The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I see that the explanation for the where are all the" in between" animals is that everything is a a transitional animal.

so then everything is constantly evolving..

Hey.

Evolution can show periods of stasis, and different rates of change. Thus, when under stress it appears that mutation rates can sometimes increase etc.

But I guess you could say that every species alive is a potential transitional.

ABE:

Originally posted by AshleyD
Psssst. Mel. There should be a period after the word 'evolutionists.'

I plead guilty as charged.

That's what I was thinking, too. Can't see why anyone would be offended by not making it into the media but can see how they could feel snubbed for not making it into the journals. We'll see how it goes.

It would make more sense. I would think every scientist has at some point felt snubbed by having manuscripts rejected, goes with the terrority (ABE: well, those that attempt to publish).

[edit on 5-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by dbates
Ken Miller is actually entertaining. At least to me. The entire 2 hours of his speech is in this video. You don't have to agree with everything to enjoy the presentation. He even tells jokes. (sort of)

Oh, he is!

He gives a great talk, and is a fantastic proponent of evolutionary theory. You might appreciate his book 'finding darwin's god'. He provides a good explanation of evolutionary theory and why YEC/ID is wrong, and then attempts to fit god on top of the scientific evidence (eek! Heh).

ABE:

Originally posted by Conspiriology
You've been in my thoughts quite a bit the last few days my friend

Hope all is well with you and yours.

Aww, con. You sweetie. Hope they were nice thoughts.

Aye, all's well here, hope the same applies at your end.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


OK What I was getting to was what I perceived to be an issue.

Crocodiles are believed to have changed little since the time of the dinosaurs. They are believed to be 200 million years old whereas dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago: crocodiles survived great extinction events.


Why are they still the same?

Originally posted by melatonin
You might appreciate his book 'finding darwin's god'. He provides a good explanation of evolutionary theory and why YEC/ID is wrong, and then attempts to fit god on top of the scientific evidence (eek! Heh).

A man after my own heart. I like him already!

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by melatonin

 

OK What I was getting to was what I perceived to be an issue.

Crocodiles are believed to have changed little since the time of the dinosaurs. They are believed to be 200 million years old whereas dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago: crocodiles survived great extinction events.


Why are they still the same?

They're not. In the jurassic period they were quite large and comparable to the largest dinosaurs in size so obviously they have changed quite alot. Perhaps the smaller size is what allowed them to utilise river systems.. it may have been the only major mutation that could have benefited them.

[edited for grammar.]

[edit on 5-3-2008 by riley]

[url=http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics[/url]

...on the subject of evolution and creation almost without exception demonstrate the shell game played with the terms creationism, evolution, science, religion, and faith. The game usually begins with a statement that evolution is a proven fact. Next, this claim is established by the presentation of voluminous evidence from the physical sciences and the fossil record for changes in the universe, the earth, and the forms of life on the earth over the course of the last several billion years. Therefore, it is then claimed (or implied) that the theory that lifeforms developed out of some kind of primordial soup and changed through strictly natural processes into more and more advanced species is unquestionably correct.

What is the result of these shell games? Only one view may be presented to society at large: atheistic materialism (which is, by the way, a religion of sorts).

It is the common life science definition for evolution that must be questioned—the hypothesis that all the changes that take place in lifeforms, both in the present and the past, are by strictly natural processes. For the lifeforms of the present era, I would agree. We do see natural selection and mutational advance at work within some species. But, as biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich report, "The production of a new animal species in nature has yet to be documented. In the vast majority of cases, the rate of change is so slow that it has not even been possible to detect an increase in the amount of differentiation."

Since the 1986 Origin of Life Conference in Berkeley, the primordial soup hypothesis has been acknowledged by many leading scientists as utterly lacking in factual support. Even the self-proclaimed atheist Robert Shapiro, professor of chemistry at New York University, proclaims that no natural explanation for the origin of life exists. Interested readers may want to check out his book, Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Origin of Life on Planet Earth (New York: Summit Books, 1986).

Science is never religiously neutral. Science deals with cause and effect. Unless one makes the dogmatic presupposition that causes can only be natural, it must be said that causes can be either natural or supernatural. In the case of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the appearance of most, if not all, new species, science can show us no natural causes. In the case of the universe, direct proof now exists that the cause, or causer, must transcend matter, energy, length, width, height, and time. In other words, the causer must be supernatural.

[edit on 3/5/08 by idle_rocker]

[edit on 3/5/08 by idle_rocker]

[edit on 3/5/08 by idle_rocker]

[edit on 3/5/08 by idle_rocker]

[edit on 3/5/08 by idle_rocker]

[edit on 3/5/08 by idle_rocker]

reply to post by idle_rocker


Usually when people use the [ex] tags, they also include a link to the external source. Would you mind posting that link so that others may read the whole thing?

Is this not solved yet?

God created everything, and gave the first woman a bra.

Got it?

reply to post by AshleyD


Ash, you usually give a well-reasoned response, but I direct attention to your post, on Page 29, top.

You mentioned hyprocrisy, I see irony. Your use of '[pseudo]' in brackets, very clever...and very wrong. THEN, there is a mention of 'one-sided' arguments!!! And, the reference to ...'forest for the trees'...

Really, it's Pot calling Kettle, there!

I would like to add this article that came out on the bbc news website today as supporting evolution. For me this is proof yet again that we have a fact that fits the predicted model of evolution.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Evolution does have holes, like how life started but we have scientists working constantly on these problems and they'll be solved eventually. This doesn't disprove god though, why can't evolution be the how and god be the why?

Many creationists simply disregard this kind of evidence out of hand, instead looking for gaps in evolution, they comment on these gaps but they can't back them up with sound scientific experiments or predictions.

Evolution happens, sorry there are to many supporting pieces of evidence for it, but again that does not disprove god in any way at all. God could still exist, maybe god set up evolution so he/she/it wouldn't have to constantly overlook it all the time.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
God could still exist, maybe god set up evolution so he/she/it wouldn't have to constantly overlook it all the time.

Or so that humans can study it an marvel at the wondrous creation of God, and how along with everything else in the universe, it was set up so beautifully. That's how I see it anyway.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Why are they still the same?

As noted by riley, I don't think they are exactly the same.

Crocodilians are not descendants of dinosaurs. While both groups do belong to the Archosauria, they are from fundamentally different lineages. Living crocodilians are not ‘living fossils’ that have remained unchanged since the Mesozoic. In fact, modern-type crocodilians are a relatively recent evolutionary phenomenon and it is incorrect to imply that crocodilian evolution has been static or lethargic. With between 22 and 28 extant species (ideas differ as to whether some populations should be recognized as distinct species) distributed in habitats nearly worldwide, crocodilians are more speciose than many other groups often regarded as the epitome of evolutionary success. They cannot be regarded as a group ‘on the decline’, nor as a sorry vestige of a past glory. However, many species are in critical danger imposed by habitat loss and hunting, and whether these will survive into the near future is doubtful.

www.blackwell-synergy.com...

But they are an ancient lineage.

ABE:

Originally posted by Beachcoma
A man after my own heart. I like him already!

Heh, thought he might be. I don't buy his arguments at all on the theology-side (as you might expect). He goes all quantum wooish and stuff.


[edit on 5-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Evolution does have holes, like how life started but we have scientists working constantly on these problems and they'll be solved eventually.

Man, what don't you people that went to College get about this?

The Jews wrote it down.

We're mud people. Made from dust. Then God got over his whole gay Ubermensch thing and stole a rib from Adam to make our subservient slave to make more of us. It's IN the BIBLE. It is IN the BIBLE.

Women suck. By he way, whores should be stoned, Gays should be killed (unless you can talk them out of it with your daughter (GENESIS), and this argument is POINTLESS!) The Bible is full of CRAP.

You're Mama made you, not some Jew God that now hates Jews based on his New Testament Revelation. I mean WHY would GOD change His mind? He didn't see Jesus coming?????????????????????????????

Worst. God. Ever.

reply to post by idle_rocker


WOW, rocker, what the heck were you editing?

It was that friggin link; I couldn't make work!

Well just take out the url's before and after and it should work.

I tried, but it's not working.




Crap, is that me talking to myself again?

Hee Hee

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I think that's a good way to look at it actually. Evolution could just be the means to the result. I just can't get past the fact that something or someone had to put the initial building blocks in place.

And why not look at God as someone who set the world up so intricately and finely-tuned, that he actually can sit back and watch his result? Maybe we are in the 7th "day" or "era" of creation and God is resting enjoying what he made?

Maybe it's like a well-oiled machine that the mechanic only has to step in to repair when necessary. God = Maytag? Just a thought. I mean, that's how finely-tuned it is. If the earth were to wobble just one tiny, tiny, tiny bit off it's axis, we would be obliterated, right? Or, if earth were located just one tiny, tiny, tiny bit closer to the sun, we would all burn up, or life couldn't have ever existed anyway.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


IR1984, great post.

Star for you!

If I may repeat, maybe wasn't this thread...

A very good book, by author Martin Rees, is titled 'Just Six Numbers'.

ISBN 0-465-03672-4

It's in soft cover by now, it will surely provide a debate from both sides. Hope some of you will read it.

'subtitle'...The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I know it's a quote from way back in the thread, but what the hell.

Do you know why Intelligent design isn't a valid scientific theory? Because it creates a paradox. Much like the Grandfather paradox that prevents backwards time travel from being a reality (At least, when working with linear models of time), Intelligent Design creates an infinite paradox

Let's say there is a creator.
That creator is alive, or at least intellegent / programmed to some degree
That creator thus needs a creator, as the theory states all life is created
This creator's creator then also needs a creator... and then HE needs a creator... So on and so forth, so that we have an infinite loop of created beings that create other beings. In other words, in order for Intelligent Design to be plausable... we would know what the creator is, because the universe would be made of absolutely nothing except the creator and his creators. Every single iota of potential space in the whole of reality would be a single creator blob. TO say nothing of their OTHER creations.

The only solution to this paradox is that at some point, one of the creators was never created. Which invalidates the theory that "All things were created."

Either Intelligent Design creates an infinite loop of creators, or it invalidates its own premise.

Sounds like a good book and the title says everything.

Of course, numbers and mathematical equations are rampant throughout science and creation.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I guess that's the probllem with science it's pigeon holed into the limited nderstanding of finite man.

God doesn't have a creator. He is.

I am who I am.

An infinite being doesn't need a creator. Thank God for religion