Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

Actually the formation of fossils is an interesting topic of its own.Amazingly we haven't, that I recall, had a thread on just that topic. I say amazingly because almost all topics you might possible think of have already been done a number of times.The fossil formation one has been discussed as a side issue a number of times though.If you want to dig deeply into it I suggest you do to Proposed New Topics and create a topic there to discuss just fossil formation. There is a great deal to say about it and it would be interesting.I will approve it if you word it clearly.

If you wish to discuss what you read in Martin and Stobel then you may bring the general "bad science" issues up in this thread.If there are larger topics that they bring up you could start individual topics on them.Now, though you probably won't be ready to believe this let me give you a bit of an over view:It is very likely that all the arguments used by Martin and Stobel (whom I don't know about) will have already been hashed over in the past here. It is pretty well certain that there are some of the science minded types here who will know more about the what they say than you will and they will be glad to discuss it with you.There is also some chance that the arguments presented are based on a poor misunderstanding of the actual science. It is unfortunate that there is even a chance that the writers in question have lied to you. That goes on enough that it is not to be discounted completely. We'll have to see what they have to say.If you really want to learn this is not a bad place. However, if you really, really want to learn it will require a fair amount of reading beyond here. The individuals here will help you find things that might suit your interests. Some of them are rather well read. Some are even practicing scientists in geology, astrophysics, various parts of biology, genetics and mathematics.We're not all equally good at explaining things nor all equally patient. But if you ask lots of questions are try very hard to understand there are people who will do their best to help.It would be best if you take the material you have read and ask about little bits of it at a time. Perhaps picking the bits which you found most interesting or convincing.

However, plagerism is not welcome here.Your post is cut and pasted from elsewhere.While you may use references to support your posts you must offer the ideas in your own words.It is also dishonest to post from somewhere else and not attribute it.Please refrain in the future.Besides as Crash has noted, you might want to pick sites that are a bit more reliable This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-08-2004 12:31 AM

So the whole thing is from the book? You may refer to the book as a source. Though, of course, it is easier to refer to a web site and in that case you probably have to paraphrase less.You sat and typed that whole thing out of the book then did you?Just which book was it? I'm a big confused on the actual reference.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-08-2004 09:34 PM

Good, it seems you did forget to reference it though.You could have saveed youself time by referring to the website where it is.
http://www.present-truth.org/...Creationist/Chapter%2001.htmNow did you want to open a new thread for this. It's big enough that it should be taken into a thread on it's own.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-08-2004 09:52 PM

Please propose the Bombadier beatle as a Proposed New Topic then.Do NOT copy the entire thing into the opening post.Give the link that I gave you and then
pick the main points that you consider to be most telling. If you do that in a tight and tidy fashion I'll be able to promote the topic in short order.However, it won't be able to go where it belongs in Biological Evolution as that forum seems to be broken as far as starting new topics goes.Let's hold off on the angler fish one shall we? Perhaps when you've worked throught the beetle one then you can bring up the other.Crash as already pointed out that the beetle source you've used may be very wrong. I think you need to learn to be a bit more critical before you start too many topics.In the focussed topic Crash can be asked to back up what he has said with more care than his quick reference he gave here.

You could also paraphrase and explain the source you did give Crash.

Excellent!Asking questions is a good thing. It would be well if you would try to force Crash and others to be as clear as possible. That's good for them and allows you to gather enough information to be able to have a chance of making up your own mind rather than just haveing to believe what you are told.However, Winston, let me give you an idea of how these things unfold. It is a biased view, of course, but you can dig at it as much as you want to see if the result is because of bias or because it is actually right.There are a lot of web sites that support creationism. Most of them are very unsophisticated and when they are subjected to the smallest amount of careful scrutiny do not hold up at all. They are not intended to stand up to anyone who knows the subject matter. They are intended to convince those who know little about the subjects and who want to believe what they are told.Some of these sites lie. There isn't any other way to put it. Others are rather careless with their use of facts but it is hard to tell if they lie or are simply not knowledgable enough to know what they are talking about.Whatever particular issue you bring up it has probably already been discussed and debunked somewhere. Most of it will have already been discussed here. The bombadier beetle is one that I think has already been discussed but it's been awhile so it can be gone over again. i don't remember that tha angler fish has been discussed though.see Message 45 up and down from there for one of the beetle's discussions.Do note that the concept of irreducible complexity has been discussed a lot here -- in the intelligent design threads I think. It turns out to be flawed.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-08-2004 10:36 PM

People do like the game of debating but I think you will find that almost all are very willing to help out by asking any questions you may have.Might I suggest that, rather than go to various sites for the supposed "problems" (which as I noted usually turn out to be not problems at all), you just ask questions about some of the fundamentals of evolutionary theory.Perhaps explanations of terms that you read in some of these places. If you're just lurking and have questions I encourage you to dive and and ask also.

of course, that is expected. In fact, it is necessary to supply back up when asked.However, the arguments are still supposed to be yours. If you need to refer to facts as gathered and published elsewhere that is good and needed.If you wish to refer to someone else's explanation of the reasoning supporting your conclusions that is fine too but you have to be able to also give it in your own words. "Because he says so" is not an acceptable arguement. It is a fallacy to argue from authority in fact.If you do refer to any sources as support you can pretty much bet they will be examined and critisized. You have to be prepared to understand the critisism and answer it.Mostly we find that creationist sites post "facts" which are utterly incorrect. Be prepared for this.

That was quick. You give up rather easily? It is just a warning. If you don't pick your sources well you will find that they are easily torn up. If you think I'm wrong in my assessment of the sources that you will choose then you will enjoy rubbing my nose in it in the near future.