Religions > Bible > Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation"
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Jd" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2007 06:07:36 PM |
| Object: |
Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation" |
Basically in that the speed of light may not actually be "constant"....
***Speed of light slowing down?***
Chris Bennett - WorldNetDaily.com
"The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons ... billions and billions of
years. Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex biochemicals such as
hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to those of us who question the
process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can grasp - timespans so vast that
anything is possible, even chance combinations of random chemicals to form the stunning complexities
of reproducing life."
"Modern physics is now considering a theory that could throw into confusion virtually all of the
accepted temporal paradigms of 20th-century science, including the age of the universe and the
billions of years necessary for evolution. Further, it raises the distinct possibility that
scientific validation exists for a (gasp) literal interpretation of the seminal passages of Genesis.
Goodbye Scopes trial."
"The theory is deceptively simple: The speed of light is not constant, as we've been taught since
the early 1930s, but has been steadily slowing since the first instance of time."
"Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John
Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat
of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was
much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages of the "Big Bang" than it
is today. (It's important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a
predetermined. answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical
worldview.)"
Jd
.
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
27 Jul 2007 01:55:36 AM |
|
|
Gabriel wrote:
Hi Mike,
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:rr9qi.46054$YL5.26383@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Gabriel wrote:
Hi Kate,
So you know all 300+ of these people? This is important information
indeed.
Please back up this opinion and show us exactly what you know of all
300 of these PhDs to prove they are "fake" and "bad" PhDs, rather
than expecting everyone to just take your word for it.
We don't have to take her word for it. The burden falls on your
shoulders to show that they are valid and that their belief is of
any importance.
First of all, the list is there as a truth. If it's not true, then
expose them for making a false list. Otherwise, please forgive us for
pointing out that it's your mere opinion that it's a false list.
It has been pointed out and documented that some of the names are false. The
entire list is suspect.
Second of all, you clearly have no idea why I posted this list. So
your opinions based on what you clearly have no idea about is silly.
If you can go back and take the time to figure that out, as I said
exactly why that list was presented, I'll bother taking the time to
answer any new questions you might have, since now you're showing
you're interested in having a discussion rather than just making
assumptions and displaying your opinion as if everyone else should
take it as a fact.
Why you posted a list known for some time to contain false and probably
misleading information is of no concern to me.
I suspect you did it to argue against the science of evolution.
Since you have shown you have a poor grasp of science your reason also has
no meaning.
I don't go to a doctor of physics to have my foot examined and I
don't go to a doctor or literature to have him explain Archimedes
principal. Even if they are fully qualified to speak on the subject of
evolution, as long as they don't let that belief interfer with
science it is a moot point.
If you don't do this, please forgive us for concluding the obvious,
that you're lying. What was that about needing dishonesty to push a
religion? Because you're using dishonesty to push your religion of
evolution. Thanks for being another example of the most common
reaction to the religion of evolution being shown for what it truly
is when its gaping flaws and lies are revealed: a religion
masquerading as science.
You probably accept physics as a science, you may accept astronomy
as a science.
Eolution follows *exactly* the same rules as they do, so denying it
simply shows that you have no concept of what a theory is and thus
your idea of science is wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
29 Jul 2007 07:06:58 PM |
|
|
Evolution, like gravitation is a characteristic of Nature and
it would exist even if every human being would "reject" it.
Of course that would have to be the result of all humans being born
without the capacity to think, AS A RESULT OF EVOLUTION!
WARNING:
THINKING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FAITH! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
02 Aug 2007 07:20:32 AM |
|
|
Hi Libertarius,
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:DN-dne0EX4I6gDDbnZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@comcast.com...
Evolution, like gravitation is a characteristic of Nature and
No, gravitation is observable, verifiable, testable. Macro-evolution, or
morphing of species into something drastically different it never was before
is not observable, verifiable, testable. I'm glad you want to believe it is.
Show evidence, please. If not, thanks for sharing your opinion.
it would exist even if every human being would "reject" it.
Of course that would have to be the result of all humans being born
without the capacity to think, AS A RESULT OF EVOLUTION!
WARNING:
THINKING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FAITH! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
02 Aug 2007 08:23:07 PM |
|
|
Gabriel wrote:
Hi Libertarius,
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:DN-dne0EX4I6gDDbnZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@comcast.com...
Evolution, like gravitation is a characteristic of Nature and
No, gravitation is observable, verifiable, testable. Macro-evolution,
or morphing of species into something drastically different it never
was before is not observable, verifiable, testable. I'm glad you want
to believe it is. Show evidence, please. If not, thanks for sharing
your opinion.
The sme is true for evolution. Your denial of it is about as valid as
denying gravity.
it would exist even if every human being would "reject" it.
Of course that would have to be the result of all humans being born
without the capacity to think, AS A RESULT OF EVOLUTION!
WARNING:
THINKING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FAITH! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
03 Aug 2007 09:05:42 AM |
|
|
Hi Mike,
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Cpvsi.1895$ox5.1583@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
Gabriel wrote:
Hi Libertarius,
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:DN-dne0EX4I6gDDbnZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@comcast.com...
Evolution, like gravitation is a characteristic of Nature and
No, gravitation is observable, verifiable, testable. Macro-evolution,
or morphing of species into something drastically different it never
was before is not observable, verifiable, testable. I'm glad you want
to believe it is. Show evidence, please. If not, thanks for sharing
your opinion.
The sme is true for evolution. Your denial of it is about as valid as
denying gravity.
Gravity is observable: we see things fall to the ground.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely new
observable?
Gravity is verifiable. Anyone can drop their own objects and see they fall
as well.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely new
verifiable?
Gravity is testable. You can test that it's 9.8m/s^2 by running some tests
and seeing this take place.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely new
testable?
It's none of those things. It's not science. It's merely a belief that
relies on miracles: a religion. If it is any of those things, provide the
evidence. If you can't provide the evidence, but instead continue to offer
mere opinions, then even you realize but cannot admit the real fact is,
there _is_ no evidence.
But thanks for sharing your opinion.
it would exist even if every human being would "reject" it.
Of course that would have to be the result of all humans being born
without the capacity to think, AS A RESULT OF EVOLUTION!
WARNING:
THINKING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FAITH! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
03 Aug 2007 05:45:46 PM |
|
|
Gabriel wrote:
Hi Mike,
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Cpvsi.1895$ox5.1583@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
Gabriel wrote:
Hi Libertarius,
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:DN-dne0EX4I6gDDbnZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@comcast.com...
Evolution, like gravitation is a characteristic of Nature and
No, gravitation is observable, verifiable, testable.
Macro-evolution, or morphing of species into something drastically
different it never was before is not observable, verifiable,
testable. I'm glad you want to believe it is. Show evidence,
please. If not, thanks for sharing your opinion.
The sme is true for evolution. Your denial of it is about as valid as
denying gravity.
Gravity is observable: we see things fall to the ground.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely new
observable?
Gravity is verifiable. Anyone can drop their own objects and see they
fall as well.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely new
verifiable?
Gravity is testable. You can test that it's 9.8m/s^2 by running some
tests and seeing this take place.
Care to place a wager on any of the above stupid statement? That's the
problem with a limited education and looking things up on the internet to
prove a point.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely new
testable?
It's none of those things. It's not science. It's merely a belief that
relies on miracles: a religion. If it is any of those things, provide
the evidence. If you can't provide the evidence, but instead continue
to offer mere opinions, then even you realize but cannot admit the
real fact is, there _is_ no evidence.
But thanks for sharing your opinion.
It is the opinion of science that the science of evolution is science.
The evidence has been presenteds to you time and again. Your claiming it has
not been simply shows those who read this how vapid your claims are.
You and your kind move more and more people from your brand of theism to
athesim far better than we can.
Keep up the good work.
it would exist even if every human being would "reject" it.
Of course that would have to be the result of all humans being born
without the capacity to think, AS A RESULT OF EVOLUTION!
WARNING:
THINKING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FAITH! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
08 Aug 2007 09:48:44 PM |
|
|
Hi Mike,
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ueOsi.579$3x.339@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Gabriel wrote:
Hi Mike,
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Cpvsi.1895$ox5.1583@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
Gabriel wrote:
Hi Libertarius,
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:DN-dne0EX4I6gDDbnZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@comcast.com...
Evolution, like gravitation is a characteristic of Nature and
No, gravitation is observable, verifiable, testable.
Macro-evolution, or morphing of species into something drastically
different it never was before is not observable, verifiable,
testable. I'm glad you want to believe it is. Show evidence,
please. If not, thanks for sharing your opinion.
The sme is true for evolution. Your denial of it is about as valid as
denying gravity.
Gravity is observable: we see things fall to the ground.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely new
observable?
Gravity is verifiable. Anyone can drop their own objects and see they
fall as well.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely new
verifiable?
Gravity is testable. You can test that it's 9.8m/s^2 by running some
tests and seeing this take place.
Care to place a wager on any of the above stupid statement?
It's ironic that you try to point out how those statements are stupid by
saying "on any of the above stupid statement".
That's the problem with a limited education and looking things up on the
internet to prove a point.
Is this your evidence? Insults that ironically condemn you in the very
manner you seek to condemn?
You continue to offer your opinion laced with insults. I'm sorry it bothers
you to hear the truth. It was my intent to offer the truth to expose the
lies you've allowed yourself to believe. If your only ability in response to
that is anger and insults, it becomes clear being objective is one thing you
are not.
Please consider why you're unable to present "evidence" that has been
refuted many times. Until then, good luck.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely new
testable?
It's none of those things. It's not science. It's merely a belief that
relies on miracles: a religion. If it is any of those things, provide
the evidence. If you can't provide the evidence, but instead continue
to offer mere opinions, then even you realize but cannot admit the
real fact is, there _is_ no evidence.
But thanks for sharing your opinion.
It is the opinion of science that the science of evolution is science.
The evidence has been presenteds to you time and again. Your claiming it
has not been simply shows those who read this how vapid your claims are.
You and your kind move more and more people from your brand of theism to
athesim far better than we can.
Keep up the good work.
it would exist even if every human being would "reject" it.
Of course that would have to be the result of all humans being born
without the capacity to think, AS A RESULT OF EVOLUTION!
WARNING:
THINKING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FAITH! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
09 Aug 2007 01:27:29 PM |
|
|
Gabriel wrote:
Hi Mike,
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ueOsi.579$3x.339@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Gabriel wrote:
Hi Mike,
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Cpvsi.1895$ox5.1583@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
Gabriel wrote:
Hi Libertarius,
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:DN-dne0EX4I6gDDbnZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@comcast.com...
Evolution, like gravitation is a characteristic of Nature and
No, gravitation is observable, verifiable, testable.
Macro-evolution, or morphing of species into something drastically
different it never was before is not observable, verifiable,
testable. I'm glad you want to believe it is. Show evidence,
please. If not, thanks for sharing your opinion.
The sme is true for evolution. Your denial of it is about as valid
as denying gravity.
Gravity is observable: we see things fall to the ground.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely
new observable?
Gravity is verifiable. Anyone can drop their own objects and see
they fall as well.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely
new verifiable?
Gravity is testable. You can test that it's 9.8m/s^2 by running some
tests and seeing this take place.
Care to place a wager on any of the above stupid statement?
It's ironic that you try to point out how those statements are stupid
by saying "on any of the above stupid statement".
Your statements have passed the point where they can be attributed to
ignornace.
That's the problem with a limited education and looking things up on
the internet to prove a point.
Is this your evidence? Insults that ironically condemn you in the very
manner you seek to condemn?
It is evidence that you do not have a knowleedge of science, what it is or
how it works.
You continue to offer your opinion laced with insults. I'm sorry it
bothers you to hear the truth. It was my intent to offer the truth to
expose the lies you've allowed yourself to believe. If your only
ability in response to that is anger and insults, it becomes clear
being objective is one thing you are not.
Please consider why you're unable to present "evidence" that has been
refuted many times. Until then, good luck.
It is science that makes the statements and you that have an opinion.
Anyone with a clear understanding of science or what a theory is knows this.
Your inane remarks only satisfy people that think as you do. Those that want
to learn will do so and find how wrong you are.
You and your kind do more for eradicating fundamental religion from the
world than we ever could.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
03 Aug 2007 05:59:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:05:42 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
<WCGsi.394089$p47.137686@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
Hi Mike,
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Cpvsi.1895$ox5.1583@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
Gabriel wrote:
Hi Libertarius,
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:DN-dne0EX4I6gDDbnZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@comcast.com...
Evolution, like gravitation is a characteristic of Nature and
No, gravitation is observable, verifiable, testable. Macro-evolution,
or morphing of species into something drastically different it never
was before is not observable, verifiable, testable. I'm glad you want
to believe it is. Show evidence, please. If not, thanks for sharing
your opinion.
The sme is true for evolution. Your denial of it is about as valid as
denying gravity.
Gravity is observable: we see things fall to the ground.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely new
observable?
Gravity is verifiable. Anyone can drop their own objects and see they fall
as well.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely new
verifiable?
Gravity is testable. You can test that it's 9.8m/s^2 by running some tests
and seeing this take place.
But, of course, gravity isn't 9.8 m/s^2, that is just an acceleration
rate on one particular planet. That acceleration rate is not shared by
anything else in that planetary system.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely new
testable?
You wouldn't be able to do it because you refuse to learn how science
works. Others look at the actual reasons and study what caused it, just
as they didn't just conclude that gravity was 9.8 m/s^2 and ignore the
reasons or variability.
It's none of those things.
You've stated that falsehood and been corrected on it in the past. Stop
lying.
It's not science.
You've stated that falsehood and been corrected on it in the past. Stop
lying.
It's merely a belief that relies on miracles: a religion.
You've stated that falsehood and been corrected on it in the past. Stop
lying.
If it is any of those things, provide the
evidence.
People have pointed you to places to study the evidence. Apparently you
are incapable of understanding what biologists have been discovering
over the past century and a half, so you deny that they are doing
science rather than admit that you are completely unable to understand
the science that they have done.
If you can't provide the evidence, but instead continue to offer
mere opinions, then even you realize but cannot admit the real fact is,
there _is_ no evidence.
You have been offered a chance to look at the evidence. You have
rejected it. You have lied instead.
But thanks for sharing your opinion.
My opinion is that you are an enemy of knowledge and that you have no
justification for repeating the lies that you tell. This opinion is
supported by the lies you tell here.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
03 Aug 2007 09:05:42 AM |
|
|
Hi Mike,
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Cpvsi.1895$ox5.1583@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
Gabriel wrote:
Hi Libertarius,
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:DN-dne0EX4I6gDDbnZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@comcast.com...
Evolution, like gravitation is a characteristic of Nature and
No, gravitation is observable, verifiable, testable. Macro-evolution,
or morphing of species into something drastically different it never
was before is not observable, verifiable, testable. I'm glad you want
to believe it is. Show evidence, please. If not, thanks for sharing
your opinion.
The sme is true for evolution. Your denial of it is about as valid as
denying gravity.
Gravity is observable: we see things fall to the ground.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely new
observable?
Gravity is verifiable. Anyone can drop their own objects and see they fall
as well.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely new
verifiable?
Gravity is testable. You can test that it's 9.8m/s^2 by running some tests
and seeing this take place.
How is species morphing over generations into something completely new
testable?
It's none of those things. It's not science. It's merely a belief that
relies on miracles: a religion. If it is any of those things, provide the
evidence. If you can't provide the evidence, but instead continue to offer
mere opinions, then even you realize but cannot admit the real fact is,
there _is_ no evidence.
But thanks for sharing your opinion.
it would exist even if every human being would "reject" it.
Of course that would have to be the result of all humans being born
without the capacity to think, AS A RESULT OF EVOLUTION!
WARNING:
THINKING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FAITH! -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
19 Aug 2007 07:22:45 AM |
|
|
On Aug 2, 8:20 pm, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Libertarius,
"Libertarius" <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:DN-dne0EX4I6gDDbnZ2dnUVZ_sOrnZ2d@comcast.com...
Evolution, like gravitation is a characteristic of Nature and
No, gravitation is observable, verifiable,
So is evolution.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
19 Aug 2007 07:21:44 AM |
|
|
On Jul 27, 10:30 am, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
you clearly have no idea why I posted this list.
Not true. You posted the list in an attempt to deceive people. You
failed miserably.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
26 Jul 2007 05:24:41 PM |
|
|
On Jul 26, 9:33 am, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Kate,
"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:471a0e3c.2250125187@news-west.newscene.com...
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:55:54 GMT, "Gabriel"
<gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Mike,
"Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zjVoi.10285$eY.1078@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
For those of you following the religion of evolution, or wondering
if you should, it might seriously help you to notice how the vast
majority of the time these followers don't offer proof, just
opinions and often insults. It's clearly not a science they're
following, but a religion that breeds hate and contempt.
It's clear from the above that the writer does not know much about
science.
It is also true that "vast majority of the time these followers don't
offer proof..." which, as I said shows the writer knows little about
science.
Now first of all, I'm amazed that you know all 300+ of those people.
300 PhD's without a belief in evolution? Is that supposed to be a big
number? I suspect it is far larger than that.
You make it clear you have no idea why that list was posted. Tell you
what,
to avoid behaving like a hypocrite, you might want to instead read the
original post and read why I posted that list, and what it shows (and more
important what I never claimed it shows).
What, that someone created a list of people with fake and bad Phds?
So you know all 300+ of these people? This is important information indeed.
Please back up this opinion and show us exactly what you know of all 300 of
these PhDs to prove they are "fake" and "bad" PhDs, rather than expecting
everyone to just take your word for it.
If you don't do this, please forgive us for concluding the obvious, that
you're lying. What was that about needing dishonesty to push a religion?
Because you're using dishonesty to push your religion of evolution. Thanks
for being another example of the most common reaction to the religion of
evolution being shown for what it truly is when its gaping flaws and lies
are revealed: a religion masquerading as science.
You have that proven to you already. That you continue to lie about
it is proof that you are dishonest.
But you need dishonesty to push creationism.
Thanks for showing the world that yet again.
Gabriel is obviously a typical "Christian" who cherry-picks and makes
unsupported assertions to support his fantasy. What else is new?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
26 Jul 2007 09:27:05 PM |
|
|
Hi Andres,
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1185488681.876195.122920@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 26, 9:33 am, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Kate,
"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:471a0e3c.2250125187@news-west.newscene.com...
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:55:54 GMT, "Gabriel"
<gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Mike,
"Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:zjVoi.10285$eY.1078@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
For those of you following the religion of evolution, or wondering
if you should, it might seriously help you to notice how the vast
majority of the time these followers don't offer proof, just
opinions and often insults. It's clearly not a science they're
following, but a religion that breeds hate and contempt.
It's clear from the above that the writer does not know much about
science.
It is also true that "vast majority of the time these followers don't
offer proof..." which, as I said shows the writer knows little about
science.
Now first of all, I'm amazed that you know all 300+ of those
people.
300 PhD's without a belief in evolution? Is that supposed to be a big
number? I suspect it is far larger than that.
You make it clear you have no idea why that list was posted. Tell you
what,
to avoid behaving like a hypocrite, you might want to instead read the
original post and read why I posted that list, and what it shows (and
more
important what I never claimed it shows).
What, that someone created a list of people with fake and bad Phds?
So you know all 300+ of these people? This is important information
indeed.
Please back up this opinion and show us exactly what you know of all 300
of
these PhDs to prove they are "fake" and "bad" PhDs, rather than expecting
everyone to just take your word for it.
If you don't do this, please forgive us for concluding the obvious, that
you're lying. What was that about needing dishonesty to push a religion?
Because you're using dishonesty to push your religion of evolution.
Thanks
for being another example of the most common reaction to the religion of
evolution being shown for what it truly is when its gaping flaws and lies
are revealed: a religion masquerading as science.
You have that proven to you already. That you continue to lie about
it is proof that you are dishonest.
But you need dishonesty to push creationism.
Thanks for showing the world that yet again.
Gabriel is obviously a typical "Christian" who cherry-picks and makes
unsupported assertions to support his fantasy. What else is new?
Translation: you don't have the information, but you want your opinion to
stand as fact that this is true. Funny thing is, this is exactly what so
many people who believe in the religion of evolution do as well when asked
to show evidence. Why am I not surprised you're not going to back up this
claim about these PhDs. (a statement, not a question).
Thanks for your bigoted opinion then.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
27 Jul 2007 07:00:18 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:27:05 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<ZJcqi.5062$ax1.1937@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
Translation: you don't have the information, but you want your opinion to
stand as fact that this is true. Funny thing is, this is exactly what so
many people who believe in the religion of evolution do as well when asked
to show evidence. Why am I not surprised you're not going to back up this
claim about these PhDs. (a statement, not a question).
Thanks for your bigoted opinion then.
I have taken a look through this thread and I have not seen anything
from you regarding the science of evolutionary biology. I saw the
combo argument from authority and argumentum ad populo and I have seen
complaints that you were insulted, but no mention of science. If you
are interested in discussing some aspect of the science of
evolutionary biology or if you are interested in arguing that
creationism or Intelligent Design is science, then go ahead and I will
join you. If all you have is a irrelevant list of names and a thin
skin, then I will leave you alone.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
27 Jul 2007 08:18:58 AM |
|
|
Hi Matt,
Here it is again (it's in 3-4 places now, including another thread titled
evolution):
Here's why evolution is not only a belief, and not even close to being
science. And actually evidence it's false, as if what they claim is true,
there should easily be a certain kind of evidence, and that evidence does
not exist.
This needs to be reposted because many (not all) evolutionists don't like to
read other posts and instead insist on asking the same questions that have
been debunked in numerous posts. So this document serves as doing their work
for them and bringing the argument right back in front of them so they can
keep from avoiding the truth.
[1] A clarification: Macro-evolution (morphing) is what's required here, not
micro-evolution (a species remaining the same species it always was, with no
suddenly shocking additions or subtractions that no one else of its species
has ever had before). Evolutionists want to act like it's the same thing as
a person being born with different color eyes as their neighbor being born
with signs of the early stages of man growing wings. Perhaps many
generations from now his neighbor's family will be the first to take flight
with their newly morphed bodies that now have wings. That's the critical
difference between micro and macro evolution (morphing into something quite
drastically new and different).
[1a] Micro-evolution is as follows. We already know that dogs give birth to
other dogs, but those dogs will look a little different. Same with eagles
giving birth to eagles. Whales giving birth to whales. People giving birth
to people. That's micro-evolution. They are still dogs, giraffes, eagles,
whales and people, but with cosmetic, non-significant differences. Mutts
where different dogs mate, producing non-pure breeds of dogs. They look
different but they are still dogs. They don't suddenly show signs of growing
wings, or gills, or scales, and so on. Micro-evolution.
By contrast, eagles never end up with signs of gills, whales never end up
with signs of wings, dogs never end up with signs of feathers and people
never end up with signs of gills. They don't even show up with miniscule
signs or hints of any of these things that might progress in future
generations. So these small changes that do not change what they still are:
dogs, giraffes, eagles, whales, people. This is micro-evolution. Nothing
surprising. This is observable, verifiable and testable that creatures give
birth to other creatures that have completely identical functionality and
structure, but with small insignificant cosmetic changes like different eye
color, or very slight feature differences.
[1b] Now take Macro-evolution. This is now what they try to claim. That over
many generations, for example, dogs might morph (evolving over time) into
flying creatures. Or that giraffes, over many generations, might grow gills
and take to the ocean instead as catfish. They are no longer giraffes or
dogs. They are now something completely new and different, with completely
new functionality and structure. This is macro-evolution. There is no
evidence of this at all. (Except that the opinion that there's evidence, but
when put to the question to provide the evidence, they just offer their
opinion again).
[2] Macro-evolution, or the morphing of creatures over time into something
completely different, is not testable, verifiable, or observable. It's not
truly science. It's never been observed. It can't be tested. It's in no way
verifiable. That being said it's not falsifiable. You can't falsify
something that's not even testable, observable, or verifiable. This makes
macro-evolution fail as actual science, and shows it for what it really is:
wishful thinking. A belief. A belief that requires a miracle for every
single case where a creature was claimed to morph into something it wasn't
over time. But miracles are not something foreign to us. This lack of it
being any science coupled with all the miracles necessary for their beliefs
to be true are really something else. More succinctly: a new religion, but
one that's dishonestly masquerading as science.
[3] The evidence they have is either no evidence at all, or evidence equally
of creation by design or creation by evolution.
[3a] They use fossils as evidence of this morphing (macro-evolution), but it's
nothing of the kind. They take all the fossils they have, go on the
_presupposition_ that they must have evolved from each other, and slot them
in a diagram, drawing arrows and claim "this is how they evolved". What
evidence do they have of this? Just their opinion and the arrows they drew.
This is circular reasoning.
[3b] Things looking similar, structurally (and from a homology point of
view), but being different species, is not evidence they evolved from each
other. It's just as much evidence of creation by design that they have
structural similarity. If you don't get this concept, look at two successive
designs of cars. They have very similar physical structure. Using their
logic, we should instantly proclaim "they evolved from each other!", slot
them, and draw an arrow from one to the other. When someone questions us on
how we really know they evolved from each other, the evolutionist would say
"they look similar. Look and see". The response would be, no, we know they
were designed, because we know of the mechanism. You only assumed they
evolved from each other because it was wishful thinking applied to them, and
you assumed they evolved.
[3c] No evidence of intermediate forms. This is a serious lack of evidence
they are desperate to find, as they know it shows how false their religion
is. It's why so many intermediate forms of fossils get faked, because many
know how desperate they are for these fossils.
If evolution (morphing) took place gradually like they claim, for example a
dog-like creature into an eagle over many generations, times the millions of
morphing processes that should have taken place to generate the millions of
different species, there should be a _ton_ of intermediate forms, forms that
show a dog in the mid stages of it's evolution (morphing, really) into an
eagle, and so on. There's not _one_ of these intermediate forms found. Only
forms of micro-evolution, but none of these macro-evolution morphing
processes. This is direct counter-evidence to evolution being true at all.
Even if they found one case, only _one_?! There should be as many of these
intermediate forms as there are original forms of fossils and later forms of
fossils they like to _claim_ were created by evolution. Of dogs suddenly
showing up with the early signs of wings. Of giraffes showing up with the
early signs of gills and growing fins. There are _none_. But they'll give
you their opinion that there are, and never show any. They think their
opinion "yes, it's true" or "yes, there's evidence" equates to it actually
being so. If anything, it's more proof they know they don't have anything,
and that the person in question is just being dishonest.
[3d] DNA similarities. This also is not evidence of only evolution. If it
was creation by design, it's common sense they would also share similarities
of DNA, as DNA are the building blocks. It's like computers that have some
information in common, some not. DNA similarity is as much evidence of
evolution as it is evidence of creation by a designer. So this evidence used
to back up evolution is invalid, and nothing more than wishful thinking in
the face of ignorance of how it's simultaneously evidence of creation by
design.
[3e] They try to "argue from ignorance", claiming that since they think
creation by design is not true, that automatically makes creation by
morphing (evolution) true. First of all they don't know for a fact creation
by design is false. Second of all, from a scientific point of view, they don't
know if perhaps theirs another possibility out there they have yet to
discover or consider.
[4] Mechanism
It comes down to needing evidence or proof of the _mechanism_. In the car
example above, we know the mechanism is an actual human designer. But the
evidence of the cars using the same steel (like DNA), the same electrical
design, extremely similar body design, both having headlights, engines,
windshields, and suddenly a person who ignores the mechanism, and goes on
the presupposition of evolution must be true, would instantly claim "they
evolved! And look at all the evidence that they did so!" but of course you
can see that the evidence they pointed to is evidence that was really there
because of creation by design. But they erroneously, due to their need for
their presupposition to be true, and their inability to consider how it's
really evidence of other things too, mislead themselves and others into
thinking it means "evolution (morphing)" but it doesn't at _all_. This is
exactly what they do with the so called "evidence" they claim for evolution
in nature. But the fact is this evidence in nature as already mentioned
(DNA, homology, structural similarities) is as much evidence of creation by
design as it is of morphing (evolution).
What they need to show to make the correct distinction, like the car
example, is the _mechanism_ of how this miracle is possible. And a miracle
it is, as all creatures only give birth to creatures that have a mix of what
their parents had, not sudden new features that no parent ever had before,
or even signs of this new feature. It's this serious lack of evidence they
know they don't have either.
[5] Faked evidence and lies.
[5a] People have faked fossils of intermediate forms, and before they were
verified, the plaster it all over the news to affect the prejudices of
people who barely ever look into the subject (which are most of the
followers of this religion). Then when they're found to be faked, you'll
only see a tiny retraction. It's very telling how in most of science, new
findings are reported to the scientific community first for verification and
edification. Not so in evolution: they plaster it in news first before it's
even verified as accurate, if not an outright lie. Very telling.
[5b] There have been lies created to support this religion of evolution.
Lies as old as 140+ years that are still being passed off in high school and
college textbooks even _today_.
[6] Science is not the begetter of all truths of the universe. To show the
fallacy of this: science cannot even prove they are the begetter of all
knowledge. There are things that science is not capable of figuring out. For
them to reject creationism just because it brings God into play, of which
they are impotent to deal with, since they can't deal with the thought of
being impotent on a specific topic, they instead reject that possibility for
this reason. To avoid feeling like science is inadequate in _some_ ways, and
even more to continue feeling like science is the begetter of all truths. It's
not. Something for them to consider, which most of them won't. Science has
it's uses and has shown itself to be very useful. We're finding out more and
more science has its obvious limitations. But many can't stand this thought,
and instead will completely deny the existence of anything that shows this.
The real truth science can offer at this point about creation, and whether
it's by design, evolution or something else, the honest answer would be "we
have no idea". Now that's honesty.
In conclusion, here are a few resources to consider that offer even more
information. Those who believe in the religion of evolution will dismiss
these books with a mere comment or two, but for those sincerely interested
in what scientists who are objective have to show on the topic, makes for an
informational read.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan,
2004
Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, Md.: Adler &
Adler, 1986.
Hanegraaff, Hank. The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution.
Nashville: Word, 1998.
Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press,
second edition. 1993.
Wells, Jonathan. Icons of Evolution. Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2000.
Those who want to convince you of their religion of evolution make you
swallow something _like_ this:
Great grandmother of a whale? Fruit fly.
Great grandmother of a giraffe? Fruit fly.
Great grandmother of the eagle? Fruit fly.
Great grandmother of Bob? Fruit fly.
Great grandmother of Susan? Fruit fly.
[And the list goes on for millions of entries]
So fruit flies were born (or some other miniscule organism), and some of
them over time decided they'd grow insanely long necks and become giraffes.
Others decided they'd change over time and grow fins and gills and become
whales. Others decided they'd grow wings and become eagles. Others decided
they'd grow legs and a superior brain with self-awareness and the ability to
have philosophical thought and to worship a God. Wow, what a huge set of
insane miracles that would be! How are such miracles possible?!!
Do they have any proof of mechanism on how millions of such miraculous
transformations could take place? No.
Do they have any proof that it's not by design? No.
Do they have any fossils that clearly show this? No.
Do they have any fossils of intermediate forms? No.
By contrast:
Anyone ever fake fossils to try selling it, since they're so desperate to
find one? Yes.
Anyone fake "scientific" data to support evolution? Yes.
Even today is faked science still in textbooks on evolution? Yes.
So, you want to rather admit that you have no more proof that it's evolution
than you claim a lack of evidence that it's design? [silence]
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:rcnja3lovbpjjof409smu9fqn2958ispkr@4ax.com...
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:27:05 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<ZJcqi.5062$ax1.1937@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
Translation: you don't have the information, but you want your opinion to
stand as fact that this is true. Funny thing is, this is exactly what so
many people who believe in the religion of evolution do as well when asked
to show evidence. Why am I not surprised you're not going to back up this
claim about these PhDs. (a statement, not a question).
Thanks for your bigoted opinion then.
I have taken a look through this thread and I have not seen anything
from you regarding the science of evolutionary biology. I saw the
combo argument from authority and argumentum ad populo and I have seen
complaints that you were insulted, but no mention of science. If you
are interested in discussing some aspect of the science of
evolutionary biology or if you are interested in arguing that
creationism or Intelligent Design is science, then go ahead and I will
join you. If all you have is a irrelevant list of names and a thin
skin, then I will leave you alone.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
27 Jul 2007 12:35:40 PM |
|
|
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
[1] A clarification: Macro-evolution (morphing) is what's required here, not
micro-evolution (a species remaining the same species it always was, with no
suddenly shocking additions or subtractions that no one else of its species
has ever had before).
Your clarification is one of ignorance. A sufficient number of
"micro-evolutionary" changes will eventually amount to what you would
call a "macro-evolutionary" change. It won't look like it until
afterwards, and then only by looking at fossil examples over a very
large period of time.
Evolutionists want to act like it's the same thing as
a person being born with different color eyes
It is.
as their neighbor being born with signs of the early stages of man growing wings.
Assuming that there was any sort of evolutionary pressure for man to
grow wings (there isn't), what sort of sign would one find? The
answer is "none". Only after hundreds of generations of *continued*
change would one even perceive a noticeable difference between those
under evolutionary pressure to grow wings and everyone else.
Since growing wings in itself isn't a particularly useful thing
(ostriches have wings), one would also expect to see other changes
consistent with a move towards flight. The sort of thing we see in
some dinosaur fossils.
Perhaps many generations from now his neighbor's family will be the first to take flight
with their newly morphed bodies that now have wings.
Not likely.
There is no reason for human beings to have wings.
And evolving bodies don't "morph". You've been watching too many
cartoons.
[1a] Micro-evolution is as follows. We already know that dogs give birth to
other dogs, but those dogs will look a little different. Same with eagles
giving birth to eagles. Whales giving birth to whales. People giving birth
to people. That's micro-evolution. They are still dogs, giraffes, eagles,
whales and people, but with cosmetic, non-significant differences.
Who are YOU to say what is "significant"?
By contrast, eagles never end up with signs of gills,
But lungfish started growing lungs while still retaining gills.
Probably they weren't originally for breathing purposes, but then
primordial lungfish who had these lungs were able to survive a little
longer in shallow water. Enhancing the oxygen transfer to the blood
in such lungs allowed them to survive still longer. Fins that were a
little longer and stronger and thus able to propel them from one tidal
pool to another tidal pool provided another difference. But on the
surface, the difference between a lungfish that can spend long times
on land is not that great from one that cannot spend any time. You
might call it insignificant. But it may have been sufficient to
separate fish from amphibians.
whales never end up with signs of wings,
But they do have vestigial signs of legs, from when their ancestors
still walked.
dogs never end up with signs of feathers and people never end up with signs of gills.
Why would you think that such major changes would show up in a single
generation.
They don't even show up with miniscule
signs or hints of any of these things that might progress in future
generations.
Actually they do. The problem is that one does not know what to look
for until after the change has fully developed.
Looking at genes, we may start to figure out the detailed mechanisms.
thereby identifying some series of dozens of mutations that led from
limbs to wings. But we don't need to know the specific sequence to
know that it happens.
[1b] Now take Macro-evolution. This is now what they try to claim. That over
many generations, for example, dogs might morph (evolving over time) into
flying creatures. Or that giraffes, over many generations, might grow gills
and take to the ocean instead as catfish. They are no longer giraffes or
dogs.
Like whales might return to the sea, grow fins, and lose their legs.
As in fact they did. Like horses might lose most of their toes, and
turn a toenail into a hoof.
They are now something completely new and different, with completely
new functionality and structure.
But of course the functionality and structure is NOT completely new
and different. An arm and a wing are not all that different. A
webbed foot on a duck is not that different from a non-webbed foot.
And human beings are occasionally born with such webbing
This is macro-evolution. There is no evidence of this at all.
There is plenty of evidence. You just are clueless as to what would
constitute evidence.
[2] Macro-evolution, or the morphing of creatures over time into something
completely different, is not testable, verifiable, or observable.
Wrong.
A belief that requires a miracle for every
single case where a creature was claimed to morph into something it wasn't
over time.
No miracles are needed. Not one.
[3] The evidence they have is either no evidence at all, or evidence equally
of creation by design or creation by evolution.
The problem is that creation requires a creator, and there is no
evidence of such a creator. The net result is that postulating a
creator provides no new predictions different from the same changes
occurring without a creator. We have established that the changes CAN
occur without a creator merely by observing that the gene sequences
are similar. (and we have determined that there are some genes where
even a single point mutation can have an *enormous* change in the
creature that results - they are called homeobox genes - you might
call these "morphs" but they really are no different than any other
mutation.)
[3a] They use fossils as evidence of this morphing (macro-evolution), but it's
nothing of the kind. They take all the fossils they have, go on the
_presupposition_ that they must have evolved from each other, and slot them
in a diagram, drawing arrows and claim "this is how they evolved". What
evidence do they have of this?
The evidence is that they can make predictions about fossils that they
have NOT looked at, and find that those predictions hold up.
Just their opinion and the arrows they drew. This is circular reasoning.
It gets useful results.
[3b] Things looking similar, structurally (and from a homology point of
view), but being different species, is not evidence they evolved from each
other. It's just as much evidence of creation by design that they have
structural similarity. If you don't get this concept, look at two successive
designs of cars. They have very similar physical structure. Using their
logic, we should instantly proclaim "they evolved from each other!", slot
them, and draw an arrow from one to the other.
In a sense, they did. But it wasn't biogenetic evolution. If you
don't think GM doesn't pay attention to what Ford, Toyota and Mercedes
are doing, and apply some of the ideas to the new generations of GM
cars, you are hopeless.
Not that this is relevant.
When someone questions us on
how we really know they evolved from each other, the evolutionist would say
"they look similar. Look and see".
That is not the sole basis. That is PART of the argument.
[3c] No evidence of intermediate forms.
The theory of evolution does not predict intermediate forms.
*Everything* is an intermediate form.
This is a serious lack of evidence they are desperate to find,
No one is desperate to find any such thing.
It's why so many intermediate forms of fossils get faked, because many
know how desperate they are for these fossils.
No. They get fake by ignoramuses like you that misunderstand what an
"intermediate form" would be, and who therefore think they can pull
one over on scientists. They can sometimes fool the ignorant public
for a time and make money, but the scientists can and do figure it
out, usually rather quickly.
If evolution (morphing) took place gradually like they claim, for example a
dog-like creature into an eagle over many generations, times the millions of
morphing processes that should have taken place to generate the millions of
different species, there should be a _ton_ of intermediate forms,
There are. There are millions of species of life on earth, and an
enormous variety of forms within individual species
Dogs show this really strongly, though that happens only by artificial
breeding control. Indeed dogs show what would be possible with
*designed* evolution, wherein a few hundred years can produce
chihuahuas and St Bernards, poodles, dachshunds and dobermans - a
rather extreme difference of forms, and yet they are all one species,
and a couple generations of interbreeding and their descendants are
mutts not necessarily distinguishable from any other.
Separate the breeds geographically, and another million years of
continued NATURAL evolution and the descendants of St Bernards and
chihuahuas likely will not be able to interbreed. With human control,
the separation could come much sooner.
forms that
show a dog in the mid stages of it's evolution (morphing, really) into an
eagle, and so on.
A dog would not evolve into an eagle.
Only if there was a sustained evolutionary reason to do so, would a
dog evolve into a flying dog, which wouldn't likely resemble an eagle
very much. There is no such reason, so it won't happen.
There's not _one_ of these intermediate forms found. Only
forms of micro-evolution, but none of these macro-evolution morphing
processes.
There is no such thing as a "morphing process".
[remaining crap snipped -- you simply don't have a clue what you are
talking about]
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
27 Jul 2007 01:27:09 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:18:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Gabriel"
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> in
<6hmqi.373398$p47.237316@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Hi Matt,
Here it is again (it's in 3-4 places now, including another thread titled
evolution):
Here's why evolution is not only a belief, and not even close to being
science. And actually evidence it's false, as if what they claim is true,
there should easily be a certain kind of evidence, and that evidence does
not exist.
This needs to be reposted because many (not all) evolutionists don't like to
read other posts and instead insist on asking the same questions that have
been debunked in numerous posts. So this document serves as doing their work
for them and bringing the argument right back in front of them so they can
keep from avoiding the truth.
[1] A clarification: Macro-evolution (morphing)
That is not what macro-evolution means. If you are going to discuss
science, us the scientific definitions of words. Macro-evolution is
evolution at or above the species level. It has been observed many
times.
is what's required here, not
micro-evolution (a species remaining the same species it always was, with no
suddenly shocking additions or subtractions that no one else of its species
has ever had before).
Evolution is about stepwise change to populations, something we
observe. "Suddenly shocking additions or subtractions" sounds like
creationism.
Evolutionists want to act like it's the same thing as
a person being born with different color eyes as their neighbor being born
with signs of the early stages of man growing wings. Perhaps many
generations from now his neighbor's family will be the first to take flight
with their newly morphed bodies that now have wings. That's the critical
difference between micro and macro evolution (morphing into something quite
drastically new and different).
Have you bothered to look at actual evolutionary biology material? I
ask because your description does not sound like the real thing.
Evolution is change over time, not sudden changes.
[1a] Micro-evolution is as follows.
No, it is not.
We already know that dogs give birth to
other dogs, but those dogs will look a little different. Same with eagles
giving birth to eagles. Whales giving birth to whales.
There are many species of eagles and many species of whales.
People giving birth
to people. That's micro-evolution.
No, it is not. Micro-evolution is that each of those births has a few
mutations, each generation sees some selection and some drift. Those
*changes* are micro-evolution.
They are still dogs, giraffes, eagles,
whales and people, but with cosmetic, non-significant differences.
Where did this "cosmetic" come from? Plenty of changes are not simply
cosmetic, they are both internal and significant. Again, this is well
observed.
Mutts
where different dogs mate, producing non-pure breeds of dogs. They look
different but they are still dogs. They don't suddenly show signs of growing
wings, or gills, or scales, and so on. Micro-evolution.
Sorry, but this has nothing to do with evolution. Cross-breeding is
not mutation.
By contrast, eagles never end up with signs of gills, whales never end up
with signs of wings, dogs never end up with signs of feathers and people
never end up with signs of gills. They don't even show up with miniscule
signs or hints of any of these things that might progress in future
generations.
How do you know that they are not showing the "miniscule" signs of
some changes that will cause significant changes in the future? How do
you know that these small incremental changes will not add up to
something significant in the future?
[snip]
[1b] Now take Macro-evolution. This is now what they try to claim.
And observe:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common
Descent
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Some More Observed Speciation Events
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
That over
many generations, for example, dogs might morph (evolving over time) into
flying creatures.
Nope, not "morphing". Your attack a strawman. Try this: over time the
population descended from current dogs will have significantly
different characteristics than current dogs.
Or that giraffes, over many generations, might grow gills
and take to the ocean instead as catfish.
You seem to have a gill obsession.
They are no longer giraffes or
dogs. They are now something completely new and different, with completely
new functionality and structure. This is macro-evolution.
No, it is not. "Completely new" is creationism, evolution is about
*change*. Actual gills and human ear bones are modifications of the
same ancestral feature.
There is no
evidence of this at all. (Except that the opinion that there's evidence, but
when put to the question to provide the evidence, they just offer their
opinion again).
See above. The evidence for actual evolution is there.
[2] Macro-evolution, or the morphing of creatures over time into something
completely different, is not testable, verifiable, or observable. It's not
truly science. It's never been observed. It can't be tested. It's in no way
verifiable.
Repeating an unsupported claim ("opinion") does not make it supported.
[snip]
[3] The evidence they have is either no evidence at all, or evidence equally
of creation by design or creation by evolution.
How would you test creation? How would you test design? If you claim
they are sciences then you should know the tests.
[3a] They use fossils as evidence of this morphing (macro-evolution), but it's
nothing of the kind. They take all the fossils they have, go on the
_presupposition_ that they must have evolved from each other, and slot them
in a diagram, drawing arrows and claim "this is how they evolved". What
evidence do they have of this? Just their opinion and the arrows they drew.
This is circular reasoning.
This is an odd strawman, this is not how actual scientists work with
fossils. Here is something to read for some real science:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Fossil Horses FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/
[3b] Things looking similar, structurally (and from a homology point of
view), but being different species, is not evidence they evolved from each
other.
By itself similarity is not evidence. It is the *pattern*, the nested
tree of similarity, that shows common descent. (BTW, it is impossible
for two organisms to have evolved from each other. You might want to
re-think that claim.)
It's just as much evidence of creation by design that they have
structural similarity.
Everything is evidence for creationism. That is, no matter what we see
we can say "God did it". This makes creationism untestable and so not
science.
If you don't get this concept, look at two successive
designs of cars. They have very similar physical structure.
Descent with modification, right?
Using their
logic, we should instantly proclaim "they evolved from each other!",
That is such odd logic.
slot
them, and draw an arrow from one to the other. When someone questions us on
how we really know they evolved from each other, the evolutionist would say
"they look similar. Look and see". The response would be, no, we know they
were designed, because we know of the mechanism. You only assumed they
evolved from each other because it was wishful thinking applied to them, and
you assumed they evolved.
Here is one of the big difference between cars and biological
organisms: organisms reproduce themselves. We *observe* this
reproduction, we *observe* mutations (changes in inheritance).
< | | | | | |
