Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8965 total)
47 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, DrJones*, frako (4 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,223 Year: 4,971/23,288 Month: 92/1,784 Week: 190/353 Day: 31/39 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
Vacate
Member (Idle past 3055 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 32 of 356 (464071)
04-23-2008 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by 1071
04-23-2008 6:56 AM


key points?
antiLIE writes:

So they have to involve these other scientific fields {fossils, geology, cosmology, microbiology, paleontology} in order to have evolution.

(examples added from your post)

This is certainly true if you mean that such fields are utilized for the purpose of furthering evidence for evolution. You can also include chemistry, physics, radioactive decay, dynamo theory and/or paleomagnetism, archaeology, and many others to your list. If you assumed for even one second that the Theory of Evolution where true... how would you suggest furthering our knowledge of its history without using any other field of science?

What field does not utilize other fields? I don't mean just science, I mean anything? You aren't seriously suggesting that each and every one of the scientists involved in these fields has, for decades, been completely fabricating all of its data for the sole purpose of providing manipulated support for another fabricated field (evolution)?

What is your point?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by 1071, posted 04-23-2008 6:56 AM 1071 has not yet responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 3055 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 190 of 356 (465681)
05-09-2008 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 5:50 AM


Re: What is Solid Evidence?
Is eyewitness testimony solid evidence? That seems to be a lot better evidence then we have for the origin of life and the origin of the universe.

Eyewiness testimony is not good evidence. There are many studies that have been done to show how memory of events is often incorrect. When comparing the memory of a witness to evidence left at the scene... science proves to be more accurate.

Think of it like a crime scene: how many times have you heard on the news of a person being released from jail after DNA showed he/she was innocent but eyewitness testimony put them in jail?
Google = DNA evidence wrongfully convicted

Fact is our memories just aren't that good.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 5:50 AM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 7:16 AM Vacate has not yet responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 3055 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 340 of 356 (502526)
03-12-2009 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by alaninnont
03-11-2009 5:28 PM


I am not questioning the validity of the education you have recieved but I am very surprised to see some of what you have said given the field that you are in.

During one of my graduate courses in microbiology...

alaninnont writes:

My time on a university biology board was a shock.

Message 11 Points for a creator

You appear to have a degree and perhaps higher, but to say something as silly as "There have been no beneficial mutations documented that increase the complexity of the organism." ( Message 1 Points for a creator ) is stunning. I have questioned my wife on just such a claim and though still needing one more year for her degree in microbiology she is able to immediatley suggest examples to disprove your claims. So can I for that matter, I can give examples by using this site alone.

I get the sense that when atheists talk about evolution, they are defining it basically as change.

How do you define it then? How was it defined in your courses and textbooks? What is the difference between what you where taught in university biology classes that differ from what people here (atheists) have defined it?

Complex organs like the eye could not have evolved since there are many steps that give no benefit to the organism and there is no reason to continue along a path to build them.
Message 1 Points for a creator

You didn't take this in school? Perhaps you didn't. With your education however wouldn't answering such a question be fairly easy? It took me a few seconds to begin a search for your answer {Google-> Wiki->References at bottom of page} but as a biologist you use this as evidence against evolution without even checking if each step in the evolution of the eye has a benefit? Come on now, this is a typical creationist tactic and hardly fitting for a microbiologist.

We see the extinction of many species but no new species appearing.

Oh? Check your textbooks. Try a journal or two. How you managed to miss this while getting a degree is beyond me.

I've been trying for the last couple of months to get a handle on the issue. I been reading some books, thinking, and visiting evolution and ID sites and am right now tending toward the existence of a creator as more probable than complete chance.

The issue has been right in front of you the whole time you took your biology classes, sat on the biology board, conducted research, and reviewed others papers. Yet its only in the last couple months that "complete chance" didn't sound quite right to you? Then you figured that ID sites would provide you a better answer than your peers in the field of science that you trained in?

Though I can accept that you may actually have taken biology classes, I am forced to think that your school sucks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by alaninnont, posted 03-11-2009 5:28 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020