Too Many Flaws with Evolution

[QUOTE][B]If you know of any sources, they would be appreciated.[/QUOTE][/B]Don't bother with Hovind, aka "Dr. Dino". Even the YECs here (esp. TC) make fun of him.You could try AiG at Answers in Genesis Especially see their Statement of Faith, Part F., where they explicitly state that any evidence contradictory to their interpretation of a literal Genesis is automatically discarded. They are building a Creation Museum and they seem to be dominating the YEC scene. ICR is a historically significant YEC org and is actually accredited in California to teach YECism. Their website is The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Researchhttp://www.trueorigin.org is the YEC answer to TalkOrigins.[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-10-2002]

"Hmmm, how to adress this one. I am not the one with the "flaws and fabrications" of evolution."
--Neither am I."For the sake of this discussion, there has to be no scientific finesse because it is not needed."
--? I would be forced to think that such a discussion must require a large amount of 'scientific finesse' as it is a very delicate discussion. As well the question of inquiry of the theory and its constituent hypothesis should not be taken lightly."I am still waiting for those "flaws"."
--Can't think of any here, though I will point out flaws in a persons reasoning or conclusions drawn using the theory, misinterpretations, etc."Okay several things to say on this one. First off, there is much scientific evidence in supporting evolution, and everyday there is new evidence that is discovered that supports evolution all across the boards."
--This is why I made the assertion that the ToE has not been 'proven', its incorrect word usage and highly misleading if acknowledge as correct."I quote directly "in 1987 the United States Supreme Court ruled that creationism is RELIGION, not SCIENCE, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms." taken from Not Found |The National Academies Press
All my life, I have looked at religion as a belief system. Creationism falls under this belief becuase you believed a "Higher Power" created all things either by creating them or creating them by evolution."
--Agreed."The Supreme Court which spends much more time than I do in research and listening to educated advice made the same decision that I have made. Creationism is a RELIGIOUS BELIEF, not a SCIENTIFIC THOERY."
--Agreed, though I don't think that the supreme court does the scientific research, but they do listen to the conclusions of various scientists."The theory of evolution was predicated by several theories some of which have been proven false."
--Not exactly, it was modified though."Yet, there were predictions made. This is significant in and of itself. To creationsim there weren no predictions made or problems set up."
--I don't know about other creationists, but my scientific inquiry revolves around predictions and working models based on data."It is all on the premise that you believe a Creator created the world, do not care how he did, just that he did."
--Actually, how he did it is one of my questions which I am interested in finding an answer to."This obviously has no scientific backup nor verification."
--For those who think along that line, your right."Evolution has substantial evidence backing it up. True some of the evidence may conflict with other evidence, but I believe in good time other discoveries shall be made to make sense of it."
--That last statement is interresting, I have similar faith in my expectations of latter studies in a YECists perspective."Well, I have been reserching the accuracy of the bible, and am very disturbed in what I have have discovered in my research. Based off that research and personal experience, I have stated the above comment."
--What sources of research have you inquired on?"Actually this was projected to no one in particular. It is simply a venting of frustration in the attitudes to most if not all creationists."
--The majority do have this major problem, though in my experience I evidently do not carry that 'junk gene'."I would have asked for personal beliefs before projecting that statment to anyone. Had, I addressed it to anyone, then I would have predicated it with a name."
--Well when you make your post responsive to a particular person (you are for instance responding directly to me for this post) this is what is automatically thought when you make comments, so be weary of your context with that in mind."You are a YEC. Any good sources out there to support this "belief". I am looking to see if there are any other thoeries are acceptable. Perhaps, we can talk about YEC. I am doing preliminary reserach into the creationist side[for once] in an attempt to understand what you believe in. If you know of any sources, they would be appreciated."
--This is difficult to answer personally. I read very very little creationist material. I usually only read them when my opponent in debate gives me a YECists reference which I may read. Which is rare. For me, I just read the mainstream science with an open mind and realization that the data has been interpreted and attempt to explain data and findings in various YEC scenarios. Speaking Generally for a good source of YEC perspective information, I know of no good source. ICR, AiG, CRS, etc all have their problems in logic and such. Though I enjoy reading particular works of YEC scientists that post their work at these organization's websites (The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research , http://www.answersingenesis.org , creationresearch.com | Venture , etc.). Especially the head of the organizations. Morris, Ken Ham, etc. irritate me. Vardiman, Baumgardner, Austin, snelling, Humphreys are some scientists whose work I enjoy reading. They all have great imput in a relatively recent book 'radioisotopes and the age of the earth', the only YECists book I have read completely and from the looks of many others this one is for the scientifically minded and is enjoyable to read. There is of course always Christian, Creationist, & YECist bias included in the text so I regularely just pay close attention to the data and contrast it with mine and the scientists conclusions and suggestions.--In the same way that I despise using the word 'credible' and a YECists organization as I have listed (including true.origins) in the same sentance, I do not find Talk.origins as a credible single source organization. While their included information is quite nice for Evolutionary information. They have a policy of automatic disclusion of Creationist thoughts from the archive. See the faq:
Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution"And the welcome page:
Welcome to the Talk.Origins Archive------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-10-2002]

"If Christ came in human form into a world of sin, then to a evolutionist point of view, He should have developed slowly meeting all the different levels of monkeys. But this is pure fantasy."You're right, it IS pure fantasy. The Theory of Evolution does not state that man evolved from monkeys! You should know this by now.

Perhaps this is a good thread to revive to talk about perceived problems with the theory of evolution, it only went 65 posts and the last one was in 2002.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

In Message 46 Engineer states (edited to ask just the question of evolution): Why is this a problem for evolution Engineer?’ ’

quote:

---

The origin of monkeys on the continent of South America is a matter of much current debate. Given the isolation of South America for a large time during the Tertiary Period, the question of how the monkeys reached the continent may be difficult to answer. The two most likely places of where platyrrhines originated from are North America and Africa, Antarctica being a third place would be difficult to discern because of the difficulty in finding fossils in such a harsh land.

---

http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/early_2.htm

quote:

---

Primates are remarkably recent animals. Most animal species flourished and became extinct long before the first monkeys and their prosimian ancestors evolved. While the earth is about 4.54 billion years old and the first life dates to at least 3.5 billion years ago, the first primates did not appear until around 50-55 million years ago. That was after the dinosaurs had become extinct.

---

Are you implying that not having a complete answer means the theory is invalid?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

More about monkeys.Essentially, there's not enough fossil evidence yet known to distinguish between the various possibilities.

I don't believe the majority of creationists are entitled to an opinion on the scientific question of New World Monkeys.Anyone who believes that New World Monkeys both evolved and managed to get to the New World after the purported global flood 4,350 years ago is in no position to debate or question the science of the matter.Edited by Coyote, : minor addition

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Curiously Engineer claims to be a deist (Message 34):

quote:

---

To answer your point, I will always be a deist because of my own personal experiences that predate my choice of a religion and relate to my own personal conscience and experience.

---

Although he does seem to have issues with biblical concepts.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Wow! How constructive....John, if you haven't got anything substantial to add to the discussion, why are you even bothering posting?

---

I hunt for the truth

All you and others do is explain how a "theory of evolution" is the answer for how man can to be without God.Wow! How constructive ......

I NEVER said evolution explains how you can be without god. In fact, I say it says absolutely NOTHING like that. Get your facts straight.Evolution explains the mechanisms for the change over time we see happening in nature. That's ALL it does. It doesn't even mention god. If something isn't mentioned, then how can it say you can do without that something? Does the theory of evolution say you can be without gravity?

Get your facts straight! The theory of evolution does try to explain how life has somehow evolved after it somehow began to where man is today, all without the need for Creator God to be involved in any step in the process. By leaving God out the ToE equation, you are by exclusion saying that the ToE can and does happen without God. As much as you and others would like to believe that the ToE has been proven from where life began to where man is today, the ToE is still a delusion.

Your belief, but do you have any facts to back up this belief.You see the Theory of Evolution, is based upon facts. Your beliefs are based upon faith, no facts at all.Please provide some evidence that evolution is a delusion.

Really? Where does it say that in the theory? Come on! Point me to it, I'll give you 10 dollars if you can show me. No you're not, you're making no comment either way. And wrong again. You're saying there is no evolution? Well then, I hope you don't mind me giving you a flu shot from ten years ago and tell you you won't get it this year....

---

I hunt for the truth