|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is Not Science | |||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: 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 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!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Inactive Member |
***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.***
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Inactive Member |
quote: ***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.***
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Inactive Member |
quote: ***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?***
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Inactive Member |
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 getalong" type topic, here. Creation by evolution. See also, the Kenneth Miller: Finding Darwin's God topic. Have a nice day,
***An observation of the problems involving the co-existance ofevolution and creation.***Jet scientific_case_against_evolution.htm[/URL] [Shortened too-long link. --Admin]
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: I'm sure it is. However, most of what you ask is outside my own field. Perhaps when I have more time.
quote: 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: Wouldn't be jumping to conclusions here would we? I thought only evos did that.
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Oops! Losing credibility already, Jet. Do we have to explain to you about science again?
quote: 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: Do we have to explain this again, too?
quote: I think this is called 'stacking the deck'. Not good science, but great propaganda technique.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: Well, this divergence appears to have happened quite early. I wouldn't expect to find a lot of direct evidence.
quote: Yep, good old number 65! (Do you actually understand these arguments?). You are right: could'a, might'a, should'a...
quote: Oh, man! We just can't prove anything for you!
quote: 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: 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: I agree absolutely. Sort of what happend with YECism a hundred years ago.
quote: Oops, I thought we were making some headway for a moment. [This message has been edited by edge, 06-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: 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 UpperDevonian 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 ondiscovery of Ambulocetus natans] Bolt, J.R., R.M. McKay, B.J. Witzke, & M.P. Adams. 1988. A new LowerCarboniferous tetrapod locality in Iowa. Nature 333:768-770 Chaline, J., and B. Laurin. 1986. Phyletic gradualism in a EuropeanPlio-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 theearliest known tetrapod. Nature 352:234-236. Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1990. Polydactyly in the earliest knowntetrapod limbs. Nature 347:66-69. Daeschler, E.B., N.H. Shubin, K.S. Thomson, W.W. Amaral. 1994. ADevonian tetrapod from North America. Science 265:639-642. Edwards, J.L. 1989. Two perspectives on the evolution of the tetrapodlimb. Am. Zool. 29:235-254. Fischman, J. 1993. Paleontologists examine old bones and newinterpretations. Science 262: 845-846. Gingerich, P.D. 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns ofevolution 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 vertebratefossil 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 EoceneBasilosaurus: evidence of feet in whales. Science 249:154-156. Harris, J., & White, T.D. 1979. Evolution of Plio-Pleistocene AfricanSuidae. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. 69:1-128. Hopson, J.A. 1991. Convergence in mammals, tritheledonts, andtridylodonts. J. Vert. Paleont. 11(suppl. to 3):36A [abstract] Horner, J.R., D.J. Varrichio, and M.B. Goodwin. 1992. Marinetransgressions and the evolution of Cretaceous dinosaurs. Nature 358:59-61. Krishtalka, L., and Stucky, R.K. 1985. Revision of the Wind RiverFaunas. 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 Texasand 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 famousmorphological gap. Science 261:1716-1720. Lucas, S.G., and Z. Lou. 1993. Adelobasileus from the upper Triassicof west Texas: the oldest mammal. J. Vert. Paleont. 13(3):309-334. MacFadden, B.J. 1985. Patterns of phylogeny and rates of evolution infossil horses: Hipparions from the Miocene and Pliocene of North America. Paleobiology 11:245-257. MacFadden, B.J. 1988. Horses, the fossil record, and evolution: acurrent perspective. Evol. Biol. 22:131-158. MacFadden, B.J., & R.C. Hubbert. 1988. Explosive speciation at thebase 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 diapsidLisboasaurus 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 Miocenesuccession 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 thegeneric 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 ofthe 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 EarlyCretaceous 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 andperching: 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 fossilevidence 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 evidencefor the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science 263:210-212. White, T.D., G. Suwa, and B. Asfaq. 1994. Australopithecus ramidus, anew species of early hominid from Aramis, Ethiopida. Nature 371:306- 312. Wible, J.R. 1991. Origin of Mammalia: the craniodental evidencereexamined. 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Inactive Member |
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 #1Edge: 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 #2Edge: 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 #3Edge: 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 #4Edge: 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.asphttp://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.***
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Inactive Member |
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.***
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Jet writes: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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: See above. Evolution says NOTHING about creation/abiogenesis. It is disingenuous to conflate them.
quote: 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: 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: Moving the goalposts again? Positive evidence that diasproves the ToE, you said it existed. Show it.
quote: quote: 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: I DO disagree, especially after you have been shown to be wrong experimentally.
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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 getalong" type topic, here. Creation by evolution. See also, the Kenneth Miller: Finding Darwin's God topic. Have a nice day,
***An observation of the problems involving the co-existance ofevolution and creation.***Jet /b][/QUOTE] None of us should have to tell someone with your vast intellectualbackground and reasoning ability that the above has nothing to do with ToE. However ... how creating the conditions necessary for the spontaneousgeneration of life would proove creation is beyond me. The experiment would be designed, sure, but it would be designed tomimic conditions that would occur naturally ... quote: How is this relevent to evolution ... perhaps we need a definitionof evolution for this debate ... oh, wait what's in the glossary? quote: There is no evidence that it couldn't ... your point is ? Could you perhaps start a thread on the above so you couldpresent your reasoning, rather than just stating an assumption. quote: What about colony organisms like slime mould (which also exhibita rudimentary intelligence) ? Doesn't outright proove it I guess, but then (as with theprevious point) there is no evidence directly against it. There are observable organisms which indicate a potential routefrom single to multi celled life though. Matter of interpretation, perhaps. quote: This is a no transitionals thing ... and leads to the tritebut true absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. quote: There is no evidence of a common designer ... yet you accept that. Common anatomy could, I agree, equally reflect either common designor common descent. It is evidence in isolation though, when coupled with the other branches of ToE support it fits the theory very well. quote: Sounds like the way you argue your side to me.
quote: Hmm .. you use existence of God (which can niether be prooved nordisprooved) 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 powerfulenough 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 theminto doing as they are told ? If he is omniscient why would he have bothered since it hasclearly not worked ? If god created the earth 4.5 billion years ago, pinked some lifeinto 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 asevolution (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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024