SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION

[jasoncran]

oi it works in the reverse. when an engineer designs he isnt applying the toe,but the methods of science.

 

[logical bob]

Bronzesnake, that was something of a rant that didn't actually contain any evidence at all. But you misunderstand me. I don't intend to debate biblical history with you here (though perhaps we can do that sometime), I'm looking at the structure of your argument.

You claim that nothing has been dug up that contradicts the Bible and agree that not everything in the Bible has been dug up.

You agree that nothing has been dug up that contradicts ToE and point out that not everything in ToE has been dug up.

So you put them in the same position, but you say this state of affairs is evidence for the Bible and against ToE. That's the double standard.

You ask if I realise that there are creationists with scientific knowledge equal to... well, to scientists. No John, I don't realise that and at present I don't believe it. Before you call me arrogant, here are some of the claims that have been made to me on this site in the past week or so, all taken from creation science websites.

1. Planets that spin faster have more gravitational pull.
2. The strength of Earth's magnetic field halves every 1400 years
3. Helium can't escape from the atmosphere.
4. Because light bends in a gravitational field, all calculations involving the speed of light are suspect.
5. In 1836 it was possible to measure the sun to an accuracy of 5 feet.
6. Calculations that don't know how to work out the volume of a sphere.
7. Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
8. Stephen Jay Gould was a Marxist

I could go on, but you get the idea. Now I don't know if this is just ignorance on a truly epic scale or if it's deliberate dishonesty. I do know that I've never come across a young earth creationist with so much as a high school standard knowledge of science. But here I am hanging out on a forum full of creationists, so I live in hope.

John, you’re an intelligent and articulate man, but when you swallow that stuff you make yourself look like a fool. When you pin your Christianity to this nonsense it’s a poor act of witness.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Bob.
Well I guess we could go on and on about how "foolish" the other guy is and in the end we only prove what fools we are. I really would like any future posts to show more respect to each other...agreed?
I don't see why these discussions have to turn personal and get ugly.
After all we are simply giving evidence to show why we believe the way we do right?
WE can and should be civilised about it. Surely we can respect each other's beliefs without becoming childish.

Bob do you really believe there are no accredited scientists accept those who ascribe to evolutionary theory? Bob closing our eyes will not make the bear in the tent disappear my friend.
Here’s a short list just to show you they do exists Bob...
• Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
• Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
• Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
• Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
• Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
• Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
• Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
• Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
• Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
• Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
• Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
• Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
• Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
• Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
• Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
• Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
• Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
• Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
• Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
• Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
• Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
• Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
• Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
• Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
• Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
• Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
• Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
• Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
• Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
• Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
• Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
• Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
• Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
• Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
• Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
• Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
• Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
• Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
• Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
• Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
• Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
• Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
• Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
• Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
• Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
• Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
• Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
• Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
• Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
• Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
• Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
• Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
• Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
• Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
• Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
• Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
• Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
• Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
• Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
• Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
• Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
• Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
• Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
• Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
• Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
• Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
• Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
• Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
• Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
• Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
• Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
• Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
• Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
• Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
• Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
• Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
• Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
• Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
• Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
• Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics
• Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
• George T. Javor, Biochemistry
• Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
• Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
• Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
• Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
• Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
• Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
• Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
• Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
• Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
• Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
• Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
• Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
• Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
• Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
• Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
• Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
• Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
• Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
• Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
• Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
• Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
• Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
• Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
• Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
• Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
• Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
• Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
• Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
• Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
• Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
• Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
• Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
• Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
• Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
• Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
• Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
• Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
• Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
• Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
• Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
• Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
• Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
• Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
• Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
• Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
• Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
• Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
• Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
• Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
• Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
• Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
• Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
• Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
• Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
• Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
• Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
• Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
• Prof. Richard Porter
• Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
• Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
• Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
• Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
• Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
• Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
• Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
• Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
• Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
• Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
• Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
• Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
• Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
• Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
• Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology
• Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
• Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
• Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
• Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
• Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
• Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
• Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
• Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
• Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
• Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
• Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
• Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
• Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
• Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
• Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
• Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
• Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
• Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
• Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
• Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
• Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering
• Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
• Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
• Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
• Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
• Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
• Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
• Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
• Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
• Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
• Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
• Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
• Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
• Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
• Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
• Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
• Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

To Continue On Next Post...

 

[Bronzesnake]

I have to ask Bob and with all die respect – are you actually interested in truth, or do you simply want to believe that you have “won†the debate by ignoring any facts that seem to go against your faith based beliefs?
The reality is that Darwin himself stated that if the earth was not found to be full of transitional fossils then his theory was dead.
Well that was about 150 years ago, and to date not one series of graduated transitional fossils have been found.

Now if you don't know what a graduated transitional series of fossils should look like then perhaps you should not be involved in evolutionary discussions.Or even better study with an open mind Bob.
If you are after any truth then it can not be found when we close our eyes to facts that don't fit in with our beliefs Bob.

I know this is the tact used by Barbarian; whenever I ask him to show me a series of graduated transitional fossils he goes into this disingenuous rant where he would present the evidence but he knows ahead of time that I won’t accept them. Or, he isn’t exactly sure what a series of graduated transitional fossils looks like and so he says he will provide the evidence as soon as I lay down the parameters of what a s.g.t.f. look like. However I have told him that I will accept any S.G.T.F. and yet he still has not provided any example, choosing to deceive himself and his followers that he has them, but won’t provide any because he “knows†I won’t accept them... Puhlease!

Here are some more facts Bob.
All transitional fossils that have been presented have turned out to be either proven to be wrong, or have been proven to be outright fakes. If evolution was factual then the huge majority of fossils should represent this! They should almost all be transitional Bob, but they aren’t! Now I know what you’re going to say next...â€what do transitional look like†If you don’t understand this most basic reality of the religion that you place so much faith in, then why do you believe in it???

It doesn’t take rocket scientists to imagine what this imagined transitional theory would look like Bob.
Just think about what the theory states. Lower life forms slowly over extended periods of time gain attributes which accumulate over millions of years until they become a totally new and different life form.
Let me try and sort this out so we can all put this question to reast...
Take the example of the frog.
OK we all know that the frog starts out as a tiny tadpole, and when observed over time the tadpole will have a leg pop out!, then another! Then another until it has four of them! Eventually this tadpole morphs into a frog.

OK we know this is not a transitional example, but this is a good example of what we should see in the fossil record.
Let’s imagine that the tadpole remains a tadpole for let’s say three million years of in the observed fossil record, just a head and tail. Then scientists discover tadpole fossils that have a small appendage protruding out the rear.

More and more fossils are recovered that show this appendage growing longer and longer then eureka! A tadpole fossil is discovered that actually has a fully functioning leg where these previous examples had only a stump. And so it goes that more fossils are discovered to the point where they see four fully functioning legs. Then examples are discovered which have webbed toes, and so on until the frog is fully formed.

See how easy that was Bob? This is exactly what is absent from the fossil record and why Darwinian evolution is dead. Now I know as soon as some people read this they’ll start howling about how that example is incorrect and give long winded reasons as to why it’s wrong, but this is exactly what Darwin expected to find, and if you have a better analogy then please by all means give it.

If I were you I would ask myself some tough questions beginning with - if this "theory" is so obviously factual then why have so many fakes been uncovered? Surely it's the equivalent of someone creating a fake gorilla fossil to prove that gorillas are real?

Here's an interesting qrticle by Dr. Don Boys...

Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!
________________________________________

By Dr. Don Boys
© 2000 Cornerstone Communications

Evidently the three college professors who wrote to the Chattanooga "Free Press" are not well-read in the current literature. They seem to be where they were during their college days. Neighbor, those days are gone forever. Let me provide some up-to-date information that will help honest and inquiring minds make a judgment on the controversy of origins.
Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position.
In every debate I've had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, "Well, evolution is scientific while creationism is religion." Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.
Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.
World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science."
Need I remind our readers of the many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel's recapitulation theory that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.
Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not.
Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...." And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. (I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!)
Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."
All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart. Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been "discarded" and is considered a "phantom" and "illusion" because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can't be counted on being a horse then we've got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.
Concerning transitional fossils, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted that "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Not one.
Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig, not an ape man! And in recent years we have discovered that Neanderthal Man was simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired "ape man." Need I go on? The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact compared to gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as many evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.
Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in France, wrote a book to "launch a frontal assault on all forms of Darwinism." Grasse is not a religious fanatic, yet he called evolution a "pseudo-science."
Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden wrote, "I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary...thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events." He went on to say, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." He also said, "Evolution is 'anti-science.'" And so it is.
Do those who teach evolution know that scientists have characterized Darwinism as "speculation," based on faith," similar to theories of "little green men," "dead," "effectively dead," "very flimsy," "incoherent," and a "myth." Hey, with friends like that, evolutionists don't need scientific creationists to hold their feet to the fire.
World known Swiss scientist Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith (who recently died), with three earned doctorates in science and considered to be an expert by the United Nations, confessed after seeing the fossilized dinosaur tracks and men prints within inches of each other at Glen Rose, Texas, "...all this makes evolution impossible." And so it does.
I have assumed that the college professors are familiar with all the world famous scientists I have quoted above. All of them! If not, they are really uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation discussion until they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.
So you see evolutionists are dishonest or uninformed when they suggest that creationists are backwoods, snake handling fanatics. In fact, over a thousand scientists with advanced degrees belong to one group that takes a stand for scientific creationism and against the guess of evolution.
The college professors were correct in stating that Darwin's book does not deal with the origins of life even though its title was "Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." So a book about origins does not deal with origins! Later Darwin suggested that life began in a warm little pond, but he never suggested where the pond came from! Most evolutionists teach that life started there also, but scientists have proved conclusively that spontaneous generation is impossible. So where did the first spark of life come from? You think maybe God was involved?
And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the alleged ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne, Professor Edwin Conklin and others preached white superiority – because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all, evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible teaches, so what's a few million lives to be concerned about?
I don't have the space to deal with numerous problems that evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.
Evolution is a guess, a speculation, an hypothesis, a theory, a faith. Yes, evolution is a religion as I document in my book, "Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith?" And, since it is a faith, it should not be taught in public schools. At least, any thinking, honest person would agree that if it is, then scientific creationism should be taught along with it. After all, we do believe in balance and fairness, don't we? Or do we?
It's interesting that the hypocrites at the ACLU (who helped fund the Scopes Trial) whined in Dayton that only one theory of origins can legally be taught in Tennessee and that's unfair. Well, now they are on the inside, and demand to keep the same monopoly that they argued against. When I asked the ACLU to support my bill in the Indiana House of Representatives that required Indiana schools to teach scientific creation and evolution equally, they refused to support my bill! Surprise, surprise, surprise. I thought various ideas should be presented to students so they could make up their own minds. Could it be that evolutionists are not as sure of their faith as they pretend to be? I think so. They are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat – that isn't there.
Sorry professors, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a fraud, a fake, a farce and a faith, and taxpayers should demand that the religion of evolution be kept out of public schools unless the truth of scientific creationism is also taught.

John Bronzesnake

 

[jasoncran]

Bronzesnake, could you post the link to that.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Bronzesnake, could you post the link to that.

Sorry I thought I had.
Here it is my brother...
http://www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html

John Bronzesnake

 

[logical bob]

John, I kind of disappeared there, for which I apologise. I've got stuff going on at work and home at the moment that make regular discussion very difficult, which is a shame because I was enjoying this one.

Clearly I was wrong to say there are no YECs who understand science. I was certainly surprised to see a pioneer of MRI on your list but I checked it out elsewhere and you're right. It's a shame these people don't get involved more in the creation science sites people on this forum have been linking to because there's an awful lot of stuff there that's full of basic errors. Do the people on your list write stuff for debates like this? If they do I'd be interested.

And you should check it out too because, with respect, I still don't think you understand the ToE. I don't doubt you when you say you've studied creation science and evolution, but I think you've done so from the less informed creationist sources rather then the people on your list. Hence you think ToE requires something as complex as a cell to appear spontaneously, struggle with the ideas of speciation and information and endorse Hoyle's 747 analogy (a serious misunderstanding) with your similar "explosion in a tool shed."

I skirted round your Gould quotes before because I haven't read his books. I've now looked up enough stuff to agree with Barb - you're seriously misquoting him and I don't think you've read his books either. So I'd quite like to see this assertion of Darwin's that you set so much store by, that the theory would be dead without masses of fossils, sourced and in context. In any case, it's been understood since the 1970s that selection occurs at the genetic level, and as Darwin died before the discovery of genetics his views are no longer the last word on the subject. It’s significant that when genetics arrived it supported Darwin’s predictions in a way he couldn’t possibly have anticipated.

All I ask of anyone on this site is that they understand what it is they're rejecting. I urge you to read something by an actual evolutionary scientist. Steve Jones’ Almost Like a Whale is excellent, though I don’t know if it’s available in Canada. The early Richard Dawkins books, the ones that are straight science before he got into this crusade thing, are very good explanations indeed.

If you want to reply I’ll call in and read it and I may contribute now and then but I’m afraid I just can’t keep pace with a proper debate just now.

Thanks for the discussion and take it easy.

 

[jasoncran]

there's a book out written by a group of athiests who dont accept evolution and also attack from the evidence and philosophical points and others. i haven't read it, its called what darwin didnt know.

a friend of mine is reading it.

 

[logical bob]

Thanks: I take it that would be this book.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/1846682193/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-page

To quote from a quick glance on Amazon

What people who don't like Darwinism have mostly objected to is the implication that there's a baboon in the family tree; more precisely they do not admit to a (recent) ancestor that they and the baboon have in common... This book is anti-Darwinist but it's not that kind of anti-Darwinist. It is quite prepared to swallow whole both the baboon and the ancestral ape, but not the thesis that natural selection is the mechanism of speciation.

Interesting ideas perhaps, but not much support for creationism there.

 

[jasoncran]

i never meant to say nor implied they supported creationism, certainly not.

my point was that the not all athiests are believing evolution. they think some other theory will be a better explanation.

that is what science is supposted to be, not a dominant view that cant challenged because we dont want to hear others.

 

[logical bob]

In that case I totally agree. Everything should be questioned.

 

[logical bob]

John, if you found my post insulting then I apologise. It certainly wasn't my intention to insult you. I've read over that post carefully and asked a moderator to do the same, and I honestly don't believe it was disrespectful.

I gave a list of statements cited from creationist sources on this forum. They're all very basic factual or scientific errors. I said that a source full of this kind of error was nonsense and that believing it would make you look like a fool. These are simple factual statements and I stand by them. There's no point beating around the bush and pretending things are a matter of interpretation when they're just flat out wrong. I had hoped that pointing out your obvious intelligence at the same time would make it clear that I was criticising these creation science websites, not you personally.

You say I'm not interested in learning about creationism. Well, I'd be interested to hear the theory of evolution criticised by a creationist who understood what it said. With respect, you're not that creationist, so you're probably right to say our discussion has run its course.

I don't mean that to sound arrogant. It's not a conclusion I rushed to. I overlooked the plagiarism of your first post in the thread and tried to debate the evidence, but post by post (and in other threads too) it became clear that you aren't attacking the theory but a creationist misrepresntation of it.

I try to make my posts provocative and I like to tell it like it is. I'm sorry if I crossed a line on this occaison. I'm used to atheist sites where the debate is much more robust - I try to behave myself here.

If you don't want to talk to me anymore, that's obviously you're right. Take care John.

 

[Evointrinsic]

On the topic of the "list of rejection"....

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Needless to say, the amount of people who believe or disbelieve in something doesn't make that something correct or incorrect.

 

[Bronzesnake]

On the topic of the "list of rejection"....

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Needless to say, the amount of people who believe or disbelieve in something doesn't make that something correct or incorrect.

I agree. polls show that a great majority of the North American population do not believe in Darwinian evolution. In the end, as I said, I agree that truth is not necessarily based on consensus.

Take care my friend.

Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

John, if you found my post insulting then I apologise. It certainly wasn't my intention to insult you. I've read over that post carefully and asked a moderator to do the same, and I honestly don't believe it was disrespectful.

I gave a list of statements cited from creationist sources on this forum. They're all very basic factual or scientific errors. I said that a source full of this kind of error was nonsense and that believing it would make you look like a fool. These are simple factual statements and I stand by them. There's no point beating around the bush and pretending things are a matter of interpretation when they're just flat out wrong. I had hoped that pointing out your obvious intelligence at the same time would make it clear that I was criticising these creation science websites, not you personally.

You say I'm not interested in learning about creationism. Well, I'd be interested to hear the theory of evolution criticised by a creationist who understood what it said. With respect, you're not that creationist, so you're probably right to say our discussion has run its course.

I don't mean that to sound arrogant. It's not a conclusion I rushed to. I overlooked the plagiarism of your first post in the thread and tried to debate the evidence, but post by post (and in other threads too) it became clear that you aren't attacking the theory but a creationist misrepresntation of it.

I try to make my posts provocative and I like to tell it like it is. I'm sorry if I crossed a line on this occaison. I'm used to atheist sites where the debate is much more robust - I try to behave myself here.

If you don't want to talk to me anymore, that's obviously you're right. Take care John.

OK Bob.
I have been acting like an idiot and I do truly apologise.
There's a lot going on in my life at present, and I guess I'm not as tollerable as I should be.
I would like to remove that post but for some reason the "edit" and "delete" options are missing from it.

I'm sending you a private message.

John

 

[jasoncran]

which post is the one that is offensive and may a mod or admin can delete it for you.

 

[Bronzesnake]

which post is the one that is offensive and may a mod or admin can delete it for you.

Hi Jason.
It's post #127 on the preceeding page in this topic.
If you could remove it I would be thankful.

I'm not sure what's going on but there are a few posts that don't have the delete option for some reason.

John

 

[jasoncran]

which post is the one that is offensive and may a mod or admin can delete it for you.

Hi Jason.
It's post #127 on the preceeding page in this topic.
If you could remove it I would be thankful.

I'm not sure what's going on but there are a few posts that don't have the delete option for some reason.

John

deleted, bob, you responded to that, and i would rather have you edit that, as that are some good points on your argument.

 

[logical bob]

I'm afraid I'm not getting the option to edit it. I didn't say anything there that I haven't said elsewhere so I'm happy if you want to delete it. The whole post also appears as a quote in Bronzesnake's following post.

John, thanks for your PM - I will reply but perhaps not right now. It's all good anyway. We both debate quite forcibly sometimes but in the end it's just banter on the internet... nothing to fall out over.

 

[jasoncran]

ok, i just wanted to be sure.