Darwinism Scientifically Flawed?

To begin with, I have never really been interested in Darwinism, or Creationism, or any of that "where did we come from and how did we get here" mumbo jumbo. Recently that's changed.

I've created this thread to ask some question and provide some information that I've recently discovered (and by the sound of it, many others have been there before me!)

I'll be citing information from a book called "Forbidden History; Prehistoric Technologies, Extraterrestrial Intervention, and the Suppressed Origins of Civilization"

If any of you have read this book and would like to comment on this thread, I would love to have your incite.

Once again, I created this thread out of curiosity, so any feedback is greatly appreciated! I've included references for any of those who have or want to have the book.
Now on to the show.


Cited from Chapter 1, Darwin's Demise, page 9.

The first monumental flaw in Darwinism.

In an experiment done my biology professor Michael Behe which included on the analysis on five areas, blood clotting, cilia, the human immune system, the transport of materials within the cell, and the synthesis of nucleotides. In his final analysis, Michael Behe came to a single conclusion, that no gradual, step-by-step Darwinian route could have led to their creation.

Now my question here is, how many of you believe this to be true, and why, likewise, if you believe otherwise, what are your reasonings? Is there really no missing link or is this link out there somewhere just waiting to be discovered?

Is Darwinism really the only scientific theory taught worldwide that has yet to be proven by science? If this is true, why do so many people claim that it is FACT?

Are lost civilizations the real missing link here, rather than saying we descended from monkeys, and were just created by the Big Man himself?

Jumping forward a bit.

Do these "lost civilizations", have the answers we're searching for?
The city of Tiahuanaco, Bolivia, Machu Pichu in Peru, the pyramids in Egypt. Conventional science would have us believe that these would have been built by nomadic hunter-gatherers, but were they really?

I honestly believe that yes, these ancient civilizations could hold the key to what we're looking for. Civilized man has existed for far longer than we had originally thought.


"Etymology, the study of word origins, postulates that a prehistoric Indo-European language must have existed to account for the deep similarities in the world's languages."
-chpt 2, pg 19


That's all for now, as I stated before, any feedback is greatly appreciated, whether or not it's contrary to what I have stated here in my OP.

I look forward to discussing this with everyone, and hopefully learning a thing or two about this subject. Thanks in advance to anyone who participates!

-JR

Originally posted by bandaidctrl
To begin with, I have never really been interested in Darwinism,

this is a misnomer darwinism and evolutionism dont exist any more the einsteinism gravitism molecularism

its used to group all sceince that goes against thier beliefs, if they admitted that what they are teaching goes against

archaeology, plaentology, pleobotany, molecular chemisty, every branch of physics including gravity, psychology, medical anatomy, dna analysis and even maths

people would be less inclined to agree with the alternate views

Cited from Chapter 1, Darwin's Demise, page 9.

old age? couldnt resist

The first monumental flaw in Darwinism.

it doesnt exist?

In an experiment done my biology professor Michael Behe which included on the analysis on five areas, blood clotting, cilia, the human immune system, the transport of materials within the cell, and the synthesis of nucleotides. In his final analysis, Michael Behe came to a single conclusion, that no gradual, step-by-step Darwinian route could have led to their creation.

and was later shown to be wrong on evey account and got some funny looks for really bad methodology and conclusion jumping

Now my question here is, how many of you believe this to be true, and why, likewise, if you believe otherwise, what are your reasonings?

Behe has doen some fantasitic work but as soon as he tries to take on evolution he gets a bit messy in order to try and do it he has to simply becasue he wants to be the first one ever to do it so trys o take short cuts

Is there really no missing link or is this link out there somewhere just waiting to be discovered?

are you talking human missing link? the first was found 5 years before Darwin even published origins (the common ancestor) it then took until the 1950s to find the one that sits in the middle of the common ancestor and now

we have thousands of examples of different individuals in 12 unique missing links infact we had so many we started having trouble recognising which was on our branch and which had branched off to another

Is Darwinism really the only scientific theory taught worldwide that has yet to be proven by science?

?? your suggesting its unproven?

fossil record erv's atavisim anatomical sytudies Phylogenetic Trees dna analysis are all proof of evolution its been proven by many seperate fields of science

whats more the small list above can only be explained by evolution

If this is true, why do so many people claim that it is FACT?

it is both fact an scientifcic theory, a scientifc hypothesis is an explenation of the facts that cannot have any conflicting facts against it and must make soild and testable predictions, only after it has done this and been accepted as accurate can it be calssed as a theory of science

so yes its a theory and yes its a fact

Are lost civilizations the real missing link here,

not unless we actually find them and they really do conflict and disprove all the thousands of individual pieces of eveidence for evolution

rather than saying we descended from monkeys, and were just created by the Big Man himself?

we are not decended form monkies we are decended from a common ancestor even Behe himself agrees with this he only trys to show there was a different method then evolution

Do these "lost civilizations", have the answers we're searching for?

all depends what it is your searching for

The city of Tiahuanaco, Bolivia, Machu Pichu in Peru, the pyramids in Egypt. Conventional science would have us believe that these would have been built by nomadic hunter-gatherers, but were they really?

what? they were built by complex permanent societies

anyone saying other wise is an absolute idiot who really needs to attend a few lectures of paleolithic anthropology and arcaheology and keep attending until they cover up to our recent past

I honestly believe that yes, these ancient civilizations could hold the key to what we're looking for. Civilized man has existed for far longer than we had originally thought.

well if you find them and prove evolution wrong your certain to win a nobel prize for science and get a large sum of money, you will also get other awards for radical advancment and change in arcaeology and anthropology

chances are though it just wont happen

"Etymology, the study of word origins, postulates that a prehistoric Indo-European language must have existed to account for the deep similarities in the world's languages."
-chpt 2, pg 19

this is a whole new ball game i dont deal with language origins but if what he has written above is an indicator i think this may be wrong too

if you want links to youtube videos by biologists and geologists that cover most of the evolution and decent of man lemme know and i could easily scrounge up some written sciencey type stuff too

[edit on 25/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 25/11/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


Thanks for the response noob (lol had to laugh at that...can't help but remember all the times when I would yell at "noobs" interfering with my gaming quality"

I'll definitely look into it some more, like I stated in the OP, this isn't a subject I'm too familiar with so any information is welcome!

lemme check out whats gonan best to get you started and ill u2u you the links

dont worry its nothing to heavy i promise

sent you should ahve it now just a matter of sitting thier and watching a few videos

yeah i picked the name on purpose both casue of past gaming experiences and becasue i like having fun with nooby pretend to be science believers(creationists)

reply to post by bandaidctrl


My advice is to examine all information available from multiple sources and then make up your own mind as to what you choose to believe. The truth has a way of revealing itself to those who search for it with diligence.

There's a decent discussion between me, noobfun and others on evolution vs. creation here.

I also recommend The Truth Project.

thats an old one

had to check through it to remind me what was said

some thanks again for the reads, I'll be flying tomorrow so it'll give me something to do while I'm sitting next to little old ladies who like to drool when they sleep.

^.^

I tried to word my questions and overall OP as simply as possible, to Icarus Rising, that's EXACTLY what I'm trying to do, decided to start with something I didn't really know first, so I'm going from there.

Thanks again for the links!

-JR