Evolution Bashing Thread

S

SiddharthKulkarni

New member
The down hill slide into the murky depths of ignorance continues: "The scientific evidence employed to support evolution comes from archaeological digs and carbon dating to estimate age. Over the past several years, the estimated age of the Earth has gone from 5 billion to 8 billion years. With more recent findings, anthropologists could not justify the evolution of man from geological digs unless the Earth is much older--or could it be that man did not evolve from apes?"

The scientific evidence to support the history of human civilizations and Neolithic Cultures and recent events of the earth comes from archeological digs and carbon dating to estimate age. Evolution is supported by mainly paleontological digs and other dating methods than carbon dating.

The last sentences are not logical, but since the author does not understand the basics, it means very little. A basic scientific dictionary would help.

The authors education is in Mechanical Engineering and is likely a fundimentalst Christian, which explains the absurdity of the article. I am sure the author could contribute to the design of a robot or an improved automobile engine, but there is little he could contribute to the advancement of science related to evolution.

The scientists on this thread have pleaded for reasonable competant arguements from the 'Creation Science' advocates. Posting this absurd trash does not contribute to the debate .
 
A

AllieO

New member
And the guy was a DOCTOR?
I suppose this is the problem with a science where how accurately you percieve the facts does not bear very directly on your chances of survival or your academic capability.
 
E

erikkka

New member
The worst possible combination!! Ahhh! Another Mechanical Engineer fundimentalist Christian considering himself an ex-spurt on evolution.

There is nothing new on this site.

Is it possible for you to find some paleontologists, cosmologists, geologists, biologists or other life scientist whose specialty is in a field related to evolution from a major university who have published their work in a peer reviewed journal to support 'Creation Science'.

Post one of their arguements and we will use for TP.
 
P

Psychogirlfrog

Member
These sites try to nuke evolution with a massive over load of misinformation. I will respond specifically to some of the points in the near future.

The point on the second law of thermodynamics is sited in both of these sites, which I have already responded to this problem.
 
T

Tibbsyt

New member
Now that I've read a bit more on the site, I have to agree with shunyadragon. As impressive as a Ph.D. in Mech Eng is, as someone who has studied Engineering, I know that Mech Eng applies in no way to the life sciences. Maybe a Geological Engineering degree, but definitely not Mech.

I stand with shunyadragon here. If anyone can find such a passage, I would be glad to read and consider it. Until then, I'm still unconvinced.

"This man writes a good letter."
 
J

JuggaloSoldier

Member
I believe that being a Christian is not incompatible with believing in evolution. Evolution may present a problem for fundamentalist Christians, but most Christians aren't fundamentalists.
 
B

bevad

Member
Good point Kinjiro. I do have a lot of respect for anyone who follows their beliefs in a positive way. Therefore, I have no problems with Christians in general. While I may not believe the same thing that they do with respect to why life began, those who believe in Intelligent Design are fine by me. My defense of evolution isn't an attempt to marr christianity, but a defense of a theory that I support. Unfortunately, some fundamentalist christian groups have made creationism and evolution mutually exclusive, so it appears I don't agree with their religion, while in fact I have no problem with it. Just their theories on origins.
 
P

Porky

New member
These and other articles and site droped by 'fly by' pigeons in the dark need more explaination by those that post them. Welsh warrior flew by and dumped a load with the comment, 'I could join in this argument, but I know it'll be of no consequence because we'll never all adhere to a single belief system. We'll all have to wait until we pass over to the other side.'

I sincerely do not think those that posted these carpolites know there content or research the background behind them. I have!

I mentioned before that the pro-evolutionists were looking for sound arguements by recognized experts in fields related to evolution to support the 'Creation Science' viewpoint. Well guess what guys, the sites recommended by the pigeons do quote recognized experts in fields related to evolution. But there is a problem, the people quoted are not happy, because they were quoted out of context and there quotes and research were misrepresented by 'Creation Science' advocates.

A good example is the paleontologist Colin Patterson. He is a controversial figure yes and occasionaly made statements that appear to oppose evolution and support 'Creation Science'. Colin Paterson has made it clear he does not support the young earth view of 'Creation Science' and he himself that in 1981 he had very little knowledge of evolution, because his specialty in the field of paleontology never dealt with the evolution, but later he published more materials that clarified his views as supporting science.

http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-1-t-000406.html is one message that explains part of the problem and there are more on the arn.org message board on Colin Patterson.
 
J

jiji

Member
And here's where everyone can just stop listening..........
Just kidding. I wouldn't want to miss it if he makes a good point. Apparently, he doesn't.

Well put. I agree completely.
 
M

matthook38

New member
Haven't been reading this thread, so sorry if I jump back a bit. Sorry K_Coffin, but I have to disagree with this statement:

(Well no, you're still welcome to doubt it if you like )

There is much less 'fatal competition' now than in the past, agreed. However, the elimination of negative attributes is only part of evolution, there is also a positive selection pressure on certain attributes. Selection does not favour those who are most able to survive, but rather those who are most able to reproduce - just look at the whole insect kingdom. Cities, healthcare etc. reduce the mortality rate, but just as importantly, the birthrate. The evolution of humans is now tending towards population where the (birthrate x survival rate to reproductive age) is highest. Consequently, there is a huge selection pressure against, for example, western european caucaisian (more particularly, peoples of iberian descent) - due to lower birthrates and a much higher child-bearing age. Humans are still evolving, only the reasons for doing so are changing.

Sorry if this is somewhat off topic for this post, but it seems like there's little point in carrying on the original discussion anyway - scietific enquiry produces one explanation, but that is inadmissible if you don't believe in the process of scientific enquiry in the first place. Creationism offers another, which is inadmissible unless you first believe in creationism.
 
R

Robbass

New member
You brought up an interesting point. A period of a reduced competition and selective pressure on a population results in an increase of genetic diversity and more opportunities to evolve.
 
P

pommer

Member
That's what I'm talking about. Sorry, I probably wasn't too clear.

MasterOfNothing, that's an excellent point. I hadn't thought about that. I think I was being a little too narrow-minded here. Shunyadragon puts it in a good scientific perspective too. I hadn't thought of the increase in diversity due to a lack of competition, instead concentrating on the lack of fatal competition to select beneficial traits. Pretty short-sighted of me.
 
A

AnthonyE

Member
I sure hope this thread doesnt get closed like my dinosaur thread
Anyhoo, to touch on another aspect, what do you guys think about this...
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
It touches on carbon dating
 
H

haleya

Member
Cannot get angelfire.com in China. If this post relates Carbon dating to dinosaurs I have problems with it before I even get to it. If anyone wants to help out and post something I will perferate it and use it for TP like the rest.

I notice a distinct silence from wayofthedragon and others to my responses to the previous drops by pigeons in the dark.
 
C

clavie

New member
I've noticed a certain flavour of evasion myself. But, at least wayofthedragon is still trying. Strong determination. I PM'd you about the website for a transcript.
 
C

cherries_1500

Member
why - please tell me it's not censored ??? If so you might be able to get round it by using a webproxy, try http://www.space.net.au/~thomas/quickbrowse.html

(sorry that's not relevant to the thread title)

does seem a bit quiet now - anyone object to turning it into a discussion about the future evolution of humanity?
 
T

TaylorE

Member
Ok, i find this thread quite amusing, i myself believe in evolution- though i realise it is a far from complete theory, it does offer more insight into life then 'Creationism'.

What i want to know from the 'Creationists' is why is God so stupid? He/she/it creates the most intelligent and superior lifeform on the planet, but for some reason decides to stick the windpipe and the oesophegus (sp?) right next to each other. So there man is worshipping God in all his glory, when suddenly some food goes down the wrong way- man chokes then dies, the most superior lifeform on the planet is defeat by a fish-bone. Sounds pretty stupid to me.

Secondly the subjet of babies. Perhaps one of the most useless things on the planet, can do absolutely sodding nothing except cry and crap itself. Every other animal is up and walking and lookinf after itself within the period of a few years, hours in most cases. I think we all know (i hope) the reason for this is that babies are completely useless because they have not fully developed. most animals have finished developing inside the womb or egg, and come out ready to fight. if a baby remained in the womb, the head would grow too big and would not be able to fit through the pelvic girdle. If God is so all powerfull why didnt he see this coming? Evolution explains this by the fact that are brains have evolved to big for our bodies. Our primitive anscestors had smaller brains/heads, therefore there was no problem. However as our brainpower and size grew exponentionally in comparison to the females hips, humnas had to be born earlier and earlier just to be able to escape the womb. This leaves the baby in a hostile environment, highly underdeveloped and prone to disease. The only way this happens is taht we have also evolved socially to counter this.

What i am trying to say is that if God created humans he did a pretty poor job of it. I bet scientists today could design something better then God (even if they couldnt make it- maybe not yet anyway ) Evolution can account for these biological short-comings, im just wondering what excuse God could have?
 
Top