Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:34:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1140 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > As Jennifer says - evolution, in the sense of change and development, is
> > quite apparent - and I would concur. The absurd part is when Darwin or
> > whomever claims that one species evolved into another, (a lizard grows
> > wings and becomes a bird, a cat becomes a dog becomes a horse, or
> > whatever the precise nonsense is) that all living things "just happened"
> > by chance, that the earth and everything else "evolved" into the amazing
> > universe we inhabit somehow without God having created it.
> ...[Let's] concentrate on evolutionary biology, my area of expertise.
<snip>
> It's an indictment of his education system that Steve understands
> the theory of evolution so poorly...
I was being brief, generalizing and sarcastic - I'll be more specific.
> There is a wealth of scientific evidence that supports the current
> theory of evolution.
I challenge you to show me ANY scientific evidence supporting
the current theory. It would probably be best to start by attempting
to answer any of the points raised below before you do so though.
The more we learn about biology, the more absurd Darwinism appears.
It is under attack by both Christians and non-Christians. Below are
a few fundamental points against Darwinism that none of its supporters
has yet been able to successfully refute...
- The fossil record does not support evolution.
- "Survival of the fittest" is a tautology. (How do we know that
the fittest species survived? Because they survived.)
- There is no evidence of a common ancestor of all life on earth.
- Biology is incredibly more complex than Darwin knew, and random
variation is mathematically insufficient to explain the development
of such systems as DNA and proteins.
- Evolution is not "falsifiable." A theory that cannot be proved wrong
is not a theory. (A theory that explains everything explains nothing.)
I think this fifth point has been discussed some here already - feel free
to ignore it and try the other four. :-)
Although it is a "Swiss -cheese" theory, it's taught in our schools as
"fact" (I guess it evolved from a theory to a fact?) "Writers of
textbooks commonly used in high schools have resorted to outright
falsehoods to obscure the crisis in Darwinism." Some examples:
- The "life-in-a-test-tube" experiment ignores that the earth's early
atmosphere would theoretically have contained gases that were not
hydrogen-rich but volcanic.
- The similar embryos depicted to "prove" common ancestry were
faked over a century ago, a fact known to Darwinist for decades.
- The "Tree of Life" depicted to prove common ancestry has been
disproved by molecular biology.
- The photographs of peppered moths used to "prove" natural
selection were faked.
- Photographs of increased beak size in Darwin's finches (they
increase in times of drought) used to "prove" natural selection neglect
to mention that the beaks return to normal when the droughts end.
There's more falsified evidence and fundamental problems, but I'll
stop with those few examples and get back to David's morality. 8-)
SRC
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) First things first. The basics. Humans exist now. There's no record of humans existing over X million years ago. (No, I'm not a natural historian, I don't know the dates). There are records of species that aren't alive today. Like trilobites (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| Snippety snip (...) If you *seriously* don't believe in survival of the fittest, I invite you to use plain old penicillin the next time you have a serious infection. We'll then see evolution in action. Two ways for the price of one! 1 - *the bugs* (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) The specifics of evolutionary theory are under constant attack, as is appropriate for any branch of science. However, evolution itself is universally accepted among the serious scientific community; it's simply the details that are in dispute. (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) Simply read "Origin of Species". If Darwin had the wealth of information we have today, he'd no doubt modify his theories, but it's the best starting point. The whole point of sexual reproduction is gene mixing as an aid to rapid evolution. (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: "Problems" with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) The more we learn about biology, the more sophisticated our understanding becomes. Why don't Creationists say "the more we know about cosmology, the more absurd Newton's physics appears"? (...) Dave! and Bruce have given most of the answers I (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) There is so much that is wrong in this statement I hardly know where to start. Perhaps I should say that if people feel "creationism vs evolution" is ground ploughed to desert, I'll leave my contribution at this one post. To focus the debate (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
