Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
Evolution can be falsified by finding a Precabrian rabbit.
Click to expand...
On September 29, 2009, Dr. Stephen Westrop, Sam Noble Museum of Natural History Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology, gave a free public lecture to pre-refute a scheduled lecture by Steve Meyer at the museum later that evening on the Cambrian Explosion. Westrop concluded by taking exception to J.B.S. Haldane’s claim that finding a fossil rabbit in the pre-Cambrian would prove Darwin’s theory wrong. If such a fossil were found, Westrop said, paleontologists would simply revise their reconstruction of the history of life. During the Q&;A, one student asked him whether any fossil find could falsify Darwin’s theory, and Professor Westrop said “No,” since Darwin’s theory is really about natural selection, which operates on a much shorter time scale than the fossil record.
 
I prefer Dr. Haldane to Dr. Westrop. Or are you telling us that all scientists are to be believed, whatever the say. You do realise that Dr. Dawkins is also a scientist?

In this case, Dr. Westrop is wrong. Scientists would not “simply revise” but have a root and branch major reconstruction as well as having to find a new route for the origin of land animals. You do realise that all Precambtian animals were living in hte sea, not on land.

Alternatively, your unreferenced source has misunderstood what Dr. Westrop was saying. As I have told you before, some creationist websites lie.

rossum
 
rossum said:
some creationist websites lie.
Click to expand...
There is not truth as you have claimed in the past. In addition, your evo formed brainis not a reliable truth detector. And yet, you have the gall to make a truth claim? my my…
 
buffalo said:
There is not truth as you have claimed in the past. In addition, your evo formed brainis not a reliable truth detector. And yet, you have the gall to make a truth claim? my my…
Click to expand...
You have not given me the source for Dr. Westrop’s quote. Failure to provide the source only make me more suspicious of the provenance of that quote.

And you have misremembered my tag line. I do not deny truth, I deny ultimate truth:
“The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”
Click to expand...
It is the “ultimate” part that is the problem. Ordinary common-or-garden truth is not a problem.

rossum
 
@buffalo
buffalo said:
There is not truth as you (rossum) have claimed in the past. In addition, your evo formed brain is not a reliable truth detector. And yet, you have the gall to make a truth claim? my my…
Click to expand...
The original post is that Darwin’s theory is not scientific, and rossum knowing this, objects to ultimate truth to distract you. He also claims frauds to be “mistakes.”
Uriel1 said:
No, (Haeckel) didn’t make a mistake - he committed a fraud which “science” covered up for 120 years
and this is the second fraud I named, Piltdown being the first, which “science” also covered up.
Click to expand...
So we can see that the evolutionists seem to postulate ideas which have no scientific justification and then their acolytes adopt these theories as “fact” and rename frauds as mistakes
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Alternatively, your unreferenced source has misunderstood what Dr. Westrop was saying. As I have told you before, some creationist websites lie.
Click to expand...
In my Intro to Anthro course, sometimes students would bring forth such anti-evolutionary material, so then I’d take what they brought and show why it’s misleading, wrong, or just a pathetic out-and-out lie. At first, at least some was given to me to try and establish a “creationist” point, but then after a while they generally realized the fallacies put forth by some of these quite unscrupulous authors, especially since some were elementarish fabrications that didn’t even make sense on the “logic” level. Imagine, lying and distorting in the name of “God”. But hey, I’m sure some are making money off that nonsense.

A quick example along this line is what one may find in several anti-evolutionary materials in that supposedly some “scientists” dated a living mollusk and found it to be thousands of years old using C-14 dating! But anyone who knows anything about using C-14 dating is that it cannot be used on aquatic organisms because water slows the absorption of radioactivity.

Also, what some don’t seem to understand is that those of us in anthropology, for example, don’t do our own dating as what we find is often shipped out to experts in another field. Because those in the biological sciences do that a lot because our area of familiarity is somewhat limited to our own field, those who attack the basic ToE are not just attacking “evolutionists” but also experts in various other fields of science.
 
Last edited:
So, you mention “making money.” Really? How do you know? Isn’t the ‘revealed wisdom’ that this sort of thing mostly occurs outside the big city, in rural areas? And among people with little education/indoctrination. Or money.
 
From Wikipedia, although granted it is not a scientific source:

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutations , genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation.Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection, including sexual selection and genetic drift act on these variations, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules…

Evolutionary biologists have continued to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses as well as constructing theories based on evidence from the field or laboratory and on data generated by the methods of mathematical and theoretical biology. Their discoveries have influenced not just the development of biology but numerous other scientific and industrial fields, including agriculture, medicine and computer science… – Evolution - Wikipedia
 
Because you can find these publications for sale and many religious bookstores or supply houses. I literally have seen hundreds of these publications over the years.
 
Last edited:
It should be your burden to disprove evolution. Those who believe in a scientifically tested theory should not have to explain all the research to people like you.
 
I’ve been to Christian specialty bookstores. I’ve rarely seen that kind of material.
 
Then that’s your experience.

BTW, some of what I received along this line came from two sets of neighbors of mine that are JW’s.

Also, i grew up in a fundamentalist church and was taught about “evilution”, and the first time I ran across a minister that understood that evolution is real and not incompatible with Christianity was a Catholic priest I ran into between my junior and senior year in high school back in the early '60’s. At that time it really confused me as I didn’t have much of a theological background then. Fortunately, when I took two Catholic theology classes during my undergrad years, a Jesuit priest who was the author of a widely-used adult catechism, Fr. John Hardon, verified what the other priest had told me. However, I didn’t convert to Catholicism until much later.
 
Last edited:
For the most part, this is the definition of adaptation. No one argues it.
 
Metis1 said:
Then that’s your experience.

BTW, some of what I received along this line came from two sets of neighbors of mine that are JW’s.

Also, i grew up in a fundamentalist church and was taught about “evilution”, and the first time I ran across a minister that understood that evolution is real and not incompatible with Christianity was a Catholic priest I ran into between my junior and senior year in high school back in the early '60’s. At that time it really confused me as I didn’t have much of a theological background then. Fortunately, when I took two Catholic theology classes during my undergrad years, a Jesuit priest who was the author of a widely-used adult catechism, Fr. John Hardon, verified what the other priest had told me. However, I didn’t convert to Catholicism until much later.
Click to expand...
Micro-evolution is real. No one argues it.
 
buffalo said:
Micro-evolution is real. No one argues it.
Click to expand...
And I have given you an example where one single mutation made a new species of crayfish. Another example took three mutations to make a new species of lacewing.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that you do not accept macro-evolution when macro-evolution can happen with one or three mutations?

Is your micro-evolution confined to zero mutations only, because one mutation might be macro-evolution?

rossum
 
rossum said:
And I have given you an example where one single mutation made a new species of crayfish. Another example took three mutations to make a new species of lacewing.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that you do not accept macro-evolution when macro-evolution can happen with one or three mutations?

Is your micro-evolution confined to zero mutations only, because one mutation might be macro-evolution?

rossum
Click to expand...
And I have shown you this:

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution​

 
I don’t like the idea that scientists get to decide what science is, I am not sure Francis Bacon would have been a fan of the notion, either.

Scientists do not function independently of their ideology and it is right that philosophy has an (name removed by moderator)ut into the boundaries of science.

To take a current example, there are no shortage of academics from prestigious academic institutions making claims that they have scientifically proven, or know of scientific proofs, that there is no such thing as gender. Scientists have been shockingly slow to condemn this anti-scientific notion for ideological reasons.

I recognise this is not a perfect analogy but the point is that scientists, even in an academic context, do not function independently of their ideology.
 
That’s right. Scientists are human beings and some have ideologies which they can use as a proof, to them. That is why Pope Francis is talking about “ideological colonizations.” Which simply means certain ideas are being spread with vigor. “No such thing as gender”? Complete nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top