Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Collapse of Darwinism
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 5 of 68 (96461)
03-31-2004 6:44 PM


Out of interest though Ned, what particular part annoyed you most?
I watched the whole thing, trying to be neutral, the big red crosses I guess are meant to make us think " NO, POISON - WRONG " Who knows - maybe a few subliminal cuts were made to convince people.
I did enjoy it though and I do agree with the complex nature of living things, and I do see this as design.
I know, it's a dissapointment I'm still on the creo side. But I'm trying to see my way to the neutral zone a bit more. I guess that is where my main agreement was - the diversity of life being my personal evidence of a creator, with some good little graphics showing the engines in the cell creatures.

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 10 of 68 (97450)
04-03-2004 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Biophysicist
04-01-2004 12:12 AM


Re: This is da bomb!
But - phrases aside, I thought you would have argued that the skeletons aren't the same as todays?
I often wonder when I see the skulls in "a line of" what the skeletons would look like. Instead of arguing what words or phrases were used in the vid, how about the skeletons? How do you counter their argument?
"vanished human races" simply means human's like Neanderthal - is he not vanished? If we cannot find a living neanderthal then I guess he is vanished. - I'll admitt this isn't the strongest of arguments but I think that is what was meant.
The only dissimilarities are a few structural differences in the skulls... [creepy music] but differences like these are to be found in DIFFERENT HUMAN RACES living today."
Again, they are suggesting races as simply races, this would agree with the point I made.
If I ask you what race are you? Do you know what I am talking about?
Maybe their actual error is to say "human" but then again they could just be making it easy for the listener to understand the context of what they are talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Biophysicist, posted 04-01-2004 12:12 AM Biophysicist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Biophysicist, posted 04-20-2004 4:26 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 11 of 68 (97452)
04-03-2004 8:53 AM


Furthermore, the documentary shown numerous examples of living fossils. It shown dragonflys next to dragonfly fossils, frogs next to frog fossils (no offense Crash), rats, and I think a few others. This confuses me as I could see that these species were exactly the same, even though uniformatarianism says these fossils are millions of years old.
I am guessing the argument from the evolutionist would be that the species has done well, in that there hasn't been much change in the gene pool. Maybe there were no populations that were isolated, and therefore genetic drift wasn't as likely. Maybe the species didn't require change. This would probably be my evolutionist argument...how close am I ?
But then I must ask as a creationist, why they are stuck in this rut. Surely some natural Selection must have taken place. Why is there no change in such a vast amount of time? Could it be that some animals evolve and others don't? Has there ever been a "non-evolving" creature? Is that possible.....If abiogenesis is not part of evolution then surely it is possible.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-04-2004 5:09 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 04-04-2004 11:38 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 27 by jar, posted 05-03-2004 5:34 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 12 of 68 (97526)
04-03-2004 3:03 PM


Bumped for the less of a chance deludants

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 14 of 68 (97655)
04-04-2004 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Andya Primanda
04-04-2004 5:09 AM


non-evolving animals?
Thanks Andya, I guess normalizing selection would probably explain it somewhat. Yes, you are right, I suppose the species doesn't have to change mophologically.
I would like to hear more about the possibility of there being an animal which has never evolved, but I fail to see how you could say such a thing unless you removed abiogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-04-2004 5:09 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by edge, posted 04-04-2004 11:16 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 18 of 68 (97669)
04-04-2004 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by edge
04-04-2004 11:16 AM


Huh?
Edge, I am not being argumentative, as I wasn't clear in my post to Andya. All I mean with regards to the un-evolved animal, is that - if there was an animal that had never evolved, well - wouldn't that remove abiogenesis? That's not argumentative and it isn't meant to be, it might be another topic maybe, but it is just an inquiry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by edge, posted 04-04-2004 11:16 AM edge has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 19 of 68 (97671)
04-04-2004 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by NosyNed
04-04-2004 11:38 AM


Don't misunderstand me guys
It's okay Ned, I honestly do understand this now, as I know the selective pressure wouldn't be the same as a species that was say, struggling to survive.
It is a misconception that I am being argumentative, as I even offered my own evolutionist-like response. So basically, I think you and Andya have refuted me sufficiently. Maybe Edge has mis-judged my intentions here. It's just that on the documentary it shown three or four fossils next to species living today. I myself, have no examples of un-evolved species, as I only mentioned this when I observed the video. Normalized selection suffices, my new question about abiogenesis shouldn't be confused with the previous question.
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-04-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 04-04-2004 11:38 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 04-04-2004 1:22 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 21 of 68 (97683)
04-04-2004 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
04-04-2004 1:22 PM


Re: The videos
Well Ned, the music was allright . I guess I thought the part about life being an example of design was good. However, some stuff was just attacks on Darwin and his Theory, by means of Natural Selection. I tend to disregard this. AIG also insists on demoting Darwin's efforts. Again, an unreasonable thing to do, and unnecessary.
Apart from the query I mentioned which you and Andya resolved, I can't even remember the rest of the vid much. It said something about evo's having to add "mutation" to Natural Selection in order as to provide an extra mechanism. It also said that the human "transitionals" infact have totally human skeletons. I guess I am not informed enough to make a judgement on those things. Apart from that, the vids are not enough to refute evolution as you guys usually have answers to the questions. I think the vids are a bit too "simple" to be satisfactorily convinced that evolution is untrue but again, many topics were raised, and I can't remember them all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 04-04-2004 1:22 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2004 4:42 PM mike the wiz 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