What's new
By:

Science vs. Creationism

carolinajazz said:
...oh, the watch isn't broken! In fact, all the parts are in perfect running order! They're just not "assembled" yet.

But your saying that something way more complex than a watch came into existence and then continued to develop in such a way that resulted in all the living things we observe on earth today? So to satisfy your desire to move from "simple" to "complex" I give you this illustration:

When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists feel forced to back away. For example, the authors of Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) give up, saying: “These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way .*.*. in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.”

Hence, after acknowledging that intelligence must somehow have been involved in bringing life into existence, the authors continue: “Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”

Thus an observer might conclude that a “psychological” barrier is the only plausible explanation as to why most evolutionists cling to a chance origin for life and reject any “design or purpose or directedness,” as Dawkins expressed it.

Indeed, even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say that they do not believe a personal Creator is responsible for the origin of life. In their thinking, intelligence is mandatory, but a Creator is unacceptable. Do you find that contradictory?

....is that complex enough for ya?
Click to expand...

Soooo how come you don't quote all the books and all the renowned scientist who say otherwise???
 
Zulu said:
Soooo how come you don't quote all the books and all the renowned scientist who say otherwise???
Click to expand...

...hey that's your job, not mine! But if want to know some of the sources I've been using here they are!

1. Discover, “The Tortoise or the Hare?” by James Gorman, October*1980, p.*88.
2. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p.*12.
3. The Enterprise, Riverside, California, “Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin,” by Boyce Rensberger, November*14, 1980, p.*E9; Science, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” by Roger Lewin, November*21, 1980, pp.*883-887.
4. Natural History, “Evolutionary Housecleaning,” by Niles Eldredge, February*1982, pp.*78,*81.
5. The Star, Johannesburg, “The Evolution of a Theory,” by Christopher Booker, April*20, 1982, p.*19.
6. The Neck of the Giraffe, pp.*7,*8.
7. New Scientist, “Darwin’s Theory: An Exercise in Science,” by Michael Ruse, June*25, 1981, p.*828.
8. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p.*19.
9. The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, 1902 edition, Part One, p.*250.
10. The Enchanted Loom, p.*96.
11. Ibid., pp.*98, 100.
12. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M.*Raup, January*1979, pp.*22, 23,*25.
13. The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M.*Stanley, 1981, pp.*71,*77.
14. The Enterprise, November*14, 1980, p.*E9.
15. Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February*1982, p.*92.
16. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol.*6, p.*335.
17. The New York Times, “Theory of Rapid Evolution Attacked,” by Bayard Webster, July*9, 1981, p.*B11.
18. Harper’s, “Darwin’s Mistake,” by Tom Bethell, February*1976, pp.*72,*75.
19. The Neck of the Giraffe, pp.*103, 107, 108, 117.
20. The Guardian, London, “Beginning to Have Doubts,” by John Durant, December*4, 1980, p.*15.
a. The Origin of Species, introduction by W.*R.*Thompson, 1956 edition, p.*xxii.
b. The New York Times, “Computer Scientists Stymied in Their Quest to Match Human Vision,” by William J.*Broad, September*25, 1984, p.*C1.
c. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January*1979, p.*25.

1. The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, Mentor edition, 1958, p.*450.
2. The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, 1976, p.*16.
3. Ibid., p.*ix.
4. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p.*68.
5. Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p.*8.
6. The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L.*Miller and Leslie E.*Orgel, 1974, p.*33.
7. The Neck of the Giraffe, p.*65.

10. Scientific American, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” by Richard E.*Dickerson, September*1978, p.*75.
11. Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” by George Wald, August*1954, pp.*49,*50.
12. The Origin of Life, by John D.*Bernal, 1967, p.*144.
13. Evolution From Space, p.*24.
14. New Scientist, “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” by Leslie Orgel, April*15, 1982, p.*151.
15. Evolution From Space, p.*27.
16. The Neck of the Giraffe, p.*66.
17. Scientific American, September*1978, p.*73.
18. The Sciences, “The Creationist Revival,” by Joel Gurin, April*1981, p.*17.
19. Scientific American, September*1978, p.*85.
20. New Scientist, April*15, 1982, p.*151.
21. Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, p.*71.
22. The Plants, by Frits W.*Went, 1963, p.*60.
23. Evolution From Space, pp.*30,*31.
24. Ibid., p.*130.
25. The Selfish Gene, p.*14.
26. Evolution From Space, p.*31.
27. Scientific American, August*1954, p.*46.
28. The Immense Journey, by Loren Eiseley, 1957, p.*200.
29. Ibid., p.*199.
30. Physics Bulletin, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” by H.*S.*Lipson, 1980, Vol.*31, p.*138.
31. Daily Express, London, “There Must Be a God,” by Geoffrey Levy, August*14, 1981, p.*28.
32. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p.*19.
10. Processes of Organic Evolution, p.*136.
11. New Scientist, January*15, 1981, p.*129.
12. A Guide to Earth History, by Richard Carrington, 1956, p.*48.
13. The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M.*Stanley, 1981, p.*6.
14. A View of Life, by Salvador E.*Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, 1981, p.*642.
15. Synthetische Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of Species), by Heribert Nilsson, 1953, p.*1212.
16. Red Giants and White Dwarfs, by Robert Jastrow, 1979, p.*97.
17. Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p.*8.
18. Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p.*249.
19. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p.*23.
20. A View of Life, pp.*638, 649.
21. The Origin of Species, Part Two, p.*90.
22. Natural History, “Darwin and the Fossil Record,” by Alfred S.*Romer, October*1959, pp.*466, 467.
23. A View of Life, p.*651.
24. Kentish Times, England, “Scientist Rejects Evolution,” December*11, 1975, p.*4.
25. Liberty, “Evolution or Creation?” by Harold G.*Coffin, September/October*1975, p.*12.
26. The New Evolutionary Timetable, p.*xv.
27. The New York Times, “Prehistoric Gnat,” October*3, 1982, Section*1, p.*49.
28. The Globe and Mail, Toronto, “That’s Life,” October*5, 1982, p.*6.
29. Discover, “The Tortoise or the Hare?” by James Gorman, October*1980, p.*89.
30. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M.*Raup, January*1979, p.*23.
31. New Scientist, February*4, 1982, p.*320.
32. Processes of Organic Evolution, p.*147.
33. The New Evolutionary Timetable, p.*95.
34. Should Evolution Be Taught? by John N.*Moore, 1970, pp.*9, 14, 24; New Scientist, “Letters,” September*15, 1983, p.*798.
35. On Growth and Form, by D’Arcy Thompson, 1959, Vol.*II, pp.*1093, 1094.
36. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol.*6, p.*333.
37. Encyclopædia Britannica, 1976, Macropædia, Vol.*7, p.*13.
38. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p.*31.
39. The New Evolutionary Timetable, pp.*4,*96.
40. Order: In Life, by Edmund Samuel, 1972, p.*120.
41. Liberty, September/October*1975, p.*14.

....and there's plenty more where those came from!!!
 
carolinajazz said:
...hey that's your job, not mine! But if want to know some of the sources I've been using here they are!

1. Discover, “The Tortoise or the Hare?” by James Gorman, October*1980, p.*88.
2. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p.*12.
3. The Enterprise, Riverside, California, “Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin,” by Boyce Rensberger, November*14, 1980, p.*E9; Science, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” by Roger Lewin, November*21, 1980, pp.*883-887.
4. Natural History, “Evolutionary Housecleaning,” by Niles Eldredge, February*1982, pp.*78,*81.
5. The Star, Johannesburg, “The Evolution of a Theory,” by Christopher Booker, April*20, 1982, p.*19.
6. The Neck of the Giraffe, pp.*7,*8.
7. New Scientist, “Darwin’s Theory: An Exercise in Science,” by Michael Ruse, June*25, 1981, p.*828.
8. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p.*19.
9. The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, 1902 edition, Part One, p.*250.
10. The Enchanted Loom, p.*96.
11. Ibid., pp.*98, 100.
12. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M.*Raup, January*1979, pp.*22, 23,*25.
13. The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M.*Stanley, 1981, pp.*71,*77.
14. The Enterprise, November*14, 1980, p.*E9.
15. Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February*1982, p.*92.
16. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol.*6, p.*335.
17. The New York Times, “Theory of Rapid Evolution Attacked,” by Bayard Webster, July*9, 1981, p.*B11.
18. Harper’s, “Darwin’s Mistake,” by Tom Bethell, February*1976, pp.*72,*75.
19. The Neck of the Giraffe, pp.*103, 107, 108, 117.
20. The Guardian, London, “Beginning to Have Doubts,” by John Durant, December*4, 1980, p.*15.
a. The Origin of Species, introduction by W.*R.*Thompson, 1956 edition, p.*xxii.
b. The New York Times, “Computer Scientists Stymied in Their Quest to Match Human Vision,” by William J.*Broad, September*25, 1984, p.*C1.
c. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January*1979, p.*25.

1. The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, Mentor edition, 1958, p.*450.
2. The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, 1976, p.*16.
3. Ibid., p.*ix.
4. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p.*68.
5. Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p.*8.
6. The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L.*Miller and Leslie E.*Orgel, 1974, p.*33.
7. The Neck of the Giraffe, p.*65.

10. Scientific American, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” by Richard E.*Dickerson, September*1978, p.*75.
11. Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” by George Wald, August*1954, pp.*49,*50.
12. The Origin of Life, by John D.*Bernal, 1967, p.*144.
13. Evolution From Space, p.*24.
14. New Scientist, “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” by Leslie Orgel, April*15, 1982, p.*151.
15. Evolution From Space, p.*27.
16. The Neck of the Giraffe, p.*66.
17. Scientific American, September*1978, p.*73.
18. The Sciences, “The Creationist Revival,” by Joel Gurin, April*1981, p.*17.
19. Scientific American, September*1978, p.*85.
20. New Scientist, April*15, 1982, p.*151.
21. Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, p.*71.
22. The Plants, by Frits W.*Went, 1963, p.*60.
23. Evolution From Space, pp.*30,*31.
24. Ibid., p.*130.
25. The Selfish Gene, p.*14.
26. Evolution From Space, p.*31.
27. Scientific American, August*1954, p.*46.
28. The Immense Journey, by Loren Eiseley, 1957, p.*200.
29. Ibid., p.*199.
30. Physics Bulletin, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” by H.*S.*Lipson, 1980, Vol.*31, p.*138.
31. Daily Express, London, “There Must Be a God,” by Geoffrey Levy, August*14, 1981, p.*28.
32. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p.*19.
10. Processes of Organic Evolution, p.*136.
11. New Scientist, January*15, 1981, p.*129.
12. A Guide to Earth History, by Richard Carrington, 1956, p.*48.
13. The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M.*Stanley, 1981, p.*6.
14. A View of Life, by Salvador E.*Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, 1981, p.*642.
15. Synthetische Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of Species), by Heribert Nilsson, 1953, p.*1212.
16. Red Giants and White Dwarfs, by Robert Jastrow, 1979, p.*97.
17. Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p.*8.
18. Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p.*249.
19. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p.*23.
20. A View of Life, pp.*638, 649.
21. The Origin of Species, Part Two, p.*90.
22. Natural History, “Darwin and the Fossil Record,” by Alfred S.*Romer, October*1959, pp.*466, 467.
23. A View of Life, p.*651.
24. Kentish Times, England, “Scientist Rejects Evolution,” December*11, 1975, p.*4.
25. Liberty, “Evolution or Creation?” by Harold G.*Coffin, September/October*1975, p.*12.
26. The New Evolutionary Timetable, p.*xv.
27. The New York Times, “Prehistoric Gnat,” October*3, 1982, Section*1, p.*49.
28. The Globe and Mail, Toronto, “That’s Life,” October*5, 1982, p.*6.
29. Discover, “The Tortoise or the Hare?” by James Gorman, October*1980, p.*89.
30. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M.*Raup, January*1979, p.*23.
31. New Scientist, February*4, 1982, p.*320.
32. Processes of Organic Evolution, p.*147.
33. The New Evolutionary Timetable, p.*95.
34. Should Evolution Be Taught? by John N.*Moore, 1970, pp.*9, 14, 24; New Scientist, “Letters,” September*15, 1983, p.*798.
35. On Growth and Form, by D’Arcy Thompson, 1959, Vol.*II, pp.*1093, 1094.
36. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol.*6, p.*333.
37. Encyclopædia Britannica, 1976, Macropædia, Vol.*7, p.*13.
38. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p.*31.
39. The New Evolutionary Timetable, pp.*4,*96.
40. Order: In Life, by Edmund Samuel, 1972, p.*120.
41. Liberty, September/October*1975, p.*14.

....and there's plenty more where those came from!!!
Click to expand...

Wow you've quoted from 41+ books in this thread!!!!
 
I learned from "The Thing From Another World" that there are things on other worlds.
 
@cj

Just looked at the literature citation for my currect graduate evolution text book..

evolution3.png


It has 37 pages with roughly 50 citations per page...

That's about 1,850 citation backing some form of the modern evolution theory!!
 
Zulu said:
@cj

Just looked at the literature citation for my currect graduate evolution text book..

evolution3.png



It has 37 pages with roughly 50 citations per page...

That's about 1,850 citation backing some form of the modern evolution theory!!
Click to expand...

Zulu, don't attempt to overwhelm the intellects of idiots with mere numbers. They live in their worlds principally chained to their own logic without reference to outside authority. . . . .

But, aside from that, every little intellectual discipline essentially does the same thing when they close ranks and start endlessly quoting or referencing one another. . . . .
 
carolinajazz said:
...oh, the watch isn't broken! In fact, all the parts are in perfect running order! They're just not "assembled" yet.

But your saying that something way more complex than a watch came into existence and then continued to develop in such a way that resulted in all the living things we observe on earth today? So to satisfy your desire to move from "simple" to "complex" I give you this illustration:

When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists feel forced to back away. For example, the authors of Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) give up, saying: “These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way .*.*. in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.”

Hence, after acknowledging that intelligence must somehow have been involved in bringing life into existence, the authors continue: “Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”

Thus an observer might conclude that a “psychological” barrier is the only plausible explanation as to why most evolutionists cling to a chance origin for life and reject any “design or purpose or directedness,” as Dawkins expressed it.

Indeed, even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say that they do not believe a personal Creator is responsible for the origin of life. In their thinking, intelligence is mandatory, but a Creator is unacceptable. Do you find that contradictory?

....is that complex enough for ya?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking he went with Hoyle on the whole alien (instead of "personal creator") thing...

Zulu said:
Also..... What are the chances that God is an Alien or Alein civilization???
Click to expand...
 
I love David Berlinski

Like many of us, I too had always thought that those who didn't accept evolution were Bible thumping morons. Turns out you don't have to be religious to doubt Darwin's theory. I was a pretty ignorant evolutionist and just piggybacked on the polemic sermons of Origin-of-the-Species-thumping bullies. They seemed convinced of their position, and if I disagreed with them they'd ridicule me and label me a Bible-thumping moron (this behavior is prevalent - evolutionists are often ironically dogmatic when you question their naturalistic religion). But if it doesn't make sense - if there's some "missing link" in the theory, then it's wise to hold off being convinced of it. Regarding evolution, I guess you could say I'm agnostic.
This guy David Berlinski's great. Youtube him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8
 
That new version of Cosmos from National Geographic is pretty good. Just watched it with my kid. She can't make it through the Sagan version.(He had one of those "you're getting very sleepy" voices)
 
BENTLEY said:
Like many of us, I too had always thought that those who didn't accept evolution were Bible thumping morons. Turns out you don't have to be religious to doubt Darwin's theory. I was a pretty ignorant evolutionist and just piggybacked on the polemic sermons of Origin-of-the-Species-thumping bullies. They seemed convinced of their position, and if I disagreed with them they'd ridicule me and label me a Bible-thumping moron (this behavior is prevalent - evolutionists are often ironically dogmatic when you question their naturalistic religion). But if it doesn't make sense - if there's some "missing link" in the theory, then it's wise to hold off being convinced of it. Regarding evolution, I guess you could say I'm agnostic.
This guy David Berlinski's great. Youtube him.
(removed video to make post smaller)
Click to expand...

Have you read Origin of Species? People refer to it not just because it was revolutionary for it's time or because they are bullies but because it is that good. An important thing to remember is that it is not called the Origin of Life for a reason.
 
from chapter 6 of On the Origin of the Species - titled "Difficulties on the Theory":
Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.
Click to expand...
-- The fossil record is insufficient to support the theory. So says Darwin.


Here's chapter 9 called "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record" for any of those who would like to read it.
https://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-09.html

Here's a couple links to fossil forgeries (yeah, since there wasn't any actual "missing link" transitional fossils people forged them):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor


Why would people be so determined to prove evolution that they would forge the "proof"? It makes you wonder. But take Christian conspiracy theories out of the debate. In fact, take the whole idea of God out of it too. Let's be rational about this and try to avoid getting sucked into some debate on the existence of God.

Simply, Darwin had a theory - one even he admitted was lacking. There's been plenty of time to find the evidence, but all we've found are forgeries. So until there's evidence for the theory, it's just a theory, and I'm not gonna be a sheep and accept it on blind faith. You don't have to believe in God to doubt Darwin's theory.
 
heyhey said:
Have you read Origin of Species? People refer to it not just because it was revolutionary for it's time or because they are bullies but because it is that good. An important thing to remember is that it is not called the Origin of Life for a reason.
Click to expand...

What's the reason? I'm not as smart as you.
 
BENTLEY said:
from chapter 6 of On the Origin of the Species - titled "Difficulties on the Theory":
-- The fossil record is insufficient to support the theory. So says Darwin.


Here's chapter 9 called "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record" for any of those who would like to read it.
https://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-09.html
Click to expand...

You're right. The fossil record was insufficient in 1859.

Here's a couple links to fossil forgeries (yeah, since there wasn't any actual "missing link" transitional fossils people forged them):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor

Why would people be so determined to prove evolution that they would forge the "proof"? It makes you wonder. But take Christian conspiracy theories out of the debate. In fact, take the whole idea of God out of it too. Let's be rational about this and try to avoid getting sucked into some debate on the existence of God.

Simply, Darwin had a theory - one even he admitted was lacking. There's been plenty of time to find the evidence, but all we've found are forgeries. So until there's evidence for the theory, it's just a theory, and I'm not gonna be a sheep and accept it on blind faith. You don't have to believe in God to doubt Darwin's theory.
Click to expand...

Some people will for their own advancement create forgeries. Science being an open endeavor where the evidence is the ultimate arbiter of claims will eventually expose them. The same process that was used to expose these forgeries has verified many others.
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

It is a very rare thing for any creature to become a fossil. Despite this we have found early hominid fossils.

BENTLEY said:
What's the reason? I'm not as smart as you.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're just being sarcastic but I'll bite.

The Origin of Species talks about just that, speciation. How gradual changes can produce new species. The origins of life are still very much a mystery that we are now only beginning to understand. There are some very good theories out there to explain how life may have originated. The theory of evolution while related to the origins of life is not dependent upon it for validation. Even if we were never able to come to a proper understanding of how life began that would not keep us from understanding how it evolves.


PS You should read your links before posting. Darwin in that chapter explains, much better than I ever could, the "imperfection of the geological record". It is not, despite the title, an acquiescence to his theories skeptics.
 
Last edited:
BENTLEY said:
Like many of us, I too had always thought that those who didn't accept evolution were Bible thumping morons.
Click to expand...

There are many bible-thumping geniuses. Being a genius is no guarantee of being right, being a moron is no guarantee of being wrong. Humans often blind themselves to evidence in subservience to their ideological needs. By contrast, evolutionary theory is based on evidence, and it's conclusions are correct regardless of the intelligence of the proponent or opponent.

BENTLEY said:
Turns out you don't have to be religious to doubt Darwin's theory. ... This guy David Berlinski's great.
Click to expand...

Modern scientists don't use Darwin's theory. Instead, they took most of the theory, removed the parts that were wrong, and added a lot more as indicated by the evidence.

Berlinski is a hack. If you like, I can link yo to several critiques of his positions that demonstrate this.
 
BENTLEY said:
-- The fossil record is insufficient to support the theory. So says Darwin.

...

Here's a couple links to fossil forgeries (yeah, since there wasn't any actual "missing link" transitional fossils people forged them):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor

Why would people be so determined to prove evolution that they would forge the "proof"? It makes you wonder. But take Christian conspiracy theories out of the debate. In fact, take the whole idea of God out of it too. Let's be rational about this and try to avoid getting sucked into some debate on the existence of God.

Simply, Darwin had a theory - one even he admitted was lacking. There's been plenty of time to find the evidence, but all we've found are forgeries. So until there's evidence for the theory, it's just a theory, and I'm not gonna be a sheep and accept it on blind faith. You don't have to believe in God to doubt Darwin's theory.
Click to expand...

At the time Darwin wrote, the fossil evidence was lacking. Since then, we've found tens of thousands (at least) of fossils. There have been a couple of attempts at forgeries, but the same scientists (collectively) who found the genuine fossils also rooted out the forgeries.

For example, almost every fossil on this page was found after Darwin died:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

That's just for the changes that happened after humans diverged from chimpanzees.

The general reason for faking fossils is to get individual or local recognition. Sometimes money can be a factor. In particular, part of the reason Piltdown Man was created was because some people didn't like the thought than humans evolved in Africa, as opposed to Europe.
 
heyhey said:
There are some very good theories out there to explain how life may have originated.
Click to expand...

This is strictly about the choice of words. We have no theories about the beginning of life, just hypotheses. We don't want to water down the word "theory" as used in science; that just gives ammunition to the anti-science folks.
 
One Brow said:
There are many bible-thumping geniuses. Being a genius is no guarantee of being right, being a moron is no guarantee of being wrong. Humans often blind themselves to evidence in subservience to their ideological needs. By contrast, evolutionary theory is based on evidence, and it's conclusions are correct regardless of the intelligence of the proponent or opponent.
Click to expand...

Just a thought based on this line.

Religions are also often based on evidence. A different type of evidence, but just as real to many people. Just because some people dismiss the evidence does not make it any less real. It's a different perspective and opinion of what counts as evidence, and what is real, but not less valid.
 
Triangle Man said:
Just a thought based on this line.

Religions are also often based on evidence. A different type of evidence, but just as real to many people. Just because some people dismiss the evidence does not make it any less real. It's a different perspective and opinion of what counts as evidence, and what is real, but not less valid.
Click to expand...

I agree. I would have been more precise by saying "observational, repeatable, objective evidence".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top