 ezsparky says: (Please follow the link to this article and read it completely before you comment on it. Thanks) It is funny how religious people will demand proof of evolution while they have no proof nor will ever have proof of any aspect of their beliefs. Science demands proof. Faith demands evidence. If the evidence for God were equal to the evidence of Evolution, I doubt there would be many believers. Because their beliefs are...well beliefs. I buy into their whole faith argument. While Evolution is a more scientific thing which requires evidence. Eh Will beat me to it. I personally have no problem with either theory. Perhaps God created man through the process of evolution. Perhaps God created man through the process of evolution.I suppose it's certainly possible. The only problem I have is that Evolution wrapped up around a philosophy and there is much science that punches holes in the theory. Did anybody actually take time to read the article? From some of these comments, it seems not. If you did read it and then made these comments, it would seem that you failed to understand the article. I was replying to your remarks, not the article. me too. I appreciate and thank you for your comments about my comment. I would love to hear comments about the article from everyone. Thanks! :- ) A great little article which outlines some of the basic misconceptions of creationists. But of course creationists are more inventive that this and have a plethora of half-truths and even downright lies in their arsenal in the Crusade against reason. I find the following website of great reference when faced with attacks on the laws of nature. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html It lists pretty much every claim made by creationists and why they are unfounded. Thanks For Posting The Link Lembit! I've only had time for a brief look at the link's material but what I have read is "Spot On". If you are a proponent of evolution, then why are there "HUGE" gaps in the scientific evidence. Evolution means a continuous span of cellular development. Animals which were transformed from the cells which adapted to their environment disappeared from the evolution time-line for over 500 years. The evolution process must start all over again when cells reform and once again adapt to their "NEW" environment. The evolution, and I use this word loosely, theory, must be continuous, not stop and show up 500 years later to start all over again. Science books in our schools dictate that evolution is one continuous time-line and they print the time-line in the book. With so many gaps in the evolut... why are there "HUGE" gaps in the scientific evidenceNot as huge as you think. Just because you choose not to read the evidence does not mean there is a lack of evidence. There is no definite evolutionary theory today to support Darwin's scientific theoriesAgain, if you ignore it, that must mean it doesn't exist. Sit down and think it threw and read more than one article on a given subject before subjecting other people to your views of evolutionists versus creationists.Good idea. There are mountains of evidence that I'm sure you haven't read. why are there "HUGE" gaps in the scientific evidenceThere are no "HUGE" gaps in scientific evidence, just in fossil records. Besides fossil records aren't the only way to determine common ancestor. Biochemical Similarities are regarded to be one of the best methods in doing so. A BIG POP for laceym's comment. How can you state that I have read only one article. You know not what and how much I have read. It is this kind of emotional crap that makes dealing with people like you nearly impossible. It also shows your focus is on making a lot of noise rather than making logical arguments. It also shows that you are willing to make statements regardless if you know these statements are true or not. As far as I'm concerned, the moment you make such a ridiculous statement, you have lost all credibility. If your willing to make such a statement now, it only makes sense to expect you to do so again in the future. You lose your credibility. Much of what you argued made little sense and only showed a lack of understanding of evolutions. Now, lets keep this non emotional. Lets all focus on stating things that are logical to state. If a statement is stated with intent to effect emotion, please don't state it. Make you arguments logical and relevant to supporting your argument. I will strive to do the same. Thanks Correction: Make your statements logical and relevant to supporting your argument. ezsparky, Just let it go man. They won't listen to us. There are no "HUGE" gaps in scientific evidence, just in fossilThere absolutely are huge gaps in the science. There are embryologists, microbiologists, biochemists, biologists, DNA researchers that say Darwinism does not fit with their sciences, and the list is growing. This is besides the fact that the fossil record does not bear out Darwinism. willhelm, Could you provide us a list of who these scientist are. I for one would like to look into the evidence they give for evolution not fitting within their science. The fossil record is in no way a complete record. The fossils that we have found so far is just a very small representation of the total numbers of different kinds of animals that have existed. Even with this being the case, there are examples of evolution in the fossil record. There is ZERO evedience for the creationnest view. Correction: The is ZERO evidence for the creationist view. Ezsparky, the evidence for intelligent design ( and I do not include in that philosophical arguments) is quite massive and impelling. However, my comment was not in support of Intelligent Design. It was to simply to say there is much disagreement about Darwinism. There are also several astronomers and physicists that hold the ID side of the debate. There is such a misunderstanding about what the ID advocates and researchers hold to and support. So, judging by your comments I doubt we could have a discussion on that. However, I would encourage you to keep an open mind. As far as a list of scientists I referred to above, there are many. The most prominent include: Jonathan Wells(embryology), D... willhelm, thanks for the names. It will take me a while to investigate these. I always strive to keep an open mind to truth. sohil, It is very frustrating isn't it? I guess I keep trying because of what happens when religion is allowed to run a muck. 9/11, the stoning of young girls because she likes a boy of another faith, inquisitions, crusades etc. willhelm, I have started to check out the names you have give. I am not done yet but what I have read so far fails to prove evolution is not in action in their science. What I have noticed and has compelled me to stop and post this, is that of the scientist I have checked on your list so far, they all work for religious based research groups. There is something disturbing about a scientist who works for a religious based research group. Science strives to remove all bias when doing research. I find it difficult believe that a scientist who is working for any religious base research group can be or will be unbiased in his science. I will give you another example of such a research... Michael Behe stands out for me because he was the primary witness for the defense in the Dover case. He actually ended up blowing it and helped the judge decide that ID was just another name for creation. He coined the term "Irreducible complexity" which says biological systems are too complex, therefore there must have been a designer. Absolutely brilliant! Unfortunately for him, all of his examples of irreducibility are in fact reducible. He is also involved with the Discovery Institute, so he loses all credibility. Here is a link the their "Mission Statement" internally known as the Wedge Document. Jonathan Wells is also with the Discovery Institute and an HIV/AIDS denialist Duane Gish is a Young Earth Creationist. Many of his arguments in favor of creation have been debunked and even the Discovery Institute does not use them. He is a master of the "Gish Gallop", a rhetorical technique where one throws out lots of assertions without any support. In a timed, live debate this overwhelms his opponents, who often spend most of their time trying to rebut them. William Lane Craig is a philosopher so he is irrelevant. The following are with the Institute for Creation Research, so no credibility. Ken Cumming Frank Sherwin Dan Criswell David DeWitt is also director of the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University ( hahahaha Liberty hahahaha) Stephen C Meyer - philosopher and founder of the Discovery Institute. Sorry, irrelevant. Hugh Ross - an old earth creationist. This is actually refreshing. Finally someone who doesn't literally believe an ancient book. He just chooses to ignore the evidence. I don't know which is worse. So he has critics from both sides. That's enough for now. I'm going to bed. Just following up on laceym's comment--the Wikipedia entry for Behe has some telling quotations from the Kitzmiller decision where the judge just skewers Behe's case for the scientific status of intelligent design. "With ID [intelligent design] proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. … Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."Ouch. To make a list of a few 'scientists' who disagree with evolution is rather irrelevant in the face of the hundreds of thousands worldwide who use evolution as an important part of the work that they do everyday. If I wanted to I could present a list of Holocaust deniers, but it would have no baring on the fact that the Holocaust happened. *pop* for Lembit... Ezsparky, Well, you can decide what you want. I am almost 40 years old and have never questioned Darwinism until recently. I'm not an expert, but I have read a dozen or so books on both sides of the debate. The strange thing is that the books questioning Darwinian Evolution are more scientifically grounded than the ones about evolution. If you don't believe me, check out your local book store. I was just supplying the names you asked for. These are the tip of the iceberg. You could find hundreds more if you want to. Of course they are going to be attacked for their affiliations or views. Both sides of the debate are attacked from time to time. The point is there are serious questions... When you have materialist driven philosophy like global warming, eugenics, slavery, darwinism, and sociolgy you have to undersatnd the scales of justice, where you stack up the evidence, are not applied. Science is thrown out the window and in it's place is slanted statistical analyses, consensus, emotional appeals, and in some cases diabolical agendas. I do not care whether Darwinism is proven true, or not. My concern is the rational observance of the scientific method where we hold to that which is true and disregard that which is not based on the truth of evidence. The strange thing is that the books questioning Darwinian Evolution are more scientifically grounded than the ones about evolution. If you don't believe me, check out your local book store.You apparently have not read the correct books or have a very poor local book store. Evolution is a scientific concept, developed by scientists using science, how grounded in science do you want. If a theory is correct it stands up to scrutiny and gains validation over time. Darwinism is still pretty much as it was 100 years ago,Surely this proves that 'Darwinism' has gained validation over time by standing up to scrutiny and is therefore correct, by your ... Evolution has been explained in textbooks using fraudulent evidence like, Lucy, Haekel's embryos, similarities of flippers, wings and legs , The miller experiment, Darwin's tree of Life, the glossing of the Cambrian explosion, Proven lies about gills, the fact there are no missing links in the fossil record, and java man. All these things have been either uncovered as frauds or scientifically dismissed . If a theory is correct it stands up to scrutiny and gains validation over time.Isn't that one of the most important arguments for science in general? Scientists publish their research findings which are closely reviewed by their peers and then supported or refuted. Of course ... Mistakes, faulty theories and even outright lies do not disprove theThat's a good point blauwolf. The scientific process is burdened tremendoulsy by those that are agenda driven and sometimes the facts that come out against the predominant paradigm are swept under the rug, especially with complicated issues like evolution and global warming. You have a battle between Materialists and Non-materialists that grind facts up into a fine powder. You are correct when you say that the scientific process is burdened tremendously by those that are agenda driven, but that agenda is to find the truth by examining the evidence. Facts that come out against the predominant paradigm are NOT swept under the rug, as these are the places where science thrives and advances. It is only by addressing what doesn't fit with our preconceptions that we can advance. |
View the Top Clips from May 18, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|
