[_ Old Earth _] A Summary of This Year's Defeats of Evolution Theory

[Asyncritus]

At the end of this year, it may be a good plan to summarise the evidence I have brought forth against evolution, and for which there has been, and can be no possible accounting by supporters of the theory.

It is a telling tale, and the fragility and sheer inadequacy of the responses, characterised as they are by the unbridled optimism, and profound imaginativeness of the postulates brought forward in the valiant attempt to provide some semi-coherent if implausible accounting for the origin of the phenomena advanced, is evidence of the general uselessness of Darwinism in any of its guises.

The tale is compounded by the inability (apparent) of the proponents to distinguish between what COULD HAVE HAPPENED, and WHAT ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN. Between fact and wishful thinking, in other words.

The fossil record, that final arbiter of the validity of the theory, is totally hostile to it. The coelacanth fiasco, and most recently, the Tiktaalik debacle are fatal to any and all of this guesswork.

The origin of life remains completely obscure, with no even apparently plausible or hopeful scenarios available. The fact that species, genera, families and all the higher taxons appear with absolute abruptness in the fossil record, with no semblance of apparent ancestors, remains unarguable, and fatal to the theory.

Underlying all of the facts I have posted on the board, is the inexplicable and intractable phenomenon of the existence of instinct. Instinct is immaterial, intangible, not subject to normal ‘evolutionary pressures’. It’s origin remains invisible, and the manner in which it could have possibly entered the genome (if that is where it is), remains a subject untouchable by the supporters of the theory.

There is very little to say in support of the theory. We are everywhere faced by mammoth gaps between supposedly ‘related’ groups. And the gaps remain gaps in the fossil record: the major taxa appearing with breath-taking suddenness in the record.

Here follows a listing of the phenomena I have demanded an accounting for, and the pathetic ‘accountings’ submitted by the supporters of the theory.

The migratory instinct in birds
Explanation: mutation and natural selection.

Pacific shearwater, pacific golden plover. The Swallows of Capistrano
Explanation: mutation and natural selection.

The migration of the European eels Explanation: mutation and natural selection.

Cell division and the origin of sexual reproduction
Who knows?

The bats, flight and echolocation
Explanation: mutation and natural selection.

The bird lung structure
Explanation: mutation and natural selection.

The godwit’s 7000- mile trans-Pacific non-stop flight from Alaska to New Zealand
Explanation: mutation and natural selection.

Mimicry
Explanation: mutation and natural selection.

The woolly-bear caterpillar survival of freezing for 14 years

Explanation: mutation and natural selection.

The evolution of eyes
Explanation: mutation and natural selection.

The eye of the trilobite
Explanation: mutation and natural selection.

The multiple times the same organ evolved
Explanation: mutation and natural selection.

The differences between man and chimpanzees
Explanation: mutation and natural selection.

The weaver birds’ amazing nest building activities
Explanation: mutation and natural selection.


Summary and conclusion

It is a desperately impoverished theory that has only these 2 recourses to offer.

It is a hopeless theory which can only offer no explanation whatsoever for the second greatest phenomenon in living organisms: that of the origin of instinct in all its forms.

So we conclude this year with the resounding realisation that the theory of evolution’s power to explain the origin of any of the really major phenomena of life and living organisms is nil, and it is a theory that should really be abandoned in disgrace by its supporters .

 

[Barbarian]

I notice that almost all of these threads were abandoned by you, when people showed up with evidence that contradicted your claims.

Anyone who cares to check can go back and look at those threads and see that you bailed out when facts started showing up.

 

[lordkalvan]

I notice that almost all of these threads were abandoned by you, when people showed up with evidence that contradicted your claims.

Anyone who cares to check can go back and look at those threads and see that you bailed out when facts started showing up.

Indeed. Declaring victory in the face of almost countless unanswered counter-arguments, evidences and refutations seems to be little more than an exercise in self-deceit.

 

[eliminate1337]

I don't like the way some people argue about evolution. Just because something cannot be explained by the theory of evolution at the moment, does not mean that creationism is correct by default. The theory isn't perfect.

 

[Classik]

Is there such thing as Darwinian pilgrimage?

 

[zeke]

Indeed. Declaring victory in the face of almost countless unanswered counter-arguments, evidences and refutations seems to be little more than an exercise in self-deceit.

Aren't you kind of like the pot that called the kettle black? You still haven't provided your evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor. Have you found it yet?

 

[lordkalvan]

Aren't you kind of like the pot that called the kettle black? You still haven't provided your evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor. Have you found it yet?

As soon as you provide the clarifications requested concerning what you consider to be evidential and your definitions and understanding of the terms you have used to prejudge it, I will be happy to discuss the topic in terms of evidence that you do find acceptable. Perhaps you would like to start a new thread to do this?

ETA Or you could come over to this thread and pick up the discussion that has rather petered out there:

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=38504

 

[zeke]

... I will be happy to discuss the topic in terms of evidence that you do find acceptable. Perhaps you would like to start a new thread to do this?

Then we agree - you are like the pot that called the kettle black and you still haven't provided your evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor. You know what the required evidence is - the kind based on a scientific method - the kind you have failed to present. Let me know when you find it.

 

[zeke]

Or you could come over to this thread and pick up the discussion that has rather petered out there:

A 'real scientist' would simply start their own new thread and present the required evidence that would once for all time prove that man and chimp have a common ancestor. Can you do that? I think not. Talk is cheap.

 

[lordkalvan]

Then we agree - you are like the pot that called the kettle black and you still haven't provided your evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor. You know what the required evidence is - the kind based on a scientific method - the kind you have failed to present. Let me know when you find it.

Eh, no, we don't agree. And someone genuinely interested in a reasoned discussion would answer the questions asked to clarify his understanding of the evidence in question and his definition of the terms he has thrown around so freely when apparently prejudging that evidence before it has even been presented. But then you do not seem to be genuinely interested in a reasoned discussion at all.

 

[lordkalvan]

A 'real scientist' would simply start their own new thread and present the required evidence that would once for all time prove that man and chimp have a common ancestor.Can you do that? I think not. Talk is cheap.

Why are you so seemingly afraid to answer the questions asked seeking clarification of your understanding? Why do you not wish to participate in the thread I linked you to? Your continued evasiveness when asked to clarify your understanding or support your assertions, claims, opinions and denials has long since become tiresome. Chimps and bonobos are our closest living related species and we share a common primate ancestor with these creatures. Sorry you don't like it, but that isn't going to change anything.

Did you know that our genetic relatedness to chimps and bonobos is of the same order as that amongst a number of equid species? This genetic relatedness amongst equids allows animals from different species to interbreed with one another. Clearly, therefore, these animals are closely related and share a common ancestral species. Failing this, I would be happy to hear your explanation for these simple observations.

 

[zeke]

Eh, no, we don't agree. And someone genuinely interested in a reasoned discussion would answer the questions asked to clarify his understanding of the evidence in question and his definition of the terms he has thrown around so freely when apparently prejudging that evidence before it has even been presented. But then you do not seem to be genuinely interested in a reasoned discussion at all.

I think the telling fact here is that if someone (you) who genuinely had the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor would have presented it by now. Can we continue to understand that you have failed to find the evidence based on the scientific method and all you have are assumptions based on Darwinian mythology? You have been exposed - can you regroup or is that about it?

You do understand the difference between real science and the pseudoscience of Darwinism - right? Let me know if you need help.

 

[lordkalvan]

I think the telling fact here is that if someone (you) who genuinely had the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor would have presented it by now. Can we continue to understand that you have failed to find the evidence based on the scientific method and all you have are assumptions based on Darwinian mythology? You have been exposed - can you regroup or is that about it?

You do understand the difference between real science and the pseudoscience of Darwinism - right? Let me know if you need help.

When you are prepared to post, discuss things and answer reasonable questions like an adult, then you will deserve to be treated like. At the moment, my experience is that you seem more interested in
provoking irritation and attempting to provoke flames. You are a disruptive influence here and show no sign of being willing to participate in a mature fashion. I hope the mods do not regard this as a personal atTack, because it isn't one, but simply based on my experience of your posting history. It is impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you.

 

[zeke]

When you are prepared to post, discuss things and answer reasonable questions like an adult, then you will deserve to be treated like. At the moment, my experience is that you seem more interested in
provoking irritation and attempting to provoke flames. You are a disruptive influence here and show no sign of being willing to participate in a mature fashion. I hope the mods do not regard this as a personal atTack, because it isn't one, but simply based on my experience of your posting history. It is impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you.

Actually, it is a personal attack and just another smoke screen. The point remains, if you genuinely had the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor you would have presented it by now. Can you do what you said could be done? Your choice.

 

[lordkalvan]

Actually, it is a personal attack and just another smoke screen. The point remains, if you genuinely had the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor you would have presented it by now. Can you do what you said could be done? Your choice.

When you're prepared to discuss subjects in a mature way and answer reasonable questions in a reasonable way, let me know. I will be happy to debate with you on this basis.

 

[zeke]

You are a disruptive influence here and show no sign of being willing to participate in a mature fashion...

It is impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you.

The only thing being disrupted is your presentation of Darwinian myth as science. All you need to do is present your evidence using the scientific method that you claim you have but do it in a mature fashion - and do it on this thread. You're up...what do you have for us to review? If you have none we will understand.

 

[lordkalvan]

^ I refer you to my answer immediately preceding this one (Post 15, if you have difficulty finding it).

 

[zeke]

^ I refer you to my answer immediately preceding this one (Post 15, if you have difficulty finding it).

Is this your admission that you cannot present your evidence using the scientific method that you claim you have?

 

[lordkalvan]

^ I refer you to my answer in my last post but one (Post 15, if you have difficulty finding it).

 

[zeke]

^ I refer you to my answer in my last post but one (Post 15, if you have difficulty finding it).

I didn't see the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor. Is that about it?