Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8950 total)
33 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,334 Year: 22,370/19,786 Month: 933/1,834 Week: 3/430 Day: 3/63 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Collapse of Darwinism
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 1 of 68 (96431)
03-31-2004 5:08 PM


Someone, I lost who posted this: (added by edit -- 14gipper, thanks for that gipper)

http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/#

It is a well produced series of short "chapters" using the usual creationist arguments. I have listened to some.

If the individual who posted this reference wants to defend it I'm sure we would all have fun with that.

For example:
Chapter 4 has this line:
{quoteNo beneficial mutation has yet been observed either in nature or in the laboratory.[/quote]

(I have tried to get the quote right but it is copying while listening quickly)

I think (but would have to listen to the whole darn thing again to be sure) that this summerizes the major point of chapter 4. Is that a correct assessement.

Unfortunately, this statement is wrong. Is there anything else left in chapter 4? If so we can discuss it. (There is, btw, a severe misapprehension about the "addition" of mutations).

If the poster who suggested this site wants to defend it please speak up. If you don't then I think we can just put it aside as being well produced but not contributing anything of any credible value.

[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-31-2004]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2004 5:15 PM NosyNed has responded
 Message 6 by Biophysicist, posted 04-01-2004 12:12 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Biophysicist, posted 04-01-2004 12:14 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Biophysicist, posted 04-01-2004 12:18 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-01-2004 2:32 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 2 of 68 (96432)
03-31-2004 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
03-31-2004 5:08 PM


Lies
In fact, listening to more of it, it is my view that this site lies. It has clear, specific statments which are false and they have every opportunity to know that it is false. This is dishonest.

If you disagree then you will have to defend it. Good luck,

added by edit

Of course, anyone else who thinks this is defendable is welcome to try.

[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-31-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2004 5:08 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2004 5:19 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 3 of 68 (96435)
03-31-2004 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
03-31-2004 5:15 PM


Oh boy!
In fact this is fun! Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It is chock full of the standard junk. We have already torn it's erroneous assertions to pieces here. We can use this as a great example of what creationism is all about.

It has it all. Stawmen, quote mining, out of date information, and total falsehoods. But it is all wrapped in great production values.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2004 5:15 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 03-31-2004 5:41 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 68 (96441)
03-31-2004 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
03-31-2004 5:19 PM


Stawmen, quote mining, out of date information, and total falsehoods.

C'mon, Ned. We all know that the reason that straw men, quote mining, and lies don't prove anything is because you evil-utionists hold a presupposition worldview that says that they don't.

If, instead, you assume that lies are true and that made-up crap is as good as facts, then the proof of creationsim is airtight!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2004 5:19 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by SRO2, posted 04-04-2004 11:04 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
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.


  
Biophysicist
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 68 (96529)
04-01-2004 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
03-31-2004 5:08 PM


This is da bomb!
I'm a bit out of touch with the evolutionary biology that can combat creationist arguments head-on; I'm much better at simply analyizng the straegy and discussing how it works (hence, I was not a bad "creation apologist" for a time, myself).

Here's an interesting quote from Chapter 7, part 1:

"Arranging the skulls of these extinct apes from the smallest to the biggest, and adding some skulls of VANISHED HUMAN RACES to the series, evolutionists conconcted the scenario of human evolution."

Here it is again:

"...fossils that are included by evolutionists under imaginary classifications such as homo erectur, hom ergaster, or homo spaiens archaic, in fact belong to DIFFERENT HUMAN RACES."

And in case you didn't catch that...

"When these fossils are inspected, in is seen that their skeletons are essentially the same as people living today. 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."

OK, this is wacky. They're really in direct disagreement with Answers in Genesis, which steadfastly (and, be it noted, correctly) that there is precisely one race of human beings. I'm certain that you can't detect differences between skulls of human ethnic groups (read Steven Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man"). The film could have picked up a bit in noting that the variation within each particular human race was more substantial than the differences between the so-called "races," but they simply maintain this false classification of their own, and tack on a deceptive paraphrase from Richard Leakey (I don't know for certain, but I would strongly expect him to have put forth similar views to Gould about the structures of human skulls). On further searching, I note that the film fails to mention the fact that Leakey is no longer active in field work, but has taken some bold political steps for political equality and justice in Kenya.

So, back to the tomfoolery, was homo erectus a black man or a white? Asian? Aboriginal? Was homo ergaster ne of that rare breed of "vato-niggaz from da 'hood?"

Answers in Genesis also maintains, notably, that there has been no evolution of the human "kind" (why not?), so they stake themselves on these fossils being extinct apes or completely human. I wonder where this film gets its endorsement...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2004 5:08 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 04-03-2004 8:39 AM Biophysicist has responded
 Message 33 by Brad McFall, posted 05-22-2005 6:52 PM Biophysicist has not yet responded

  
Biophysicist
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 68 (96530)
04-01-2004 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
03-31-2004 5:08 PM


One other thing...
The part about the "exposed frauds" of evolution being retained in textbooks today is hogwash; the film is very careful to avoid mentioning any particular fraud that's still around. They're also very careful NOT to mention that it was other scientists, most all of whom were "evolutionists" themselves, that discovered these frauds and set the record straight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2004 5:08 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by CodeTrainer, posted 05-29-2005 1:22 PM Biophysicist has not yet responded

  
Biophysicist
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 68 (96532)
04-01-2004 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
03-31-2004 5:08 PM


We may be on to something...
Perhaps we should divvy up this carcas of nonsense and see which "evolutionist hayeena" can pick the most carrion from his particular chapter.... hmmm? [Hayeena laugh]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2004 5:08 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 68 (96546)
04-01-2004 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
03-31-2004 5:08 PM


The site is part of the Harun Yahya network. Empirical proof that creationism makes a great import commodity.

I'd like to sue US creationists for dumping their creationist material to unsuspecting Islamic countries. Especially Turkey.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 03-31-2004 5:08 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by batman, posted 04-17-2004 1:24 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
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 responded

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

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
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 responded
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 04-04-2004 11:38 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 27 by jar, posted 05-03-2004 5:34 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
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

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 68 (97643)
04-04-2004 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
04-03-2004 8:53 AM


quote:
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 ?

That's it! You got the answer correct. An evolving creature does not have to change morphologically. If its present form fits it well, it won't change any more.

quote:
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.

Why are they 'stuck'? IOW why didn't they change? Well, if a certain morphology is successful, then any more change is likely to lower the fitness of the creature and will be selected against. It's called 'normalizing selection'. Cockroaches stay like cockroaches even though others come and go, because they found their winning formula some hundred million years ago. Well, they did escape the onslaught that killed dinosaurs with that shape, so I think they will keep it for the future. Every peopulation of creatures is subject to natural selection; some respond by evolving, others respond by staying the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 04-03-2004 8:53 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2004 9:47 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Trae, posted 06-04-2005 7:27 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
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 yet responded

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

  
SRO2 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 15 of 68 (97662)
04-04-2004 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
03-31-2004 5:41 PM


You gotta' be kidding me!?!
Evolutionists "hold a presuppostion world view"? This from a person that evidently clings to beliefs in 2000 year old arcaehic mysticism from musty old scrolls about pillars of fire, stoning whores and snakes passing out apples from trees...sheeez...planet of the apes is more viable....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 03-31-2004 5:41 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-25-2005 8:23 PM SRO2 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 © 2019