Jump to content


Photo

Why Are There Still Apes?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
230 replies to this topic

#221 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 July 2009 - 06:32 PM

Keith,

If a theory can't make accurate predictions to start with and is reduced to "shoe horning" and "cherry picking" evidence as it's discovered,is the hallmark of a psuedo-science.

View Post


You may as well not bother Jason, he is only pseudo-listening ;)

#222 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 03 July 2009 - 07:30 PM

Keith,

If a theory can't make accurate predictions to start with and is reduced to "shoe horning" and "cherry picking" evidence as it's discovered,is the hallmark of a psuedo-science.

View Post


I think there is a forum dedicated to showing evolutionary theory and it's predications. Not sure where it is...have you read it yet?

Regards,

Arch.

#223 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 July 2009 - 09:27 PM

Try this one,Arch.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1951

#224 Pwnzerfaust

Pwnzerfaust

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • San Carlos, California, USA

Posted 04 July 2009 - 12:24 AM

Try this one,Arch.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1951

View Post


That link is 404'd.

#225 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 04 July 2009 - 02:54 AM

That link is 404'd.

View Post


Same here, but I assume that means you've read it Jason?

#226 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 July 2009 - 11:27 AM

If a theory can't make accurate predictions to start with and is reduced to "shoe horning" and "cherry picking" evidence as it's discovered,is the hallmark of a psuedo-science.

If by 'shoe-horning' you mean something like pounding square pegs into round holes which are too small, then that definitely does not apply to evolution.
There are 2 possible ways in which a theory may change with time.
First, the theory may be proclaimed generally true, but then increasing numbers of exceptions, special cases etc are discovered. the range of application of the theory is progressively reduced ie shoe-horned between all the facts which it does not explain.

The other way in which a theory may change is through the discovery of additional supporting evidence and mechanisms which strengthen the original theory.
The realization that continents were carried on rigid plates rather than sailing through the ocean floor made 'continental drift' believable.
This is what has happened repeatedly to Darwin's original theory.
Discovery and incorporation of genes produced neo-Darwinism, and made natural selection much more acceptable.
The discovery of mutation and all the discoveries relating to genetic code, genomes etc strengthens the theory even further.

As for 'cherry-picking', that usually means selecting certain data while ignoring other observations. Perhaps you could give a list of the observations and data which you think have been ignored?

#227 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 04 July 2009 - 08:45 PM

If by 'shoe-horning' you mean something like pounding square pegs into round holes which are too small, then that definitely does not apply to evolution.



Charles J. Smith, "Biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.

Manfred Eigen (Nobel Laureate) "Here at the molecular level are the roots of the old puzzle about the chicken or the egg. Which came first, function or information? As we shall show, neither one could proceed the other; they had to evolve together." Evolution, p.13, 11/10/1982.

Theodosius Dobzhansky, "....one can say that mutations are owing to incorrect copying, to occasional mistakes in the generally so remarkably accurate process of replication... You may, if you wish, compare mutations to accidental misspellings or misprints which even the most experienced copyist makes.... ...harmfulness of most mutants is just what could be reasonably expected. ....an accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or into one's radio set can hardly be expected to make it work better." Heredity And The Nature Of Man, p.126

Harold Blum, Prinston Univ., "No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world." Time's Arrow and Evolution, p.14

 Ilya Prigogin (Nobel Laureate) "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred." Physics Today, Vol.25, p.28.

Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "The sweep of anatomical diversity reached a maximum right after the initial diversification of multicellular animals. The later history of life proceeded by elimination not expansion." Wonderful Life, 1989, p.46

Stephen Gould, Harvard, "According to a ‘law’ formulated by E. D. Cope in 1871, the body size of organisms in a peculiar evolutionary lineage tends to increase. But Cope’s rule has failed the most comprehensive test applied to it yet." Nature, V.385, 1/16/97

The Universe And Dr. Einstein, "The sun is slowly but surely burning out, the stars are dying embers, and everywhere in the cosmos heat is turning into cold, matter is dissolving into radiation, and energy is being dissipated into empty space. The universe is thus progressing to an ultimate 'heat death'....And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the second law of thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves just one way." p.102

J. C. Brandt, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them.", Sun And Stars, p.111 Abraham Loeb, Harvard Center for Astrophysics, "The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level." New Scientist, V.157, 2/7/1998, p.30 Derek Ward-Thompsom, Cardiff Univ. "Stars are among the most fundamental building blocks of the universe, yet the processes by which they are formed are not understood." Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002 Geoffrey Burbidge, Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory, "If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect.", Stellar Structure, p.577 Genesis 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished."

James Trefil, Physics, George Mason U., "It seems that the more we learn about the basic laws of nature, the more those laws seem to tell us that the visible matter–the stuff we can see–shouldn't be arranged the way it is. There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are. ...The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientist...Despite what you may read in the press, we still have no answer to the question of why the sky is full of galaxies..." Dark Side Of The Universe, 1988, pp.2, 55 Martin Rees, "The most basic questions about galaxies are still not understood. If galaxies didn't exist, we would have no problem explaining that fact.", Dallas Morning News, 8/15/1988

In fact,Keith.You will have a hard time finding any scientific law that is'nt violated by ToE.

The law of biogenesis

The law of heredity

The second law of thermodynamics

Boyles gas law

Geology

Genetics

Paleoentology

All of the above have solidly excluded evolution from being a theory based on any evidence or scientific logic.

#228 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 04 July 2009 - 11:22 PM

Nice cut-n-paste.

Evolution violates Boyle's gas law? Who knew! :huh:

--Percy

#229 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 05 July 2009 - 01:07 AM

I think I may have to go with Percy on this one Jason. There's a great deal of information you've presented there. I'd be interested to know, how many of the sources you posted have you actually read through?

I'm pretty certain most if not all the scientific fields you listed there back up evolution.

Regards,

Arch.

#230 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 July 2009 - 03:38 AM

I think I may have to go with Percy on this one Jason. There's a great deal of information you've presented there. I'd be interested to know, how many of the sources you posted have you actually read through?

I'm pretty certain most if not all the scientific fields you listed there back up evolution.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Instead of being like Keith and saying so,start a thread and back it up.Surely,you could find one field of science that verifies evolution.Cosmic,Chemical,or Biological.

#231 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 July 2009 - 03:46 PM

I split a topic off of here...

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2494

....and I'm closing this thread because it seems to have run its course.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users