Skip to comments.The Evolution Interpreter: Generic Transition Form Fossil Discovery Article
Posted on 04/22/2009 1:11:09 PM PDT by Liberty1970
click here to read article
And lets not even get into the failure of the headline-grabbing evolutionists to present with the same energy the critical articles within the evolutionary literature responding to these claims, or the retractions, contrary discoveries, and admissions of error that crop up in the years following each dramatic claim. Its easy for me to see why people who read the mainstream science journals superficially believe in evolution. But for those who dig deeper, the failure of evolutionary stories to hold up over time is very consistent. It should be no surprise how many anti-evolutionists explain how they became creationists or IDers after trying to corroborate some evolutionary claim. Just keep digging folks, thats all I ask of you
Getting your science information from the MSM is kind of like using CNN as your only source in your quest to understand Christianity.
Congratulations, you’ve figured it out!!
Figured this would be worth pinging you. I’m quite serious about the script-like repetitiveness of evolutionary propaganda on this subject (and the boring consistency of the fine-print admissions). Their news writers must really be in a rut.
Filling in the blanks and getting details is just that. And TToE doesn’t need “proof” or “more proof.”
Science is about following the facts. Scientific theories provide a framework for doing that.
If you don’t understand the basics of science, you really should not make threads drawing attention to that fact.
Have a blessed day!
OMG that is hilarious!
A very funny (and sadly true) post from our very own Liberty1970 :o)
One thing that has bothered me about discoveries from fossils is the level of testing to which these revelations are subject. If all the fossils to date were placed in structures with boundaries the size of the Rose Bowl, how many such structures would be filled? Let’s say 20 were filled. Now if we compress all that organic matter into crude oil, would we have enough to run my truck for a year or a decade? With so little examined evidence in relation to the total population, are the such detailed conclusions statistically responsible? Has suitable mathematical analysis ever been applied to these scientific papers? PhD candidates for psychology and sociology have to hire graduate math majors to evaluate their data so their committees can see the level of support the data provides for their conclusions. I don’t believe such a process is considered by these people.
In this case we have a historical theory (common descent by solely natural processes), not observational science, that is inconsistent with scientific evidence that tells us how evolutionary change occurs in nature. We have a lot of data from evolutionary biology and population genetics that clearly demonstrates that life is degrading (as actually observed, even if we restrict ourselves to beneficial mutations) and that significant innovation by chance mutations is out of the question.
There is plenty of evidence for stasis of life forms over time - that is clearly the dominant theme of the fossil record, though evolutionists constantly obscure that fact. And there is good evidence for smale scale diversification and speciation within types of life. But the evidence overall is that of an orchard of multiple unlinked living trees of species, not one single evolutionary tree, or a separate creation of each species.
Repeating talking points is not understanding science. Evolution is a stochastic process. And all science, by definition, is solely natural. The idea of "life is degrading" states a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying scientific principles and represents complete scientific illiteracy.
This one doesn’t even rise to one of yours, my Friend.
Have a blessed day!
So you would regard it as unscientific if someone pointed out your car is rusting? This is the philosophical corner that evolutionism is boxing itself into. Making absurd points to avoid the obvious. It is legitimate to evaluate whether a genome is evolving or devolving informationally, and denying that fact won't change how obvious it is to unbiased people.
Science is the tool God gave us to understand the natural world. Of course there is more, but that is outside the realm of science.
Indeed. Only creationists are consistently worse at reporting and interpreting science.
Only God is natural. Everything else is a creation.
Rust is the result of a chemical process. Rusting is not degrading, it is the result of corrosive elements operating on each other.
Cars are the result of and operate withing a static environment, not a stochastic one.
This is the philosophical corner that evolutionism is boxing itself into. Making absurd points to avoid the obvious. It is legitimate to evaluate whether a genome is evolving or devolving informationally, and denying that fact won't change how obvious it is to unbiased people.
"Obvious" to people who don't understand science. Asking lay people to know the difference between a theory and a scientific theory, for example, is probably going to find most do not know. Uninformed opinions, while frequently amusing, are still uninformed.
IOW: "'cause I think so" isn't really a reasoned nor informed basis for any argument.
Evolution is just one of the many ways He uses to accomplish His goals. Science is the tool by which we discover and use these rules.
Philosophy, while fun and within its context important, is of no value in this pursuit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.