http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
i thought this could create some good discussion
This topic is locked from further discussion.
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
i thought this could create some good discussion
Looks to me like the same tired arguments I've seen rebutted numerous times.chessmaster1989
are any of us surprised?
"...lack of observable evidence..." ROFLghoklebutteru do realize that all the quote from this article come from leading scientists of evoultion, and all of them admitt that there is no actual evidence of evolution, in fact i encourage u call to take the time to read it all because near the end i believe it discusses some universal law that applys to everthing and anything, and evolution would be breaking that law. not to mention the lack of any evidence of missing links in the evolutionary chain, i never really believed in either evolution or creation but this and many other articles have convinced me otherwise. this article sums it up well though, evolution is just a form of athiestic religion
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Looks to me like the same tired arguments I've seen rebutted numerous times.arbitor365
are any of us surprised?
No, I'm not surprised at all.[QUOTE="arbitor365"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Looks to me like the same tired arguments I've seen rebutted numerous times.chessmaster1989
are any of us surprised?
No, I'm not surprised at all. You know, maybe this is a sign that we should lay off the evolution/creationism threads for a while so we can think of some fresh arguments.http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
i thought this could create some good discussion
xXxQuizzyxXx
Why? Are you a creationist?
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]"...lack of observable evidence..." ROFLxXxQuizzyxXxu do realize that all the quote from this article come from leading scientists of evoultion, and all of them admitt that there is no actual evidence of evolution, in fact i encourage u call to take the time to read it all because near the end i believe it discusses some universal law that applys to everthing and anything, and evolution would be breaking that law. not to mention the lack of any evidence of missing links in the evolutionary chain, i never really believed in either evolution or creation but this and many other articles have convinced me otherwise. this article sums it up well though, evolution is just a form of athiestic religion They used flawed arguments. And atheism is not a religion. It's a label.
[QUOTE="xXxQuizzyxXx"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]"...lack of observable evidence..." ROFLghoklebutteru do realize that all the quote from this article come from leading scientists of evoultion, and all of them admitt that there is no actual evidence of evolution, in fact i encourage u call to take the time to read it all because near the end i believe it discusses some universal law that applys to everthing and anything, and evolution would be breaking that law. not to mention the lack of any evidence of missing links in the evolutionary chain, i never really believed in either evolution or creation but this and many other articles have convinced me otherwise. this article sums it up well though, evolution is just a form of athiestic religion They used flawed arguments. And atheism is not a religion. It's a label.
Wrong on the last part, atheism is a set of beliefs. However, that set of beliefs does not necessarily include evolution and evolution is not inherently atheistic.
[QUOTE="xXxQuizzyxXx"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]"...lack of observable evidence..." ROFLghoklebutteru do realize that all the quote from this article come from leading scientists of evoultion, and all of them admitt that there is no actual evidence of evolution, in fact i encourage u call to take the time to read it all because near the end i believe it discusses some universal law that applys to everthing and anything, and evolution would be breaking that law. not to mention the lack of any evidence of missing links in the evolutionary chain, i never really believed in either evolution or creation but this and many other articles have convinced me otherwise. this article sums it up well though, evolution is just a form of athiestic religion They used flawed arguments. And atheism is not a religion. It's a label. flawed arguments how so, can u give me better proof than them
I can cope with the fact that some people believe in creationism and not evolution, but when people start sending out "scientists" who say creationism isn't true, AND evolution isn't true, that's when I draw the line. So if God didn't create life, and if life didn't evolve, what happened? The Earth formed and POP! Every creature just appeared? That's basically what it sounds like to me. Rational thinking can really help when it comes to these subjects.
There is no such thing as "evolutionists." That implies that evolution is an ideology, and not a science.
However, I will give the article a chance...
"Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon."
Yes, belief in a scientific theory would be a remarkable phenomenon, given that one cannot "believe" science to be true, one must "prove" science true.
"...despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution..."
Yeah... no. This article is crap and not worth the time to read. This is merely some creationist trying to sell their ideas about how the Bible needs to be taken literally, and how the observed world cannot be proven to be functioning in a way that runs contrary to that. Science is right, as right as the evidence it uses to back up its explanations. Evolution is "fact" and happening as we speak. To deny its happening would be like denying the Sun rises every morning.
10-something pages and 35 references based around a ****ty thesis? Wow... what a waste of time.
who here is saying both creation and evoltion didnt happenI can cope with the fact that some people believe in creationism and not evolution, but when people start sending out "scientists" who say creationism isn't true, AND evolution isn't true, that's when I draw the line. So if God didn't create life, and if life didn't evolve, what happened? The Earth formed and POP! Every creature just appeared? That's basically what it sounds like to me. Rational thinking can really help when it comes to these subjects.
jman1553
then why do they leading evolutionists admit that evolution is indeed not a factThere is no such thing as "evolutionists." That implies that evolution is an ideology, and not a science.
However, I will give the article a chance...
"Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon."
Yes, belief in a scientific theory would be a remarkable phenomenon, given that one cannot "believe" science to be true, one must "prove" science true.
"...despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution..."
Yeah... no. This article is crap and not worth the time to read. This is merely some creationist trying to sell their ideas about how the Bible needs to be taken literally, and how the observed world cannot be proven to be functioning in a way that runs contrary to that. Science is right, as right as the evidence it uses to back up its explanations. Evolution is "fact" and happening as we speak. To deny its happening would be like denying the Sun rises every morning.
10-something pages and 35 references based around a ****ty thesis? Wow... what a waste of time.foxhound_fox
Evolution is not happening now? What about gene mutations?kelinnit discusses that part pretty clearly in the article, its a big read i know but its in there
then why do they leading evolutionists admit that evolution is indeed not a fact[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
There is no such thing as "evolutionists." That implies that evolution is an ideology, and not a science.
However, I will give the article a chance...
"Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon."
Yes, belief in a scientific theory would be a remarkable phenomenon, given that one cannot "believe" science to be true, one must "prove" science true.
"...despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution..."
Yeah... no. This article is crap and not worth the time to read. This is merely some creationist trying to sell their ideas about how the Bible needs to be taken literally, and how the observed world cannot be proven to be functioning in a way that runs contrary to that. Science is right, as right as the evidence it uses to back up its explanations. Evolution is "fact" and happening as we speak. To deny its happening would be like denying the Sun rises every morning.
10-something pages and 35 references based around a ****ty thesis? Wow... what a waste of time.xXxQuizzyxXx
Because it's a scientific theory, which is different from a theory in the colloquial sense.
[QUOTE="jman1553"]who here is saying both creation and evoltion didnt happen Ture, true. But based on what I just read, that's what it seems to be implying. Unless it's a creationist's work in disguise. The subject is rather silly that people still believe this garbage. I particularly loved the part where an experiment was done on fruit flies. Scientists observed the fruit flies over many generations, but no changes. Want to know why? There was nothing they did that would cause the fruit fly to change. It's one of Darwin's main points. Evolution will not occur unless there is an outside source that influences the creature to adapt and evolve.I can cope with the fact that some people believe in creationism and not evolution, but when people start sending out "scientists" who say creationism isn't true, AND evolution isn't true, that's when I draw the line. So if God didn't create life, and if life didn't evolve, what happened? The Earth formed and POP! Every creature just appeared? That's basically what it sounds like to me. Rational thinking can really help when it comes to these subjects.
xXxQuizzyxXx
And even then, it's still not the short lifespan of fruit flies that allows for evolution to occur, but time. It takes quite a long time, even for the genes of fruit flies, to change drastically enough for a noteable change to be observed.
Evolution is a fact if you define it as things change over time. However to make the claim that evolution is responsible for all the diversity in the world is not fact and is not as solid as many supposed "scientists" like to think.
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.
No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18
The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.
Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?
Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
Me and many othersd have outlined the evidences for evolution here
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26855901&union_id=18142
I can cope with the fact that some people believe in creationism and not evolution, but when people start sending out "scientists" who say creationism isn't true, AND evolution isn't true, that's when I draw the line. So if God didn't create life, and if life didn't evolve, what happened? The Earth formed and POP! Every creature just appeared? That's basically what it sounds like to me. Rational thinking can really help when it comes to these subjects.
jman1553
I believe that the need for a beginning or first cause is a trait of human coprehension. I'm not saying everything just popped into existence, I'm saying that there is no beginning to existence so far as human experience can tell. I believe science supports this viewpoint, as two of the most immutable laws of science are what led me to this conclusion (energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed). Whereas all of existence is comprised of constant cycles of transferrence with no obsevable beginning, our own comprehension is based in part on the concept of time. Time is change measured against non-change, and I assert that this non-change is part of our human comprehension against which the constant change of existence is measured. This static nature of our minds demands things such as beginnings, even though there is no cause observable in nature to support the idea of an ultimate beginning. I don't believe in the idea of a first cause, I believe that all of existence is stimultaneously an effect and a cause.
then why do they leading evolutionists admit that evolution is indeed not a fact[QUOTE="xXxQuizzyxXx"]
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
There is no such thing as "evolutionists." That implies that evolution is an ideology, and not a science.
However, I will give the article a chance...
"Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon."
Yes, belief in a scientific theory would be a remarkable phenomenon, given that one cannot "believe" science to be true, one must "prove" science true.
"...despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution..."
Yeah... no. This article is crap and not worth the time to read. This is merely some creationist trying to sell their ideas about how the Bible needs to be taken literally, and how the observed world cannot be proven to be functioning in a way that runs contrary to that. Science is right, as right as the evidence it uses to back up its explanations. Evolution is "fact" and happening as we speak. To deny its happening would be like denying the Sun rises every morning.
10-something pages and 35 references based around a ****ty thesis? Wow... what a waste of time.chessmaster1989
Because it's a scientific theory, which is different from a theory in the colloquial sense.
exacctly, its a thoery not a factNothing in science is a fact. Scientific arguments will always be theories waiting for a scientists to discredit it based on observational and testable data. Even gravity is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory. Special relativity is a theory. Though all of them explain occurrences and observations in the real world they are still just theories. However these theories have stood up to decades of tests. To tear down a scientific theory you better have a whole lot more evidence than cherry picked quotes and falsehoods.then why do they leading evolutionists admit that evolution is indeed not a fact
xXxQuizzyxXx
Nothing in science is a fact. Scientific arguments will always be theories waiting for a scientists to discredit it based on observational and testable data. Even gravity is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory. Special relativity is a theory. Though all of them explain occurrences and observations in the real world they are still just theories. However these theories have stood up to decades of tests. To tear down a scientific theory you better have a whole lot more evidence than cherry picked quotes and falsehoods.[QUOTE="xXxQuizzyxXx"]
then why do they leading evolutionists admit that evolution is indeed not a fact
BumFluff122
Gravity is scientific law.
The second law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system. Humans and other biological organism ingest matter and energy. The human body is not a closed system.The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.
No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.
Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?
Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
xXxQuizzyxXx
then why do they leading evolutionists admit that evolution is indeed not a factxXxQuizzyxXx
Oh look it's the entropy argument again. Now I remember why I stopped posting in these threads.chessmaster1989
Nothing in science is a fact. Scientific arguments will always be theories waiting for a scientists to discredit it based on observational and testable data. Even gravity is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory. Special relativity is a theory. Though all of them explain occurrences and observations in the real world they are still just theories. However these theories have stood up to decades of tests. To tear down a scientific theory you better have a whole lot more evidence than cherry picked quotes and falsehoods.[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]
[QUOTE="xXxQuizzyxXx"]
then why do they leading evolutionists admit that evolution is indeed not a fact
THE_DRUGGIE
Gravity is scientific law.
A scientific law and scientific theory are different. Gravity has both a scientific law and scientific theory. A scientific theory can never become a scientific law. Here is an about.com page you can read the differences for yourself.http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
[QUOTE="xXxQuizzyxXx"]
then why do they leading evolutionists admit that evolution is indeed not a fact
Nothing in science is a fact. Scientific arguments will always be theories waiting for a scientists to discredit it based on observational and testable data. Even gravity is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory. Special relativity is a theory. Though all of them explain occurrences and observations in the real world they are still just theories. However these theories have stood up to decades of tests. To tear down a scientific theory you better have a whole lot more evidence than cherry picked quotes and falsehoods. lmao if gravity is just a "theory", go jump off the highest building in your area and get back to me with the results[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Nothing in science is a fact. Scientific arguments will always be theories waiting for a scientists to discredit it based on observational and testable data. Even gravity is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory. Special relativity is a theory. Though all of them explain occurrences and observations in the real world they are still just theories. However these theories have stood up to decades of tests. To tear down a scientific theory you better have a whole lot more evidence than cherry picked quotes and falsehoods.
BumFluff122
Gravity is scientific law.
A scientific law and scientific theory are different. Gravity has both a scientific law and scientific theory. A scientific theory can never become a scientific law. Here is an about.com page you can read the differences for yourself.http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
I was going to post the same exact page proving my point.
This is creepy.
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Nothing in science is a fact. Scientific arguments will always be theories waiting for a scientists to discredit it based on observational and testable data. Even gravity is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory. Special relativity is a theory. Though all of them explain occurrences and observations in the real world they are still just theories. However these theories have stood up to decades of tests. To tear down a scientific theory you better have a whole lot more evidence than cherry picked quotes and falsehoods. lmao if gravity is just a "theory", go jump off the highest building in your area and get back to me with the resultsYour scientific illiteracy is plainly showing itself in this post. Try reading the link I provided in my last post.[QUOTE="xXxQuizzyxXx"]
then why do they leading evolutionists admit that evolution is indeed not a fact
xXxQuizzyxXx
How can you prove your point by posting a webpage that clearly states otherwise?I was going to post the same exact page proving my point.
Creepy.
THE_DRUGGIE
How can you prove your point by posting a webpage that clearly states otherwise? Because I'm arguing on OT.[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]
I was going to post the same exact page proving my point.
Creepy.
BumFluff122
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="xXxQuizzyxXx"] then why do they leading evolutionists admit that evolution is indeed not a fact
xXxQuizzyxXx
Because it's a scientific theory, which is different from a theory in the colloquial sense.
exacctly, its a thoery not a fact in before the "gravity is a theory therefore you should believe any and all scientific theories" fallacy.edit: nvm im too late :P
then why do they leading evolutionists admit that evolution is indeed not a fact they don't.[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
There is no such thing as "evolutionists." That implies that evolution is an ideology, and not a science.
However, I will give the article a chance...
"Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon."
Yes, belief in a scientific theory would be a remarkable phenomenon, given that one cannot "believe" science to be true, one must "prove" science true.
"...despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution..."
Yeah... no. This article is crap and not worth the time to read. This is merely some creationist trying to sell their ideas about how the Bible needs to be taken literally, and how the observed world cannot be proven to be functioning in a way that runs contrary to that. Science is right, as right as the evidence it uses to back up its explanations. Evolution is "fact" and happening as we speak. To deny its happening would be like denying the Sun rises every morning.
10-something pages and 35 references based around a ****ty thesis? Wow... what a waste of time.xXxQuizzyxXx
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment