Denial of evolution

If you design something, you can start from scratch. That isn't what we see in nature, where biological solutions are often comprimises created when creatures try to adapt their previous equipment for new uses.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't know if "study" is the right word, but I am familiar with many Christian Creationist groups that politically advocate the truth of various Design assertions. There's a museum sponsored by a couple of them, that features displays of people riding dinosauers and similar guides to "study".

Yes, I looked at your links. I have no idea what your new questions are, or which of your old questions already answered the links indicated.

There is as yet no Creationist side, objectively. So far, Design proposals consist of statements of religious faith, none of which can be formulated objectively in a scientific argument, and misinformed objections to evolutionary theory, all of which belong on the evolutionary "side" in the FAQ section.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL. OK.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hey i dont know what those are^

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I had hoped that the discussions that Fraggle and other had with me would influence them to directly address some of my points of contention. Only one made up which was...

Macroevolution has never been seen

Instead of directly countering or addressing the statement it might as well be saying "that's true" in a roundabout way.

I believe I had three other primary issues to evolution which the artical fails to cover entirely. I realise that these paragraphs are merely introductory to the Talk Origins links provided.

Because these are not direct yes an no's to the questions, I can tell that there is slant of favortism toward evolution when there is alack of hard evidence behind it.

I don't know about other people. BUT...
When I see a religious article or a scientific article which begins an explanation with..."There is no reason to...", or make use of certain qualifers or points out a lack of qualifers, then I'm sensing an interpretation.


This was particular bad as it alienates insteads of educates the reader and should be left out.
Sophomoric questions like this simply reveal the questioner's ignorance and prove what we suspected all along:

On the whole I felt the entire tone was too conversational. Consider who you are speaking to, Your audience. They will not all be proffessors of science and biologist. This is a for YOUR information page. You're not writing this to reaffirm you own beliefs you're attempting to draw upon logic and facts.

It helps credibility to admit when there is no answer to a question or...when the answer is Yes or no, Most individuals sense duplicity in vagueness. Be up front be specific where possible and where it is not possible say "I don't know" or this is debatble in scientific circles if it is warranted.

But if most of you think the tone of this article is propper then you might as well say I'm superior to the reader at the outset so they can move on with their search.

 

Macroevolution has never been seen

How do you know this ?

 

I realise that those promoting and contributing to the wiki have likely implied certain things, but I for one do not believe evolution is the result of natural selection, nor do any biologists that I know of. It is the result of natural selection, genetic drift and sexual selection - plus some aspects of epigenetics that are only now being recognised. Simplification is appropriate when everyone is on the same page. That is certainly not the case with evolution denialists, or those seeking an understanding of both camps. In such a case I think some pedantry is called for.

 

Its a wiki, add in whatever you think needs improvement.

 

Yes, it has. Here are some:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061117124514.htm

 

Evolution and Religion

Well, I am bit skeptic about evolution. Foremost, it contradicts the teaching of the Bible. Second, there are a lot of loopholes in this, and third, it misleads us to believe that we are descendants of the ape. Well, scientists should spend more time with their micrsocopes or whatever, searching for cures to illness that presently plagues the world, or help solve the surging global warming.

 

Ok I'll strap myself in

I know another book that contradicts the The Bible - its called The Bible.
Glad I'm strapped in here

Name 7 loopholes

Absolutely - that's rubbish - we ARE apes

 

Point to diagram to explain why denial of evolution has no place here:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I love that argument, there is no way around the "God is just doing it to test my faith" argument, none.

 

But does it not bother them that the Almighty God is deliberately fucking with their heads?

 

No god is right, god is good, and god "works in mysterious ways." Now it could be Satan that fucking with their heads and the evidence was place by god to teach the true believers what god plan really is, but they deny that because they have faith that its the other way around.

 

Science says ....

Source: dearScience
Link: http://dearscience.org/2008/04/21/on-scientific-dissent/
Title: "On Scientific Dissent", by Jonathan Golob
Date: April 21, 2008

Every now and then I make the mistake of sticking my nose into the debate over "Intelligent Design", a religiously-driven effort to discredit the theory of evolution. I really should know better; it never seems to make any difference. Over the years, I have made the same point over and over: Show the Designer. In other words, prove that God, or whatever else one wishes to call it, exists.

And, no, it isn't just me suggesting the obvious challenge facing Intelligent Design. Why don't we check in with Science?

It's a good read, says me. Have at it.

 

My (not-so) latest theory of human evolution has to do with an inextricable link to our ability to learn (unlike other species who only evolve "biologically", or phenotypically), which meant we learned how to exploit things, like fire, then food - after hunting and gathering for it for a long time, some of us started to make the job easier, by having or maintaining a constant local supply.

We learned this, and we pass on this knowledge to our offspring - other sentient animals do far less, and much less abstract kinds of "teaching" to their young: it's more a chaperone's, or "keeps an eye on" arrangement, the parents leave their young to largely discover their own abilities and limitations on their own.

So my theory goes: we have altered the environment over and over again. These changes built up, they eventually meant we had to be more resourceful, and also alter our diets. This diet-change paradigm is believed to be largely responsible for the emergence of the diverse Pithecine lineage, as well as the later ones that led to our genus.

So, we are in a large sense, as our ancestral species were, responsible for our own evolution, and of the big, analytical, massively over-optimised brains we have. Or: species determine, by altering the environment and habitat, the future evolution and diversification of their line.

Or, they don't - which means they aren't around any more.

P.S. I should add the corollary: if an ancestral species changes the environment "too much", or makes it unsuitable for its successors, then they won't survive either. This has probably been part of the overall big evolutionary picture of inter- and intra-species competition.

 

Since we were simultaneously altering the environments of our fellow metazoans, why did none of them become more resourceful? I mean, just one species out of tens of thousands.