Fallacies of Evolution

Prunepicker, it is futile. Godless Leftists are as persistent as the Taliban, as ISIS, as Boko Haram, as Hezbollah.

 

The main error that people make with Science is that they think it proves anything.

Science is like a shovel. It is a tool.

 

You claimed there was no consensus. I showed you there is a 97% consensus. If you are going to argue consensus doesn't matter thats fine, just don't try to claim the consensus doesn't exist.

Almost all the people I met who didn't believe in evolution were creationists, and also believed in some religious explanation of how modern life originated. Despite your denial I strongly suspect the same applies to you. If I am wrong, then explain to me what really happened if evolution doesn't explain modern life.

I will take your word for it that you have looked around. Have you read the 29+ evidences for evolution in the talkorigins. If you had done online research you would have found this article.

See what you did there? I asked you how you know scientists are lying and manipulating data and you just repeat the claim without justifying it. If your conspiracy theory is true that there is some sort of scientific illuminati trying to brainwash people into believing evolution, then this would be a massive scandal and those found to be outright lying would probably lose their jobs and careers as falsifying scientific data is absolutely prohibited by laboratories and universities. If they used government funding for this false data they could even receive fines and jail time. Since you know of this abuse, present me with these dishonest scientists and I will caller their universities right now and try to start an investigation. Accusing someone of falsifying data in their career is a major accusation and such an attack on another person should only be done with solid evidence.

Where is it taught that one fossil in the ground is the direct ancestor of another fossil in the ground, e.g. that Homo Erectus evolved from Australopithecus Afarensis. And even if it was, this could be a mistake by textbook writers who are often English majors with no scientific experience. Also complex theories are often simplified, sometimes too much, to be understandable to the common person. This is an actual problem in schools that students are often taught things that are technically not entirely true and is seen in all fields. This is more of a problem with schools than the actual scientists.

I already explained this evidence multiple times and whenever I do you completely ignore it. The ordering of the fossils is unlikely if evolution wasn't true and that is the evidence.

This again. I already explained to you how this isn't really a problem, and how the transition of a family tree of species into new diverging species is what matters not the tiny changes in a single species which is just an arbitrary category forced on the fossil record.

 

Hmm... and yet those groups believe in Creationism too.

 

We already went over this. We both know that you will never be happy with any fossil evidence we give you since it would prove you wrong. But yes, slowly changing an organism until it is no longer the same organism is kind of how evolution works. See, there are no magical barriers that separate species. It's just us humans like things in tidy little categories. In reality, we are all single-cell organisms, we just figured out how to organize our clones into a useful transportation device to make it easier to find food and pass down our genetic material.

 

This is a very important, though counter intuitive point.
There is no objective reality underlying the word "species". It is an arbitrary linguistic concept... like hot, or red, or beautiful.

The word "species" corresponds with our observed reality that life clusters around certain arrangements of features that work best (are best adapted to the environment. But all sorts of other less common variants continue to exist... and may become dominant in a shifting environment. For example I have a cat that has 6 claws per paw instead of 5. This variant might become dominant over time, or that dominance might be geographically isolated.... and then continue to shift. So eventually you have lions, tigers, cougars, leopards, civets, house cats... etc

Cat lovers have inter bread some of these other cat species to get novel new cats... just as humans interbread with Neanderthals and denosivans. And presumably our ancient ancestors also interbread with other more primitive hominids. And which ever mix was most sucessful was the mix that survived.
And when a mix became dominant/prevalent, then we use an agreed linguistic conception and label it as a species. But there is no instant when a dog is suddenly a different species from a wolf... even though it is clear from DNA evidence that dogs emerged from wolf ancestors

 

Without wishing to read through this massive topic; There's arguably gaps in the scientific theory that have yet to be filled, but I consider it a matter of time. Scientific theories work like this: The Newton Law is a scientific theory, because if you want to disprove gravity, all you have to do is prove it doesn't work by for example, throwing an apple and see it float upwards. While it's possible to question evidence in support of evolution, I haven't seen any proof that disproves evolution if you don't consider the bible to be a valid scientific source.

I'd take a scientific theory with gaps and perhaps some inaccuracies over creationism that doesn't have anything to support itself.

 

I am merely an observer to this discussion. I like to learn more. The questions you pose I find to be honest questions that aren't adequately answered. It seems the supporters of TOE demand proof of everything, but when they run out of solid proof, they turn to their own brand of faith, which they deny.

 

A look at the otherside is in order. I'll get back to you regarding this after my visit to the Creation Museum in Louisville Ky. There are scientists that support thetheory of Creation and it is worth a glimpse.

 

I know there are scientists that support creationism, but the ones I looked at just attacked the evolution theory. I'll take a look at what you put down later.

 

Thank you for openly admitting your and PrunePicker's theist motivation for science denial.

 

The ideas put forward by creationists and believers in intelligent design are based totally on theological principals;there is no science behind it.

 

So you are just JAQing* off like prunepicker?

*JAQ =Just Asking Questions a common conspiracy theorists defence for ignorance.

 

There are former scientists and scientists and engineers with no specialisation in the field that support creationism as a 'scientific theory' (I refuse to capitalise any of that!).

These former scientists cannot be doing 'creation science' because I have not seen a single paper published by any of them that has any scientific merit.

They have all whored their qualifications for politicised religion.

 

The scientists have to sign a declaration of infallibility before joining any of the 'creation research' bodies. Where science and theology contradict, the theology is always the right answer.

 

To be clear, there are Christians and other religious people who are scientists and that do science but there are no scientists doing 'creation science'. If you want to know what happens when Christians who are scientists come up with some good science, the Mary Schweitzer one is a good example, look her up.

EDIT - in fact, I urge everyone to look her up, she is the soft dino tissue woman who is an evangelical Christian and basically told her creationist aquaintances to butt out of her science and stop misusing it.

 

There are climate scientists that believe onion rings are better than French fries.

I've even heard of Computer coders who like Bananas.

 

Heretics!

 

There are even a few creationists who use their "God-given" computers to post about how the interwebz was made when Jesus was texting the beatitudes from the Mount of Olives.

 

Ah, but teh 'puters is based upon 'observational science' not 'historical science'.

No one was there to observe 'historical science'.

 

Was that one of dem new fangled Dino-Laptops that fit between Stegosaurus fins while he roded 'round?

 

Exactly my point.

 

Well worth reading these two articles. The first explains who she is and how she it was that she made the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaurs. The second explains how the soft tissue as preserved.

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

Altogether a fascinating example of how science works to correct false assumptions and how Christians who are scientists embrace both religion and science.

 

Wishful thinking on your part. MASSIVELY wishful thinking. If these "gaps" haven't been filled after 159 years of concerted effort, they never will. Wishful thinking is NOT, repeat NOT science. Will you ever learn that?

Stop comparing gravity with the evolution fraud. It's asinine. Plants utilize the effects of gravity. Animals understand it implicitly.
NOBODY denies gravity, so stop pretending and comparing in this ridiculous fashion. It's anti-scientific and unintelligent.
Nor is Darwinism a "scientific theory." It is a superficial hypothesis, which even gave Charles Darwin pause, as I have repeatedly cited.

From a letter to Asa Gray, a close friend and Professor of Biology at Harvard University:

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

You would not believe any evidence contrary to Darwinism. You simply step around it, like all of Darwin's faithful do. Wordplay, like your wishful thinking, is no substitute for science and critical thinking.

You don't understand science. If it's "inaccurate," it isn't science. It has to go. Nothing is "needed" to "scientifically replace it."
Please stop with the wordplay and Talking Points you have heard repeated over and over.

 

Ya know what else is persistent? The progress of science.
Ya know what else is persistent? The willful ignorance of Creationists.