Some questions about evolution.

[Photonic]

I'll say it.
It does not address the origins of life itself.

Abiogenesis, I don't think he knows that that's what he should be attacking.

Evolution is almost as proven as gravity. Abiogenesis only has minor proof to support it currently. That and it deals with the origin of life.

 

[outhouse]

Have you seen Ben Stein's movie "Expelled"? There is more than one whistle-blower disputing the smug certitude of the ToE party. Is it your claim that contrary views are not being suppressed? Court cases have been fought to keep alternatives to the ToE out of classrooms. Many churches, the media, most scientists, and most educators beat the ToE drum ceaselessly, proclaiming "evolution is a fact. Question not."
As to the motivations for belief, many do not want to believe what the evidence is saying, that there is a Creator to whom we are responsible. (Romans 1:18-20)

Richard Lewontin wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (NY Times Review of Books "Billions and Billions of Demons" by Richard C. Lewontin,1/9/97 pp.28-32​

Sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He states that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut." Hmmm... I wonder why...​

Scientific American,9/91 p.91

you take a couple of religious fundy's that work in science and use them as examples


but you miss the 200,000 biologist that dont just stand behind evolution the work around or in it on a daily basis.


evolution has been observed, it is taught as higher learning in every major university around the world.

while creation has been outlawed from schools so we dont poison our childrens minds


are you guilt of pitting theology against science????

 

[Valjean]

Magic against mechanism, I'd say.

 

[rusra02]

you take a couple of religious fundy's that work in science and use them as examples


but you miss the 200,000 biologist that dont just stand behind evolution the work around or in it on a daily basis.


evolution has been observed, it is taught as higher learning in every major university around the world.

while creation has been outlawed from schools so we dont poison our childrens minds


are you guilt of pitting theology against science????

Yes, heaven prevent our children learning to think for themselves by presenting the weaknesses of the ToE and the evidence for an intelligent Creator.

 

[Tristesse]

Yes, heaven prevent our children learning to think for themselves by presenting the weaknesses of the ToE and the evidence for an intelligent Creator.

You mean the assertion of an intelligent creator. If there were actual evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[johnhanks]

Yes, heaven prevent our children learning to think for themselves by presenting the weaknesses of the ToE and the evidence for an intelligent Creator.

This 'evidence', as you've presented it so far, seems to consist of the unsupported assertion that living organisms and their molecular components are too complex to have arisen without supernatural assistance. You'll need to do better than that.

And children are perfectly free to receive the message you want them to hear from their preachers; it's excluded from science classes 'cos it isn't science.

 

[Valjean]

Have you seen Ben Stein's movie "Expelled"? There is more than one whistle-blower disputing the smug certitude of the ToE party. Is it your claim that contrary views are not being suppressed? Court cases have been fought to keep alternatives to the ToE out of classrooms. Many churches, the media, most scientists, and most educators beat the ToE drum ceaselessly, proclaiming "evolution is a fact. Question not."

Expelled is bunk. For a critique, see (hope this works...): [youtube]p3QHsUS3Lp4[/youtube]
A Scientist's Critique of Ben Stein's Expelled - YouTube
For a blow by blow critique: [youtube]F5lxmLNwF9s[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5lxmLNwF9s& feature=related

As to the motivations for belief, many do not want to believe what the evidence is saying, that there is a Creator to whom we are responsible. (Romans 1:18-20)

Where is this evidence? Most creationist apologetics is just an attack on science and the ToE. The assumption seems to be that there are only two alternatives so if you discredit one the other must needs be true -- a ridiculous assumption to begin with. No actual evidence supporting creationism ever seems to be presented.

Richard Lewontin wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (NY Times Review of Books "Billions and Billions of Demons" by Richard C. Lewontin,1/9/97 pp.28-32

Because religion is not science and does not employ scientific methodology.

Sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He states that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut." Hmmm... I wonder why...

Again, religion and science simply don't mix. Entirely different methodologies. One's a priori, the other a posteriori. "Non overlaping magisteria, &c."

Science explains. Creationism does not, it's simply an assertion of agency.

 

[camanintx]

Have you seen Ben Stein's movie "Expelled"? There is more than one whistle-blower disputing the smug certitude of the ToE party.

And every one of them has been shown to be a complete fabrication.

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks » The Truth behind the Fiction

Is it your claim that contrary views are not being suppressed? Court cases have been fought to keep alternatives to the ToE out of classrooms.

Classrooms are where we teach students what scientists have proven in the laboratory and in scientific papers. Just because you want to believe that you were created in your God's image doesn't give creationism or Intelligent Design a pass on this. You cannot teach the controvery because there is no controversy among the scientists. You cannot teach the weaknesses of evolution because there are no weaknesses.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, heaven prevent our children learning to think for themselves by presenting the weaknesses of the ToE and the evidence for an intelligent Creator.

ToE is not weak. Its a proven fact.

It has a mountain of evidence supporting it that cannot be refuted.

 

[Alceste]

I will remind you (not loftily) that a simple internet search "evidence against evolution" will provide a wealth of reference material that provides such evidence.

You keep saying that, yet you keep failing to produce one single published, peer-reviewed research paper that contains evidence against evolution.

A simple internet search will provide a wealth of reference material that provides evidence of spoon-bending, astrology, ghosts and poltergeists, a Jewish conspiracy to hijack the US government and a secret homosexual child sex slavery ring run by the big wigs of the Republican party. Do you believe EVERYTHING you read on the internet?

 

[Valjean]

Reminds me of the Papal representative whom Galileo invited to look through his telescope, and replied: "I refuse to look at something my religion tells me cannot exist!"

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course, the assertion that "the facts support evolution all the way" is simply ... an assertion. In fact, the opposite is true. The facts (sans the propaganda) support intelligent design; that life was created, not evolved.

That, unfortunately, is just a plain lie. If you bothered to look at biological findings and research you would know that.

 

[Matthew78]

Yes, heaven prevent our children learning to think for themselves by presenting the weaknesses of the ToE and the evidence for an intelligent Creator.

I'm curious, Rusra02, what weaknesses do you think plague the ToE? What evidence do you believe exists for an intelligent Creator? I'd appreciate it if you would briefly summarize what you find most convincing. I'm not looking to be convinced nor am I looking to argue with you; I just wish to understand your disbelief of ToE better.

 

[Photonic]

I'm curious, Rusra02, what weaknesses do you think plague the ToE? What evidence do you believe exists for an intelligent Creator? I'd appreciate it if you would briefly summarize what you find most convincing. I'm not looking to be convinced nor am I looking to argue with you; I just wish to understand your disbelief of ToE better.

There is nothing to believe, it's just acceptance of fact.

 

[rusra02]

I'm curious, Rusra02, what weaknesses do you think plague the ToE? What evidence do you believe exists for an intelligent Creator? I'd appreciate it if you would briefly summarize what you find most convincing. I'm not looking to be convinced nor am I looking to argue with you; I just wish to understand your disbelief of ToE better.

Thank you for an intelligent question. As to weaknesses for the ToE, consider the following:

1. Mutations are regarded as part of the evolutionary machinery. After 100 years of mutation research, scientists have been unable to prove that mutations can create new species.

2. Natural Selection cannot produce new species. Darwin's finches are a famous example of supposed natural selection producing new species. In 1999, evolutionist Jeffrey H. Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new. (Sudden Origins - Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species pp.317-320)

3. The fossil record does not support macroevolution. Rather, the fossil record indicates major groups of animals appear suddenly in the fossil record and remain unchanged for long periods.

And of course, there is the ol debil of blind chance creating obviously well-designed plants and animals. Yup, says the evolutionists, it all just happened... Yet they won't say the same thing about a rock with someone's name carved in it.

​

​

 

[LuisDantas]

Thank you for an intelligent question. As to weaknesses for the ToE, consider the following:

1. Mutations are regarded as part of the evolutionary machinery. After 100 years of mutation research, scientists have been unable to prove that mutations can create new species.

Lie.

2. Natural Selection cannot produce new species. Darwin's finches are a famous example of supposed natural selection producing new species. In 1999, evolutionist Jeffrey H. Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new. (Sudden Origins - Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species pp.317-320)

Lie, either yours or Schwartz's.

3. The fossil record does not support macroevolution. Rather, the fossil record indicates major groups of animals appear suddenly in the fossil record and remain unchanged for long periods.

There is no such things as a macroevolution that is distinct from plain evolution. The concept only exists due to a perceptionbias, and is completely challenged by actual biological facts.

And of course, there is the ol debil of blind chance creating obviously well-designed plants and animals. Yup, says the evolutionists, it all just happened... Yet they won't say the 4same thing about a rock with someone's name carved in it.

Lack of research. Evolution isn't blind chance; it is shaped by pressures from environment and circunstance. Neither is it true and plants and animals are "obviously well-designed".

 

[painted wolf]

Thank you for an intelligent question. As to weaknesses for the ToE, consider the following:

1. Mutations are regarded as part of the evolutionary machinery. After 100 years of mutation research, scientists have been unable to prove that mutations can create new species.

Except for the ones it did... like: the Plains Vishcha Rat, Evening Primrose and the modern crops: Corn, Wheat, and well, just about all of them.

2. Natural Selection cannot produce new species. Darwin's finches are a famous example of supposed natural selection producing new species. In 1999, evolutionist Jeffrey H. Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new. (Sudden Origins - Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species pp.317-320)

Only ceationists can read a book about evidence for evolution and then totally misrepresent it.
His book was about how single mutations to HOX genes can produce new species... also, refuting your statement 1.

3. The fossil record does not support macroevolution. Rather, the fossil record indicates major groups of animals appear suddenly in the fossil record and remain unchanged for long periods.

Macroevolution is the appearance of new species... so yes, it does. And the fossil record is rife with transitional forms between major groups. A lot has changed in the last 50 years.

And of course, there is the ol debil of blind chance creating obviously well-designed plants and animals. Yup, says the evolutionists, it all just happened... Yet they won't say the same thing about a rock with someone's name carved in it.

This right here is your biggest mistake, you have evolution mixed up with something else. Evolution doesn't propose blind chance as creating life. No evolutionist would ever say "it just happened".

I don't know what you are arguing against, but it clearly isn't evolution.

wa:do

 

[Valjean]

Viscacha rats?! Don't let them hear you talking like that, PW.
They think they're God's chosen race -- of chinchillas.

Rusra, I have to echo PW's admonition about "blind chance." Natural selection is, well, selection -- not chance. It's selective breeding just as surely as that which produced Rhode island reds or Guernsey cows.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So he didn't meet my objectives. [ralph]You're deceptive![/ralph]

You raised my hopes and dashed them quite expertly!

You're correct. Although I think it meets the first part of your requirement.....

Show me a link to anything that speaks against evolution, was written by someone who is knowledgable about biology,

Sadly, it fails to meet the second part of the requirement.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

My point exactly. Many of the ToE adherents would like to quash all questioning of their theory. Ben Stein's movie exposed this repressive and wide-spread attitude. Opposing views to the ToE are routinely suppressed, ridiculed, and otherwise punished.
But we digress. You asked for a scientific paper and this is but one of many readily available online.

So what really happened to Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig other than the following?

Access : Axeing of website article sparks row at Max Planck : Nature
The Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne has removed the detailed description of 'intelligent design' from its website, following complaints from scientists that it was inconsistent with the laboratory's scientific mission.The article, which was posted by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a theorist at the institute, discusses the idea that an intelligent force must be responsible for the origin of the Universe and for the diversity of life forms.

His idea is inconsistent with company policy. Now just imagine you at your job does something against company policy....