False ideas about evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-05-2011, 01:56 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
(05-05-2011 12:22 PM)gaglamesh731 Wrote:  Some gems I've heard are :

Irreducible Complexity
There's Micro-evolution but no Macro-evolution
Fossils are fake and scientists fail to admit they are wrong
Fossils form very rapidly not over millions of years

@bearderddude
Are we supposed to answer the issues ourselves or let other forum members answer ?

Feel free to answer them yourself. I can't learn anything if people don't tell me what their answers are Smile! I want to know what some of the good questions that are out there are and what good answers can be given.
(05-05-2011 01:13 PM)TheSelfishGene Wrote:  
(05-05-2011 09:05 AM)Thammuz Wrote:  
(05-05-2011 08:59 AM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  Alright, I saw this said at Evolution is a Fairytale. That a scientist can adjust the numbers in radiometric dating to fit any model and still make it look consistent. I'd like to know if anyone knows the mechanics of this. I know how radiometric dating works, and I'm thinking they are using different half-lives? Or do they say it's the initial amount that can be tweaked?

There is also a creationist theory about accelerating half-life to a certain point. That way young earth creationism would make sense. Of course, the theory is based on nothing and it would mean that God is deliberately trying to fool us.

I observed that when creationist argue that the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible, they would never assume that this law has changed over time. But when it comes to half-lives it is perfectly okay to assume (on no rational basis) that the laws of quantum physics changed for no particular reason. it's so typical.

Yea. I have wondered how they are able to compensate for elevated rates of decay and the heat given off by these reactions with any explanation other than "That's what GOD SAID!!!!!"

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2011, 04:20 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
There's the good old saying, "Which came first, the male or female?"

Which did stump me at first. But being a rational person, I decided to research the matter before saying "I don't know, must be god". Turns out the hermaphrodite came first, from my understanding. There were no distinct males or females, just two organisms that swapped DNA. The roles eventually became specialized, but even today we see several species that have no genders but still reproduce sexually. And interestingly enough, I think the Australian Cuddle Fish proves a point here. Males are being sexually selected in two different ways. There are the males that are big and strong to fight off other males, sexually selecting for strength, but then there's another direction. There are males that appear to be females and slip right past the big, strong males to mate with the females. So sometimes males are selected for being strong and powerful, but other times small and feminine. Maybe I'm taking this too far, but it seems to me that this is how gender specialization could come about.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2011, 12:04 AM
RE: False ideas about evolution
I'm reading Don Prothero's Evolution: What the fossils say and Why it matters. I'm barely into it, so I can't say much about it.

@Ashley I don't know if I would call them hermaphrodites, but I do know they were organisms with a female-like body plan. Religion got it wrong, female came before male.

@TheBeardedDude The term living fossil is commonly used to describe an organism from a species which doesn't seem to have changed much over tens or hundreds of millions of years, determined by looking a the fossil record. An example would be the coelacanth.

It really annoys me when people like the creationists we argued with (spectre, ron, etc) dismiss Talkorigins.org's collection of articles as 'evobabble'. Seriously, they would be all over us if we dismissed a single aspect of their argument, yet they readily do it and add that to the forum rules, calling anyone who brings it up a troll. It's like if I were to argue that we've never seen stem cells differentiate, then ignore everything the researchers were to publish, then I cannot continue to call myself honest and interested in discovering the truth.
If you don't consider all the information you can, how can you know you are right?

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2011, 03:33 AM
RE: False ideas about evolution
Yea, I'm surprised you didn't know about these asses before you got banned. (For being correct). What amazes me most is the sheer stupidity these people spout, and the unprecedented acceptance of that stupidity!

The Beauty of The Scientific Method , is the Anticipation of a Better Explanation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2011, 07:07 AM
RE: False ideas about evolution
(06-05-2011 12:04 AM)daemonowner Wrote:  I'm reading Don Prothero's Evolution: What the fossils say and Why it matters. I'm barely into it, so I can't say much about it.

@Ashley I don't know if I would call them hermaphrodites, but I do know they were organisms with a female-like body plan. Religion got it wrong, female came before male.

@TheBeardedDude The term living fossil is commonly used to describe an organism from a species which doesn't seem to have changed much over tens or hundreds of millions of years, determined by looking a the fossil record. An example would be the coelacanth.

It really annoys me when people like the creationists we argued with (spectre, ron, etc) dismiss Talkorigins.org's collection of articles as 'evobabble'. Seriously, they would be all over us if we dismissed a single aspect of their argument, yet they readily do it and add that to the forum rules, calling anyone who brings it up a troll. It's like if I were to argue that we've never seen stem cells differentiate, then ignore everything the researchers were to publish, then I cannot continue to call myself honest and interested in discovering the truth.
If you don't consider all the information you can, how can you know you are right?

"Living Fossils" really seem to be more against their argument than for however. Species that are well adapted to their environment are less likely to change (much) and less likely to go extinct (unless there is some catastrophic event; i.e. a large bolide). If this is the case then "Living Fossils" are the model for stasis and punctuated equilibrium. The Coelocanth, horseshoe crab, cyanobacteria and so on and so forth are the model for evolutionary achievement. The point is to survive and reproduce and they have been the most successful the longest so of course they do not change!!!

The most frustrating part of the evo fairytale website was the "no discussing microevolution rule because we know it exists." Not only is it hypocritical (in my opinion) to accept micro and not macroevolution but microevolutionary processes are the same potential processes that lead to macroevolution so by making a rule where they can dismiss any argument pertaining to microevolution they immediately claim some immunity for it as an argument for macroevolution. Frustrating.
(06-05-2011 03:33 AM)Chesstime Wrote:  Yea, I'm surprised you didn't know about these asses before you got banned. (For being correct). What amazes me most is the sheer stupidity these people spout, and the unprecedented acceptance of that stupidity!

The frustrating part is the manipulation of what we say. Taking sentences out of context or taking part of it and basically just saying "that is wrong so I won't read the rest."

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2011, 05:00 AM
RE: False ideas about evolution
(06-05-2011 07:07 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Living Fossils" really seem to be more against their argument than for however. Species that are well adapted to their environment are less likely to change (much) and less likely to go extinct (unless there is some catastrophic event; i.e. a large bolide). If this is the case then "Living Fossils" are the model for stasis and punctuated equilibrium. The Coelocanth, horseshoe crab, cyanobacteria and so on and so forth are the model for evolutionary achievement. The point is to survive and reproduce and they have been the most successful the longest so of course they do not change!!!

It's stabilising selection, I know. They are, it would seem, well suited to their current environment, which is evolutionarily speaking a good thing. I'm not adding a negative connotation to it, I just use the term to describe an organism like the coelacanth.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes daemonowner's post
13-05-2011, 09:18 AM
 
RE: False ideas about evolution
In Greece, there is a respected comic strip writer called "Arkas" that used one of his comic themes to satirize anti-evolution creationism.

The following is one of his strips coming from his "Afterlife" theme, translated for your pleasure! Big Grin

[Image: newbitmapimageqq.jpg]
Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2011, 12:19 AM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2011 12:31 AM by Spectre.)
RE: False ideas about evolution
Hi guys. I noticed in this thread that one of the points I made on the evolutionfairytale forum was mentioned. I did find free pdf downloads of the rate committee's research somewhere. If I find it I'll post it here for you guys. Otherwise you'd have to buy the book which contains the peer reviewed literature in the creation journals and I doubt that many people would want to invest in a book that they currently don't agree with.
Found it!

http://www.icr.org/rate/

Enjoy.

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" Peter 3:15

http://www.answersforhope.org
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2011, 07:09 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
How about Kent Hovinds questions to stump an evolutionist/atheist/liberal/abortionist/anyonewhodisagrees? can't remember them all but I got into an argument with someone once and I swear they quoted kent hovind word for word.

Hey brother christian, with your high and mighty errand, your actions speak so loud, I can't hear a word you're saying.

"This machine kills fascists..."

"Well this machine kills commies!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2011, 08:19 PM
RE: False ideas about evolution
About hermaphrodites coming first. I would say yes, since sexual reproduction appears within plants rather than bacteria, the hermaphroditic plant life came before the species with specific sexes. Hermaphroditic species can spread genes in a wider range, but separating them into two distinct sorts male and female allowed for even more spreading. though it required the ability to walk (or swim =p).

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: