Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Science Disproves Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
68 replies to this topic

#1
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Bounded Variations




Not only do Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists (a). For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles (b). Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.

Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout almost all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few ©. New features apparently don’t evolve.

a. “...the discovery of the Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen that the more or less constant somatic variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis in species change cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of ‘indefinite departure.’ ” Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958), p. 227.

b. “The awesome morphological complexity of organisms such as vertebrates that have far fewer individuals on which selection can act therefore remains somewhat puzzling (for me at least), despite the geological time scales available...” Peter R. Sheldon, “Complexity Still Running,” Nature, Vol. 350, 14 March 1991, p. 104.

c. Bland J. Finlay, “Global Dispersal of Free-Living Microbial Eukaryote Species,” Science, Vol. 296, 10 May 2002, pp. 1061–1063.


[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Edited by Pahu, 06 September 2012 - 02:55 PM.

  • 1

#2
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Natural Selection 1




Like so many terms in science, the popular meaning of “natural selection” differs from what the words actually mean. “Selecting” implies something that nature cannot do: thought, decision making, and choice. Instead, the complex genetics of each species allows variations within a species. In changing environments, those variations give some members of a species a slightly better chance to reproduce than other members, so their offspring have a better chance of surviving. The marvel is not about some capability that nature does not have, but about the designer who designed for adaptability and survivability in changing environments. With that understanding, the unfortunate term “natural selection” will be used.

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” Only in this sense, does nature “select” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. (a).

a. In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight. [See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 45–80.]

Darwin also largely ignored Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently proposed the theory that is usually credited solely to Darwin. In 1855, Wallace published the theory of evolution in a brief note in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, a note that Darwin read. Again, on 9 March 1858, Wallace explained the theory in a letter to Darwin, 20 months before Darwin finally published his more detailed theory of evolution.

Edward Blyth also showed why natural selection would limit an organism’s characteristics to only slight deviations from those of all its ancestors. Twenty-four years later, Darwin tried to refute Blyth’s explanation in a chapter in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (24 November 1859).

Darwin felt that, with enough time, gradual changes could accumulate. Charles Lyell’s writings (1830) had persuaded Darwin that the earth was at least hundreds of thousands of years old. James Hutton’s writings (1788) had convinced Lyell that the earth was extremely old. Hutton felt that certain geological formations supported an old earth. Those geological formations are explained, not by time, but by a global flood. [See pages 108-339]

“Darwin was confronted by a genuinely unusual problem. The mechanism, natural selection, by which he hoped to prove the reality of evolution, had been written about most intelligently by a nonevolutionist [Edward Blyth]. Geology, the time world which it was necessary to attach to natural selection in order to produce [hopefully] the mechanism of organic change, had been beautifully written upon by a man [Charles Lyell] who had publicly repudiated the evolutionary position.” Eiseley, p. 76.

Charles Darwin also plagiarized in other instances. [See Jerry Bergman, “Did Darwin Plagiarize His Evolution Theory?” Technical Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2002, pp. 58–63.]


[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
  • 1

#3
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Natural Selection 2




Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased (b).

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,

a lost capability was reestablished, making it appear that something evolved ©, or

a mutation reduced the ability of certain pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organism’s proteins, or

a mutation reduced the regulatory function or transport capacity of certain proteins, or

a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more (d), or

a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated (e).

b. “[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.” Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin, “A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity,” Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240.

“The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.” Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, Vol. 86, June–July 1977, p. 28.

c. G. Z. Opadia-Kadima, “How the Slot Machine Led Biologists Astray,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 124, 1987, pp. 127–135.

d. Eric Penrose, “Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics—A Case of Un-Natural Selection,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 35, September 1998, pp. 76–83.

e. Well-preserved bodies of members of the Franklin expedition, frozen in the Canadian Arctic in 1845, contain bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Because the first antibiotics were developed in the early 1940s, these resistant bacteria could not have evolved in response to antibiotics. Contamination has been eliminated as a possibility. [See Rick McGuire, “Eerie: Human Arctic Fossils Yield Resistant Bacteria,” Medical Tribune, 29 December 1988, p. 1.]

“The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.” Francisco J. Ayala, “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 65.


[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Edited by Pahu, 28 September 2012 - 01:09 PM.

  • 1

#4
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Natural Selection 3




While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved and, in fact, some biological diversity was lost.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands are another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest (f). Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes (g).

f. “Darwin complained his critics did not understand him, but he did not seem to realize that almost everybody, friends, supporters and critics, agreed on one point, his natural selection cannot account for the origin of the variations, only for their possible survival. And the reasons for rejecting Darwin’s proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous.” Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), pp. 274–275.

“It was a shock to the people of the 19th century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.” Michael J. Behe, “Molecular Machines,” Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 1998, p. 35.

g. In 1980, the “Macroevolution Conference” was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a “turning point in the history of evolutionary theory.” Summarizing a range of opinions, he said:


“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under

Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.

“In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis [neo-Darwinism] in the United States, said ‘We would not have predicted stasis [the stability of species over time] from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.’ ” Ibid., p. 884.

Since the fossil record does not show small, continual changes that build up over time to produce macroevolution (as has been taught for over a century), the conclusion was that macroevolutionary jumps must be relatively sudden. But then how could those major jumps produce an organism with a new vital organ? Without that vital organ, the creature is, by definition, dead.

As stated earlier, micro + time ≠ macro.

“One could argue at this point that such ‘minor’ changes [microevolution], extrapolated over millions of years, could result in macroevolutionary change. But the observational evidence will not support this argument... [examples given] Thus, the changes observed in the laboratory are not analogous to the sort of changes needed for macroevolution. Those who argue from microevolution to macroevolution may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogy—especially when one considers that microevolution may be a force of stasis [stability], not transformation....For those who must describe the history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis), natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change.” Michael Thomas, “Stasis Considered,” Origins Research, Vol. 12, Fall/Winter 1989, p. 11.


[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Edited by Pahu, 25 September 2012 - 02:21 PM.

  • 1

#5
slowpoke55

slowpoke55

    Junior Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
Pahu,
I've read through some of this thread and in almost every post of yours I shake my head at the lack of knowledge shown even in the most elementary aspects of sciences.
Examples:

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

Where did all Earth’s water come from?


No, you don't get off the hook because they're from Brown's book. You're posting them and should take responsibility for them.

On a brighter note. it's good to see others here also think Brown's book is garbage.
  • 1

#6

  • Guests

Natural Selection 3


.... Since the fossil record does not show small, continual changes that build up over time to produce macroevolution (as has been taught for over a century), the conclusion was that macroevolutionary jumps must be relatively sudden. But then how could those major jumps produce an organism with a new vital organ? Without that vital organ, the creature is, by definition, dead....

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]


Yeap~!

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Genesis 1:20-23

Sure Enough~!
  • 0

#7
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Pahu,
I've read through some of this thread and in almost every post of yours I shake my head at the lack of knowledge shown even in the most elementary aspects of sciences.
Examples:

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

Where did all Earth’s water come from?


No, you don't get off the hook because they're from Brown's book. You're posting them and should take responsibility for them.

On a brighter note. it's good to see others here also think Brown's book is garbage.


Why do you believe it is garbage. The conclusions Brown comes to are confirmed by the scientists he quotes, such as:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts

As to where all the earth's water came from, consider this:

The amount of water on Earth greatly exceeds that known on or within any other planet in the solar system. Liquid water, which is essential for life, has unique and amazing properties; it covers 70% of Earth’s surface. Where did all Earth’s water come from?

If the Earth and solar system evolved from a swirling cloud of dust and gas, almost no water would reside near Earth’s present orbit. Any water (liquid or ice) that close to the Sun would vaporize and be blown by solar wind to the outer reaches of the solar system,a as we see happening with water vapor in the tails of comets.

Did comets or meteorites deliver Earth’s water? Although comets contain considerable water,b comets did not provide much of Earth’s water, because comet water contains too much heavy hydrogen, relatively rare in Earth’s oceans. Comets also contain too much argon. If comets provided only 1% of Earth’s water, then our atmosphere should have 400 times more argon than it does.c The few types of meteorites that contain water also have too much heavy hydrogen.d [Pages 288343 explain why comets and some types of meteorites contain so much water and heavy hydrogen. Pages 347391 explain why comets have so much argon. Heavy hydrogen is described on page 296.]

These observations have caused some to conclude that water was transported from the outer solar system to Earth by objects that no longer exist.e If so, many of these “water tankers” should have collided with the other inner planets (Mercury, Venus, and Mars), producing water characteristics similar to those of Earth. In fact, their water characteristics are not like those of Earth. Instead of imagining “water tankers” that conveniently disappeared, perhaps we should ask if the Earth was created with its water already present.


a . “Earth has substantially more water than scientists would expect to find at a mere 93 million miles from the sun.” Ben Harder, “Water for the Rock: Did Earth’s Oceans Come from the Heavens?” Science News, Vol. 161, 23 March 2002, p. 184.


b . The water content of Comet Tempel 1 was 38% by mass. [See Endnote 4 on page 310.]


c . “Hence, if comets like Hale-Bopp brought in the Earth’s water, they would have brought in a factor of 40,000 times more argon than is presently in the atmosphere.” T. D. Swindle and D. A. Kring, “Implications of Noble Gas Budgets for the Origin of Water on Earth and Mars,” Eleventh Annual V. M. Goldschmidt Conference, Abstract No. 3785 (Houston: Lunar and Planetary Institute, 20–24 May 2001). [To learn how comets probably collected argon, see Endnote 31 on page 312.]


d . “Oxygen, D/H and Os [osmium] isotopic ratios all ... rule out extant meteoritic material as sources of the Earth’s water.” Michael J. Drake and Kevin Righter, “Determining the Composition of the Earth,” Nature, Vol. 416, 7 March 2002, p. 42.


e . “If existing objects in space couldn’t have combined to make Earth’s unique mix of water and other elements, the planet must have formed from—and entirely depleted—an ancient supply of water-rich material that has no modern analog, Drake and Righter argue.” Harder, p. 185.


f . “If water came from millions of comets or small asteroids, the same steady rain would have bombarded Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, so they would all have begun with the same water characteristics, he says. However, the waters of those four planets now have dissimilar profiles, Owen and other geochemists have found.” Ibid.


After reading pages 288343, you will see that the water in comets, asteroids, and meteoroids—as well as some water detected elsewhere in the inner solar system—came primarily from the subterranean water chambers. During the flood, this subterranean water mixed with Earth’s surface water, giving our surface water different isotope characteristics from water in comets, asteroids, and meteoroids.


“The carrier’s [the tanker’s] elemental and isotopic characteristics would have to have been unlike those of any object that researchers have yet found in the solar system. ... it doesn’t seem geochemically plausible ...” Ibid., p. 186.


http://www.creations....html#wp3096567


Edited by Pahu, 28 September 2012 - 01:33 PM.

  • 1

#8
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Mutations 1




Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution (a).

a. “Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation.” Ernst Mayr, “Evolutionary Challenges to the Mathematical Interpretation of Evolution,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, proceedings of a symposium held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, 25–26 April, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, 1967), p. 50.

“Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event,...” Ayala, p. 63.


[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
  • 1

#9
Pahu

Pahu

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Mutations 2




Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal (b).

b. “The process of mutation is the only known source of the raw materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution....the mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally encounters.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, “On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology,” American Scientist, December 1957, p. 385.

“In molecular biology, various kinds of mutations introduce the equivalent of noise pollution of the original instructive message. Communication theory goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent noise pollution of signals of all kinds. Given this longstanding struggle against noise contamination of meaningful algorithmic messages, it seems curious that the central paradigm of biology today attributes genomic messages themselves solely to noise.” David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, p. 10. (Also available at www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29.)

“Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely.” C. P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” American Scientist, January 1953, p. 102.

“Mutation does produce hereditary changes, but the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect.” Ibid. p. 103.

“[Although mutations have produced some desirable breeds of animals and plants,] all mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of known mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment, only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment.” Ibid. p. 100.

“If we say that it is only by chance that they [mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal.” W. R. Thompson, “Introduction to The Origin of Species,” Everyman Library No. 811 (New York: E. P. Dutton & Sons, 1956; reprint, Sussex, England: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1967), p. 10.


[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
  • 1

#10
ByFaithAlone

ByFaithAlone

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fencing (epee), science, history, theology, apologetics, chemistry, philosophy, politics, cosmology, teaching, backpacking

Pahu,
I've read through some of this thread and in almost every post of yours I shake my head at the lack of knowledge shown even in the most elementary aspects of sciences.
Examples:

Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old.

Where did all Earth’s water come from?


No, you don't get off the hook because they're from Brown's book. You're posting them and should take responsibility for them.

On a brighter note. it's good to see others here also think Brown's book is garbage.


Why do you believe it is garbage. The conclusions Brown comes to are confirmed by the scientists he quotes, such as:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts


I find it odd that you argue that because a lot of scientists accept Brown's work (although I would appreciate it if you would reference this claim) and yet you ignore the 99.9% of scientists that deny Brown's work and accept evolution. Hypocricy? I think so...
  • 1

#11
ByFaithAlone

ByFaithAlone

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fencing (epee), science, history, theology, apologetics, chemistry, philosophy, politics, cosmology, teaching, backpacking

I find it odd that you argue that because a lot of scientists accept Brown's work (although I would appreciate it if you would reference this claim) and yet you ignore the 99.9% of scientists that deny Brown's work and accept evolution. Hypocricy? I think so...

Clarification - are you suggesting science is a 'majority rules' enterprise? Think Galileo Galilei? Let the hypocrite without hypocrisy cast the first stone...


Incorrect. I would never claim to say that the truth must be what the majority says in any field. However, what I am saying, is that I find it odd that Pahu quotes scientists that support the book if a greater number think the book is a complete waste of paper except perhaps for laughs.

That being said, when a majority of facts seem to point in the direction of evolution and a majority of the science community supports it. This gives me strong evidence for my claim that evolution appears to be true. Note that this is not a fallacious argument from authority because it has both expert consensus and legitimate expertise (see here for more evidence on the appeal to authority in both a valid and fallacious sense http://en.wikipedia....al_to_authority).
  • 1

#12
D-9

D-9

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:science, philosophy of science
    religion
    politics
    fencing (foil)

Incorrect. I would never claim to say that the truth must be what the majority says in any field. However, what I am saying, is that I find it odd that Pahu quotes scientists that support the book if a greater number think the book is a complete waste of paper except perhaps for laughs.


It's even worse as the scientists Brown quotes more often than not do not agree with Brown's conclusions in the first place. Most of them accept evolution, big bang, an old Earth etc. and Brown just quote mines them to death. Plus I have, on one occasion, found that Pahu's own claims were not supported but rather contradicted by the content he posts from the website. What a thread.
  • 1

#13
ByFaithAlone

ByFaithAlone

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fencing (epee), science, history, theology, apologetics, chemistry, philosophy, politics, cosmology, teaching, backpacking
Viole I do tend to agree with you but sometimes I just get annoyed with some of the bad logic and science so I come on to here for a bit and try to respond despite generally no head to head confrontation lol...

That being said, when a majority of facts seem to point in the direction of evolution and a majority of the science community supports it. This gives me strong evidence for my claim that evolution appears to be true. Note that this is not a fallacious argument from authority because it has both expert consensus and legitimate expertise (see here for more evidence on the appeal to authority in both a valid and fallacious sense.


I haven’t read Brown’s book so will not comment regarding it’s validly but I believe you are presenting fallacious reasoning at best. Most of the “majority of the science community” you refer to are materialistic (atheistic) thinkers who reject God out of hand for the obvious reasons. They assume Darwinian evolution as they have no other choice. There are hundreds of PhD scientists, theist and non-theist who correctly reject much of Neo-Darwinism due to the obvious lack of evidence and its heavy reliance on metaphysical (religious) concepts required to keep it afloat. You may need to re-think. :mgcheerful:


How exactly is my reasoning fallacious? Please explain. When I mention the scientific community it matters not what creed they hold to but the science they view as correct. I respect the scientific opinions of many people (for example viole) without agreeing with their metaphysical or philosophical views. It is not the facts that make us different but how we view them and interpret them based on logic.

Additionally, you say obvious lack of evidence and religious concepts are required for the theory of evolution to be a success... Do you realize that a scientific idea requires boatloads of evidence before it can even be considered a "theory?"
  • 1

#14
ByFaithAlone

ByFaithAlone

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fencing (epee), science, history, theology, apologetics, chemistry, philosophy, politics, cosmology, teaching, backpacking

Incorrect. I would never claim to say that the truth must be what the majority says in any field. However, what I am saying, is that I find it odd that Pahu quotes scientists that support the book if a greater number think the book is a complete waste of paper except perhaps for laughs.


It's even worse as the scientists Brown quotes more often than not do not agree with Brown's conclusions in the first place. Most of them accept evolution, big bang, an old Earth etc. and Brown just quote mines them to death. Plus I have, on one occasion, found that Pahu's own claims were not supported but rather contradicted by the content he posts from the website. What a thread.


Quote mining out of context is one of my pet peeves and I agree with you... I have seen a lot of it based on the postings by Pahu
  • 1

#15
ByFaithAlone

ByFaithAlone

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fencing (epee), science, history, theology, apologetics, chemistry, philosophy, politics, cosmology, teaching, backpacking

How exactly is my reasoning fallacious?

Please go back and read my post—I explained...exactly.

Do you realize that a scientific idea requires boatloads of evidence before it can even be considered a "theory?"


Yes – the defenders of the Ptolemaic system told Galileo they had “boatloads of evidence” to support the notion that the Earth is stationary, but guess what—their boat sank.


All you said was that a majority of people who support evolution are atheists. I don't see how this makes my claim fallacious or what fallacy I have even violated (which you again fail to mention).

As to the second issue, what evidence exactly did the Ptolemaic system have? Please reference your claims. Thanks.
  • 1

#16
ByFaithAlone

ByFaithAlone

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fencing (epee), science, history, theology, apologetics, chemistry, philosophy, politics, cosmology, teaching, backpacking

All you said was that a majority of people who support evolution are atheists. I don't see how this makes my claim fallacious or what fallacy I have even violated (which you again fail to mention).


Self-explanatory - you base your version of evolutionism on your “majority of the science community” who are materialistic thinkers who reject God out of hand. They do not consider an intelligent designer - thus their worldview (religious convictions) influences their 'science'. Their conclusions are based on myth and circularity - Darwinism is true because Darwinist say Darwinism is true.


You are arguing against their philosophical views not their scientific views. Materialism and Darwinism are very different concepts. One can hold a scientific position but not a philosophical position with one's peers. An example would be Francis Collins. Their philosophical views are irrelevant.

As to the second issue, what evidence exactly did the Ptolemaic system have? Please reference your claims. Thanks.

Off topic - start a thread and I will join you there.


So you claim something and then call me off topic for responding to it.... hmm....
  • 1

#17
ByFaithAlone

ByFaithAlone

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fencing (epee), science, history, theology, apologetics, chemistry, philosophy, politics, cosmology, teaching, backpacking

[
You are arguing against their philosophical views not their scientific views. Materialism and Darwinism are very different concepts.

Darwinism is materialism.


False. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and materialism is a philosophical view. One can hold to one and also deny another. For example, a Jew can believe that all life descended and evolved from common ancestors. However, the same Jew can also hold a philosophical branch of monism or dualism or pluralism that opposes materialism.

As to the other issue, if you claim that you believe evolution makes metaphysical and "religious" claims, I counter that it has evidence, you counter that the Ptolemaic system had evidence and yet refuse to provide any, I might go as far as to claim no such evidence actually exists and you made it up. As it is pertinent to the topic as an illustration, I would kindly request that you provide evidence or denounce your previous point that evolution makes some sort of metaphysical claim.
  • 1

#18
ByFaithAlone

ByFaithAlone

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fencing (epee), science, history, theology, apologetics, chemistry, philosophy, politics, cosmology, teaching, backpacking

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and materialism is a philosophical view. One can hold to one and also deny another. For example, a Jew can believe that all life descended and evolved from common ancestors. However, the same Jew can also hold a philosophical branch of monism or dualism or pluralism that opposes materialism.

Classical Darwinism states that evolution did not have man in mind---a statement of religion. Most religious Jews I know will say that God created "in the beginning". Please sit down for this--Darwinism is materialism.

As it is pertinent to the topic as an illustration, I would kindly request that you provide evidence or denounce your previous point that evolution makes some sort of metaphysical claim.

Well partner, I don't "denounce" my points - there is no reason to do so. What I said is correct. Case in point---Darwinists make the metaphysical claim that man and chimp share a common ancestor. You are just going to have to move forward.


Evolution merely states that man (and other life forms) evolve from a common ancestor or ancestors. That is a scientific (not metaphysical) claim. The argument that there is no point to this evolution or that the material is all there is would be a metaphysical claim.

Please review your definitions.

I would also like to remind you that your claims must be supported with evidence if desired so when I request the source that claims some sort of scientific evidence for the Ptolemaic system, I would like a response.
  • 1

#19
D-9

D-9

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:science, philosophy of science
    religion
    politics
    fencing (foil)

Quote mining out of context is one of my pet peeves and I agree with you... I have seen a lot of it based on the postings by Pahu


Pahu was on the first forum I ever went to, I've known him for a while, and he's been hashing out this Brown character for as long as I can remember. Dozens, literally dozens, of people from all sides have tried to reason with him but to no avail. I won't go into details but some have suggested that Pahu is a computer program and people I personally know can write algorithms that can mimic what Pahu does.
  • 1

#20
D-9

D-9

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,934 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:science, philosophy of science
    religion
    politics
    fencing (foil)

Evolution merely states that man (and other life forms) evolve from a common ancestor or ancestors. That is a scientific (not metaphysical) claim.

You are quire mistaken my friend. Your statement that all life evolved from a common ancestor via naturalism is a statement of religion. You are welcome to try to convince us otherwise via the scientific method but you will most likely fail.


BFA is absolutely correct, the scientific theory of evolution is all about physical processes and doesn't delve into metaphysical claims. This is basic philosophy of science. You have to understand scientific theories in their proper place - all their claims are made on a physical plane and never on a metaphysical one.
  • 1




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2015 part of the Worthy Network