|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2534 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
I'm agreeing with you.
Well, stop it at once. It's confusing me. Willow: Sarcasm accomplishes nothing, Giles. Giles: It's sort of an end in itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 5914 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
Lynx,
1) I think the question was: why do you think scientists are wrong when it comes to evolution and the conclusions that have been drawn based on observation, and data gathered from various disciplines, etc. AND NOT when it comes to chemistry, biochemistry, physics 2) As far as the rest of what you have written: Your last paragraph can be summed up as a bushman's disbelief of "birds that carry people and feed them in flight". Even after knowing that evolution requires thousands and millions of years you still naively require evolution to occur right before your eyes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Monsieur Lynx says:
quote:This analogy is obviously meant to show how ridiculous the notion of common descent seems to you. Unfortunately, this analogy is just what would make sense if musical compositions reproduced themselves like living organisms do. Since biologists are studying living things, they can compare morphology and genomes to establish patterns of ancestry. We understand the variation-selection process and know where to look for links among classes of organisms. There's no need for a 'composer' if this mindless copying process does the composing. regards,Esteban "Ludwig van" Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Monsieur Lynx also says:
quote:Okay, and crabs produce crabs, right? Here's where the creationists get into their classic double-bind. There are nearly five thousand known species of crabs, all ten-legged crustaceans that walk sideways. Were all of these species 'created' specially? I mean, hermit crabs produce other hermit crabs and rock crabs produce rock crabs, but there's no problem visualizing that all crabs share a common ancestor, wouldn't you agree? Small changes have accumulated among these species to make them as different in size and habitat as the tiny white-tipped mud crab (which never grows over 20 mm) and the monstrous Japanese spider crab with its twelve-foot leg span. However, the diversity isn't limited to size. Marine crabs breathe through gills located in cavities underneath the carapace, while land crabs have modified cavities that act like lungs and allow them to breathe air. Either these closely-related species descended from a common ancestor and one branch evolved the ability to breathe outside water, or else marine crabs and land crabs were 'created' separately. Considering how demonstrably similar these species are in their morphology and their genes, which is the more plausible explanation? regards,Esteban "Crabs Again" Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Entirely incorrect. Please explain how creationists deal with the genetic, fossil, and morphological evidence that shows human/ape common ancestory.
quote: Bacteria have been shown to form multi-nucleated single cells in response to mucous production in humans, as well as multi-cellular bodies in response to predation small invertebrates. Bacteria do move from being single celled to multi-celled organisms. Also, would you consider a reptile to mammal transition as being micro-evolution. After all, they are both within the vertebrate kind.
quote: It is the non-functional DNA and morphological vestiges that point to common ancestory. Pseudogenes and ERV insertions are non-functional pieces of DNA that do not affect the organism, and therefore a creator would not have to put these DNA sequences in. Also, there are DNA sequences that differ but serve the same function. Cytochrome b, for example, differs in sequence between bacteria and pigs, but the pig version works just fine in bacteria. Why would a common creator make two different sequences that work equally in different organisms? Or, maybe this gene has gone through mutations and selective pressure has kept the same enzyme function even though amino acid and DNA sequence is different. This would mean that differences in cytochrome b should follow phylogenetic trees based on fossil evidence and morphology. Guess what? It does.
quote: The relationship between the age of the fossils, the phylogeny constructed with the fossils, and DNA similarities/dissimilarities is a slam dunk for evolution. Don't forget that evolution does not depend on fossils alone.
quote: And if we dig deeper, we find that the human and ape characteristics merge into a single common ancestor. You forgot that part. As we look at older and older fossils, the difference between what we consider "human" and what we consider "ape" becomes less and less. Human evolution is not and never was based on a single fossil species. It is the step-wise emergence of modern human characteristics in the fossil record that supports human evolution.
quote: I dare you to name one that is used to support evolution today.
quote: And those bits of evidence were thrown out by evolutionists. If you want to see forgeries, look at the creationist camps. Robert Gentry (polonium haloes) had to admit in court that he falsified his data. Fraud will always happen, what matters is the willingness to out the frauds. Creationists simply won't admit to wrong doing, while evolutionists reveal fraud within their ranks quickly and judiciously.
quote: Again, the relationship between DNA sequences is directly related to the time span since common ancestory. Therefore, we would expect that humans and chimps would have more similar DNA than humans and plants since humans/chimps share a more recent common ancestory. The point that creationists won't fess up to is that there is a direct relationship between the order of the fossils in the ground and the DNA found in living organisms today. Perhaps you can be the first.
quote: Actually, one of the most basic biological laws (evolution) states that this is exactly what happened. There are fish today that can live both in water using gills and fins, and on land using the same fins to walk on mud and air sacs for breathing air. In the fossil record, we have fossils that possess both reptillian and avian features. Why is that? We also have fossils that have both retpillian and mammalian charateristics. Why is that? Maybe because they are evolving?
quote: Asexual organisms still produce offspring that are not genetically identical. Mutations occur during replication which is then filtered through natural selection. Some species of sexual reproducing organisms have both male and female reproductive organs in a single individual. Some species alternate between male and female. This alone is enough to bridge the gap between separate sexes. Also, even bacteria trade DNA through sex pilli and through absorbing exogenous DNA from the environment. So even the most primitive organisms exchange DNA.
quote: I believe that in agriculture many of the seedless varieties were bred from seed bearing varieties.
quote: Your view of biological history is very narrow, and is limited to your lifetime. Try to take the long view. How about this analogy. I am walking in downtown New York. I come across a building site where they are constructing a sky scraper. I say, "That's impossible, humans can't build something that tall. It was a god of somekind that built those other skyscrapers." Sure enough, I stand there for 5 minutes and there is no sky scraper. Can I now say that only gods can build sky scrapers and not humans?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Itachi Uchiha Member (Idle past 5615 days) Posts: 272 From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco Joined: |
I dont think science is bad at all and i'm I am a creationist. The part in which we all differ is the one that envolves origins. Science is good. Because of science we have all the technology and comodities that we have today. Whether God created everything or just a product of chance science is good.
Mathematics moves the world - Mathematics is the world
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
quote: There is no evidence for ape human ancestry. Many of them are either an ape or homosapien. Theres yet to be an undisputed inbetween.
quote: Fossils cannot be tested to a conclusive age. In fact, the fact that there still there, preserved. Points to a younger age. DNA similarities dont mean anything. Were similar to bananas. It doesnt mean or prove nothing.
quote: Natural selection has never worked to add new information that has been never present at least in observation today. However natural selection can work with information already present pointing to reduced information not gained, a mutation. To this day life has not arisen on its own from dead matter. Animals have always reproduced after their own kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I dont think science is bad at all and i'm I am a creationist. You misunderstand what is meant by "bad." We're not saying that it's bad like nuclear bombs are bad; we're saying it's bad science in the sense that it's promoted as science, but fails to adhere to important scientific methodologies, like falsification or the principle of parsimony. Bad science isn't actually science; it's sloppy thinking or outright deception gussied up with scientific trappings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
dupe post deleted.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-09-2004 01:04 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
There is no evidence for ape human ancestry. Many of them are either an ape or homosapien. Theres yet to be an undisputed inbetween. Where would you put austrolopithecines? "Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
I dont agree with evolution being bad science. I would never say that. I do believe they are wrong but it does not mean they are not science or bad science. There trying to prove origins by forms of natural processes. Thats cool, unfortunately the life from non-life bit destroys the theory as it has yet to be proven that life and complexity can arise on its own from dead matter. Even waving around billions of yrs anything can happen does not take anything away. Well maybe for evolutionist believers thinking yes well in a billion yrs maybe it can happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
quote: Dr Fred Spoor has done CAT scans of the inner ear region of some of these skulls which show that their semi-circular canals, which determine balance & ability to walk upright, 'resemble those of the extant great apes'. Lucy is just a 40% complete skeleton which has been imaginatively restored in museums to like a ape-women.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Evolution has nothing to do with life from non-life, thats abiogenesis. Evolution only has to do with life after it has appeared either through natural processes or a deistic creation...or panspermia, or alien seedings, or even some alien's realized acid trip.
"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
There is no evidence for ape human ancestry. Many of them are either an ape or homosapien. Theres yet to be an undisputed inbetween.
This is a great example of why creationism isn't science. There are a whole range of anatomical intermediates from the australopithecines to "archaic" Homo Sapiens. Creationists call the more ape-like examples ape - so they can ignore the fact that the fossils are more human-like than any existing ape. Creationists call the most human-like examples "fully human" - so they can ignore the fact that they are more ape-like than modern humans. The evidence exists. Creationists do not interpret it differently - they just pretend that it is not there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
I think thats because the origins is so bankrupt that they have moved it aside and promoted as not having anything to do with evolution. Evolutionists give it the term chemical evolution or prebiotic evolution. Evolutionists also talk about the general theory of living things coming from a single cell & this single cell coming from non-living chemicals. So it is definately a part of evolutionary theory. Do move it aside is really to avoid the inevitable issue and serious problem for the ToE.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024