquiry. Is the prediction that mammals evolved from reptiles born out? You tell me what those fossils will look like, Jet, then we’ll have a look.
As regards not providing any transitional evidence, I only didn’t do it because you would just say no it isn’t. But, hey ho, here we go.
(Species-Age-Character-Source)
Fusilinid-Lepidolina multiseptata Permian Proculus diameter (Ozawa 1975)
Foraminifera-Afrobolivina afra Cretaceous Megalospheric proculous (Reyment 1982b)
Bivalve-Nuculites planites Ordovician Prescence of anterior fold (Bretsky & Bretsky 1976)
Bivalve-Various species Miocene Shell shape (Muller,Geary,Magyar, 1999)
Mammal-Micrototus pyrenaicus Pleistocene Dental charcters (Brunet-Lecomte,Thouy,Chaline 1994)
Mammal-Felis idiosorensis Pleistocene Postcarnassial element (Kurten 1963)
Plenty more where they come from.
Also, some higher taxa transitions
Skulls & stapes of early tetrapods (Acanthostega, (Pholiderpeton, (Greererpeton) (Clack 1992)/
Evolution of limb joints in early tetrapods (Fox & Bowman 1966)
Reptile to mammal transitions. (Kemp 1982) (Sidor & Hopson 1998) (Romer 1966)
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Point #2
***Actually, Marks reply is well taken so my only response is in regard to what actually qualifies as evolution, IMHO. Micro is not debatable, but, as I have stated before, I do not classify it as evolution. I will expound on my reasons for this belief upon request. As for Macro, it is, as yet, unobserved and, IMHO, an unobservable event and therefore macro-evolution is completely untestable, unfalsifiable, and unscientific. Obviously, this is my personal opinion and I eagerly await the scientific data that can show me otherwise. Unless you are able to provide true science, with true scientific results, including all data from A to Z, you won't be able to convince me that it is scientific. ***Jet

Firstly, whether you regard microevolution as evolution as evolution, or not, is irrelevant. The scientific community makes no distinction. Macro AND microevolution is evolution. It would be more accurate to say you don’t have a problem with microevolution, just macroevolution. Small point.
Regarding macroevolution being unobserved & therefore unscientific is a bit disingenuous. You cannot observe electrons, protons, neutrons, or gravity, for that matter, are they unscientific? No, Ionic & covalent bonding is unobservable, yet we can observe evidence to infer these things exist/occur. As regards testing, The ToE is based on a collection of evidences. Take transitional/intermediate fossils for example. They are tested when various character traits are seen to progress over time, in various like fossils/traits fall between taxa. Obviously a falsification of whether a transitional/intermediate is exactly that, would be that the progressive transition didn’t occur/traits DON’T fall between taxa. A powerful falsification of the ToE would have been that no molecular phylogenies match, compared to a prediction that they should be congruent. In both cases the evidence & ToE is being tested
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Point #3
***Evos must disregard abiogenesis. They prefer, rather, to promote a theory that picks up somewhere after the beginning of life, rather than start at the very beginning. How convienent. Without the theory of abiogenesis, the TOE is nonexistant. But that doesn't seem to bother the Evos.

Evolution is based on heritable mutation. So evolution has to wait one full generation before starting. Abiogenesis - one generation-evolution. How can evolution start before that one generation interval?
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:

At least with the creationists, you begin at the begnning, from before there was life on earth, to the moment that life came into existance. Evos are unable to give an explanation for life "evolving" from non-life, and so they must abandon the beginning in order to justify their acceptance of the TOE. Personally, I do not care to pick up a book and start my reading of it somewhere in the middle, ignoring the beginning chapters as if they were irrelevant to the entire story. Why Evos prefer to take this approach is beyond me, unless it is because they must do so in order for the TOE to be accepted.***Jet

See above. Evolution says NOTHING about creation/abiogenesis. It is disingenuous to conflate them.
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:

Points #4,5,6
Mark: How does this represent positive evidence that the ToE is false.
***Did I read that correctly? OK, I'll just bite my lip, refrain from laughing, and move on to your next point.***Jet

Well, how does it?
There are more knowledgeable people than me fossil hominids, I’ll leave whether your fossils are interpreted correctly or not to them.
But the point remains, you have fossils that don’t support evolution, they don’t contradict it either! If I gave you some fish bones & chicken bones, presumably you’ leap into the air claiming evolution never happened!
What are those fossils POSITIVE evidence of?
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:

Mark: If there is no fossil evidence of hominid to human evolution, then this is positive evidence of what? No evidence disproves nothing.
***So you contend that while no evidence disproves nothing, no evidence also proves the TOE? Beautiful! And Evos say Christians must have great faith to believe in creation and a Creator!***Jet

What ARE you waffling about? YOU said that discoveries had been made that disprove the ToE. We aren’t discussing my evidences for evolution, but YOUR evidences against it. Unfortunately you find yourself in the position where you have to provide positive evidence, not me. Can you?
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:

Mark: Positive evidence please.
***It is positive evidence that the TOE is not a scientific theory. It is positive evidence that those who champion the dogma of the TOE are willing to totally disregard true science in order to further their unbelieveably unscientific theory.***Jet

Moving the goalposts again? Positive evidence that diasproves the ToE, you said it existed. Show it.
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:

Point #7
***Ah yes, the old NS argument. I have yet to see a coherent explanation of the definition of NS. How is it natural, aside from occurring in nature? What determining factors are necessary for the selection to occur, and what makes it natural apart from the existing nature of the creature/entity involved in the process. What power, or entity, controls the process of selection? Is it Nature? Environment? Chaos? Uniformity? Random Chance? Supposed Infinite Possibility? What? Explain how this is science. Reference the data from falsification attempts. Reference duplication data. Reference the scientists who performed these tests and where they were performed. Give the scientific definition of "Natural Selection" as well as the tests performed to validate this as true science. Define the properties incorporated within this theory that qualify it as a truly scientific theory and possibility.***Jet

quote:
Originally posted by Jet:

Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

I fail to see how your answer explains Evidence #7. Social & practical inconsistencies?
Definition of natural selection - Any consistent difference in fitness (i.e. survival & reproduction) among phenotypically different biological entities. (Evolutionary Biology. D.J Futuyma 3rd Ed pp349).
Experimental verification.
NS on mutations in beta-galactosidase gene of Escherichia Coli (Dean et al 1986)
Changes in frequencies of chromosome inversions in Drosophila pseudoobscura (after Dobzhansky 1970 1948)
Elimination of mutant allele white in Drosophila melanogaster (Wallace 1968)
Camouflage in Poecilia reticulata in & out of predatorial Crenicichla populated waters.( Endler 1980)
To name but four.
Now, let’s not get off topic, please explain how natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:

Point #8
***Obviously, it is not. I disagree with your opinion on this matter and you disagree with my opinion, and I can respect that. Agree to disagree. For further clarification, please refer to point #7.***Jet

I DO disagree, especially after you have been shown to be wrong experimentally.
quote:
Originally posted by Jet:

Point # 9
***And so we have the somewhat typical strategy of the Evos. See the evidence that the TOE is false and unscientific, reject the evidence, repeat the question that has already been answered, claiming that it has not been answered. Repeat the process as needed.***Jet

Bullshit. The flood doesn’t explain the fossil record at all. I even gave you some examples of WHY it didn’t.
Tell you what, you present where fossils SHOULD be in the GC, & WHY, then you might have a point.
May I remind you, YOU are presenting disproofs of the ToE, not me. You need to provide the evidence that the gc & fossil deposition is actually not what mainstream science expects.
Polystrate fossils have been perfectly explained by mainstream geology. In fact they present more of a problem to the flood scenario. See last post.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 06-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 2:59 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Jet, posted 06-21-2002 1:12 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 242 of 270 (11760)
06-18-2002 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Jet
06-16-2002 2:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
I have asked this before, but I shall ask it here again. Where is the raw scientific data showing the attempts made towards falsification of the TOE? I will request only five examples, for the convienence of the Evos.

Show me the raw scientific data made towards falsifying gravitational theory. Five examples should do it.
Show me the raw scientific data made towards falsifying the existence of electrons (after their acceptance). Five examples should do it.
etc. etc.
Falsifications of theories do not have to be actively sought after. If a falsification is discovered at a later date, then the theory has to be revised/rejected. Or are you saying the ToE isn't science because those deliberate attempts weren't made? Thare have been MANY opportunities for the falsification of the ToE to have been borne out, it's not sciences fault only the predictions are.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 2:59 PM Jet has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 243 of 270 (11824)
06-19-2002 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Jet
06-16-2002 11:24 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 11:24 PM Jet has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024