Creationists Present: Arguments Creationists Should Not Use

[The Lorax]

You keep jumping into the proverbial snares. You again showed where modern evolutionists have totally re-written the theory to avoid its orig. problems.

The theory hasn't been rewritten. Natural selection has not changed since its inception. It goes something like this:

Differential reproductive success of individuals within a population will result in changes in the frequences of traits within the population.

Does that sound racist to you?

The hilarious thing is that you do not even know what your own theory has taught throughout its life.

I am aware of the historical misconceptions about race. I am also aware what the theory of evolution actually is, and I have a pretty good idea about how it is applied in the life sciences. I have a bachelors in biology and I can understand why you are fixating on historical misconceptions of Darwin's theory--because you have no idea what it actually is and how it is applied to science today. You need to take a few classes before you try some more snares.

Edited March 6, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[The Lorax]

Actually, terms like "highly evolved" vs "primitive" species are used all the time on discovery channel and other evolutionist programming and literature.

Thank you for bringing this up. These terms usually refer to the recent-ness of a particular species' family or other order. For instance, because the first ape came about relatively late in the history of vertebrates, apes are said to be more highly evolved than, say, fish, which are considered primitive. These terms don't refer to ecological fitness. (Indeed, the fact that primitive species persist in nature indicates that primitive species are not necessarily less fit.)

Historically biologists—most famous among them British naturalist Charles Darwin—assumed that extinction is the natural outcome of competition between newly evolved, adaptively superior species and their older, more primitive ancestors. These scientists believed that newer, more highly evolved species simply drove less well-adapted species to extinction. That is, historically, extinction was thought to result from evolution. It was also thought that this process happens in a slow and regular manner and occurs at different times in different groups of organisms.

New species often have new traits, but they aren't categorically more fit than older species. It is not as simple as the new simply wiping out the old. Indeed, the new haven't wiped out the old; we still have insects, don't we? They are primitive compared to vertebrates but they vastly outnumber all other species on Earth.

Adaptivity depends, in a large part, on the environment. If environmental conditions change, then a species' traits may be more or less favorable in the new conditions. Sometimes environmental changes make more primitive traits favorable over newer traits with respect to a particular niche. Take any flightless bird as an example. It could be said to be regressing to a more primitve form, but the ostrich and the emu are clearly ecologically successful. "Superiority" does not apply here.

Edited March 6, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[The Lorax]

Has science provided evidence to support the philosophical claims made by Darwinists that natural selection can create the new complex organs that are needed if common ancestry (macro evolution) is correct?

Yes. I spent a good time studying the Hox genes, a group of genes whose mutation can results in things like misplaced or duplicate limbs and body segments, drastically altered lmbs and body segments, etc. There are other examples of tissue and organ duplication, but this is one I have personally spent a little time on.

Is natural selection a testable mechanism for macroevolution?

Speciation events are difficult to test, but genetic evidence indicates that they have occurred.

If common ancestry is true where are the many missing-in-action common ancestors of the animal phyla?

They are there. I would encourage you to take a course or read a book on vertebrate (or invertebrate) anatomy; they generally have evolution as a unifying theme of the course. Biologists have a pretty clear picture of the evolution of most extant phyla, although there are still some missing peices and minor disagreements, for instance, if turtles are anapsids or diapsids. http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data...23/15423-07.pdf

Edited March 6, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[hatsoff]

Well that is not quite true, mate

Edited March 6, 2007 by hatsoff

[The Lorax]

Well that is not quite true, mate – the science of the 19th century did promote racism, i.e., anthropometry, craniometry, phrenology, etc, etc.. Such theories were later discredited and exposed for what they were - pseudo-sciences but the point remains there were scientific theories that were racist in nature. Science is certainly not always correct as history plainly shows.

Scientists attempted to support the racist opinions of the time, but they were never successful in doing so. Meanwhile, the theory of evolution has been and will continue to be misused to propogate racial prejudice, even by some would-be experts in the field, but there is nothing inherently racist about the theory itself. There has never been any accepted modern scientific theory, a part of which holding that whites are superior to blacks. If you think I'm mistaken, try searching for such an example; when you come up empty-handed, perhaps you will believe me.

This is true. There is a difference between science and pseudoscience. Credible scientific studies don't bolster the claims of racial supremacists.

[Guest]

That doesn't matter, there is plenty of information to be derived from Darwinism, evolution isn't a "racist" theory, just the notion that different races are superior is. I don't care what Darwin's views were, that doesn't make the entire idea of Darwinism a "racist" idea.

It's SciFi

You Are Smart

You Will Figure It Out

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." (2 Timothy 1:4)

Science

Is Not This Tired Old Fable

Men Hide Behind A Tale And Claim Truth

"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (2 Timothy 4:4)

Truth Is Scorned

Even On This Christian Board

Men Scuttle Away From The Light

"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." (John 1:9-10)

Jesus

Is Your Lord

His Truth Is Your Sword

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

"The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:"

"The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:"

"The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace." (Numbers 6:24-26)

"And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them." (Numbers 6:27)

Love, Joe

[GeneV]

Wait wait. This is the most unscientific claim ever made. You can't ever check in on the results of the experiment? That violates scientific method. Just because there is equal probability in the hypothetical does not guarantee equal occurence in reality.

We are talking about a thought experiment, nothing more. Of course it wouldn't work in real life, eternity is an impossibility physically.

No i didn't round an infinitesmal to zero. I said it is infinitely close to zero.

You did in your 'proof' of pi being infinite. If you didn't, you didn't prove it because you can't be 100% sure that the infintessimal won't occur, even if it is infinitely close to 0.

Please guy's at least spell the bard's name correctly it's shakespeare I have a headache too, please see the bolded type and tell me if I am seeing double

[Joshua-777]

Not quite true. Darwinism teaches that man is an animal. Plain and simple, man is an animal...

True, evolution does teach us that we are animals. But if we should exhibit the behavior of animals, which animal precisely? Should we roll giant balls of dung like dung beetles? Should we try to fly like eagles? Should we live underwater like fish? As human animals, we exhibit all the behaviors of the human species, including empathy, which encourages us to take care of others in our tribe (do I have this right Angry?). Your analogy generalizes all animals to one behavior, the killing of other animals. This is clearly silly.

To the rest of you:

Darwin was most definitely racist, so was almost EVERYONE at that time.

This does not make evolution racist.

Change happens in science, get over it. If you wish to interpret this change as a bad thing ('filling in gaps' etc), will you kindly hand over your computer, your air-conditioner, your window, your TV, everything made of plastic etc etc etc etc.

In evolution, no species is actually more advanced than any other (at least in the normal sense of the word). This is because being more advanced implies that there is some sort of ultimate goal that the random mutations are aiming for, which is silly. However, as angry has said, species can be newer, fitter, and smarter than others, but they are no more 'advanced' because they fill different niches.

Did you read the quote I posted From Darwin. Charles Darwin, that authored the theory of Evolution. He plainly stated that Species and races within the species were more advanced than others? Did or did Darwin not say that. Did or did not Darwin write the Theory? Is or is he not credited with being the Father of Modern Evolutionary theory? So, you use Darwin when Convenient and try to put him in a closet when not convenient.

Thats usualy how it goes, lol morality is often overlooked in these theorys. Sad, very sad.

[The Lorax]

Are you still contending that Darwin did not hold the Black race to be inferior to the White race?

No one is denying that Darwin (and most of his contemporaries) were racist, we are only making the point that this doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution.

I'm not saying your statement is incorrect, I'm only pointing out that it is a bad argument.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Angry Dragons

[Guest]

Again, you know so little about the entire history of your theory that you fall into every proverbial pit set forth.

Praying for Angry Dragons and for all who are fooled into believing this nonsense non-scientific gibberish called evolution.

Men sin.

Men have no hope except "Jesus Christ and Him Crucified"

Men have no hope except the covering of The Atoning Blood shed at Calvary for the remission of their sins.

Science Fiction as a core belief is no fire proofing!

"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:15)

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

Love, Joe