Evolution as a scientific principle has been seriously challenged

Stabroke News ^ | July 4th, 2007 | Roger Williams

[RightWhale]

why are you an athiest?

Real question is when did you stop beating your wife, you atheist.

[burzum]

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics and cannot be proved using the scientific method. I have my own belief system that has been developed over years.

Prove it. I have heard this lie enough recently on FR that it makes me want to cry. I'll give you a hint before you reply: look up the exact definition of entropy in a closed system and then look up the Gibbs Free Energy equation and how to solve it (hint: there is an Sint and Sext).

[ndt]

"One thing that does it for me is the giraffe. The fossil records show no transitional ancestors."

Fossilization is a rare event one would not expect to find a record for every single step of every single species. While there are numerous examples of transitional fossils, as far as I know you are correct, there is no clear short necked giraffe fossils, there are however related living animals that show exactly that those retained features.



"A mutation producing longer legs simultaneously with longer neck (not to mention the complex system of valves necessary for such a long neck) to appear simultaneously is extremely improbable."

Winning the lottery is also extremely improbable, but someone does it nearly every week.

"As for the other animals on the savannah, I find it interesting that the same "natural slection" that dictated a giraffe's neck to grow somehow didn't apply to the others."

You just got done stating that the mutations were extremely improbable and now are expressing surprise that the same mutation did not occur repeatedly. That seems inconsistent.

There are numerous potential strategies for living on a savanna a long neck is just one way of taking advantage of one renounce. Elephants for example use an entirely different approach to accomplish the same task, reaching hard to get to food.

"Now that I have answered your question, how about answering mine. What specific experiment or observation do you feel supports the ToE?"

It only takes a single exception to falsify a theory, but it takes a large body of evidence to support one. So I would point you to not a single observation, but the entire body geologic of fossil evidence and genetic research which is nearly unanimously accepted to support the ToE. As a start I would direct you towards a good overview of the evidence.

[ndt]

"The real question to evolutionists is why are you an athiest? It’s not about science, it’s about defying God."

Personally I put my effort into defying Zeus. Do you obey Zeus?

[mysterio]

Evolution as a scientific principle has been seriously challenged

No, it hasn't.

[Alter Kaker]

When will the scientific community come up with any evidence that supports evolution?

Don't be fatuous.

[Alter Kaker]

Logical thinking? All he says is “evolution can’t be true because some creationist wrote a book saying it isn’t.” If that’s what passes for logical thinking in your parts, you’re in a sorry state.

[Coyoteman]

Logical thinking? All he says is “evolution can’t be true because some creationist wrote a book saying it isn’t.” If that’s what passes for logical thinking in your parts, you’re in a sorry state.

That's creation "science" -- the stuff they want taught in science classes.

[DungeonMaster]

Real question is when did you stop beating your wife, you atheist.

Interesting response. I suppose there are a few people out there that strongly believe in theistic evolution. They are an interesting breed.

[DungeonMaster]

Personally I put my effort into defying Zeus. Do you obey Zeus?

So are you saying the God of the bible is no better than Zeus? Sure sounds like you are helping make my point.

[ndt]

"So are you saying the God of the bible is no better than Zeus? "

No, I'm asking if you obey Zeus. Is not why not?

[DungeonMaster]

No, I'm asking if you obey Zeus. Is not why not?

I wasn't born again by Zeus. But, when I was an atheistic evolutionist I thought that all gods were equally mythological.

[ndt]

"I wasn't born again by Zeus. But, when I was an atheistic evolutionist I thought that all gods were equally mythological."

Sounds like you are trying to weasel out of answering so let me spell it out for you.

First, many of those who accept evolution are religious, so the entire premise of your claim is bogus.

Second, atheists are atheists because they don't believe that god (or other supernatural things) exist. You can not defy that which does not exist.

[DungeonMaster]

Sounds like you are trying to weasel out of answering so let me spell it out for you.

It sounds like you have a real problem with creationists when you use such terminology.

First, many of those who accept evolution are religious, so the entire premise of your claim is bogus.

Everyone is religious. The term doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Second, atheists are atheists because they don't believe that god (or other supernatural things) exist. You can not defy that which does not exist.

Everyone that claims not to belive in God would absolutely love to have God just stand up and proove Himself.

[ndt]

"It sounds like you have a real problem with creationists when you use such terminology."

What terminology? I asked a simple yes/no question. You weaseled. It has nothing to do with crevo/evo and everything to do with character.

"Everyone is religious. The term doesn't mean what you seem to think it means."

You seem to have an expansive definition of religion shared by few. Water boiling at 100C at sea level is not a religious belief, it is objective reality.

"Everyone that claims not to belive in God would absolutely love to have God just stand up and proove Himself."

No, not really. If it did I would take that into account as part of my world view, but I'm hardly looking forward to it nor expecting it in the least.

[burzum]

Everyone is religious. The term doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Except atheists. If you try to make the assumption that everyone is 'religious' because they are human then the term has no value and cannot be used to argue a point. The term 'religious' is useful *because* it is exclusive. Denying that exclusivity indicates that there is nothing special about the property that the term was made to describe.

This particular argument annoys me because I hear similar statements from those on the left. It sounds very much like Newspeak.

[Bryan24]

Evolution is a dead end with no explanation.

If you are an atheistic evolutionist, then you go back to a point in time where something came from nothing. Absolutely impossible by every law of physics. If your theory has a starting point that is impossible, all that follows is impossible.

The Bible states in Psalms 19:1-3

“The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.....”

Those verses, composed 3,000 years ago, confirm what we know through common sense.

This earth, with its fantastic array of precision and design, declares that there is a creator. Every day and every night the things we see tell us that. And everyone on earth sees it and understands it.

The atheist says “Prove to me God exists.” I say, “Look around. God is talking to you but you aren’t listening.”

[ndt]

"If you are an atheistic evolutionist, then you go back to a point in time where something came from nothing."

Actually that pretty much sums up genesis.

"Absolutely impossible by every law of physics."

And the subsequent miracles of the Bible somehow don't violate the law of physics?

"The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world...."

And yet so many creationists refuse to actually listen to the firmament and night reveal their knowledge because they are providing ample evidence of evolution.

In fact, if there is a god he must be shaking his head in disbelief that people would blindly ignore the evidence he provided in quantity despite specific admonitions to learn from it.

"This earth, with its fantastic array of precision and design, declares that there is a creator."

Well the ToE says nothing about the existence of a creator. I on the other hand see no evidence to support the existence of one.

"Every day and every night the things we see tell us that. And everyone on earth sees it and understands it."

OK, what did you see last night that told you that?

And when did I cease to be a person on earth?

"The atheist says “Prove to me God exists.” I say, “Look around. God is talking to you but you aren’t listening.”"

I'm too busy sorting the huge fossil record that he put down showing evidence of common decent.

[csense]

"Genesis 1:1 is a declaration of what happened IN the beginning. The word Genesis means IN the beginning. The second verse establishes that something happened to that creation..."

I'm continually befuddled as to why people seem to think that the first line of Genesis is an act of creation. It is not, period, and anyone who has ever taken grammar school level literature can tell you that.

But don't take my word for it, follow your own line of reasoning. If you believe that Genesis one *is* an act of creation, then not only did God create the earth in that first line, but also the heavens, and there is no indication in verse two that the heavens also needed recreation, Which means that the chronology of creation that follows, including the heavens, poses a major problem for your argument.

You have God creating the heavens twice....once in the first line, and the second in the chronology that follows.

The argument simply doesn't make sense from the point of internal consistency of the Bible itself. You may think it makes sense scientifically, but it doesn't make sense theologically.

[csense]

Re: Jeremiah, chapter 4
Jeremiah is told about the destruction of this earth pre-flesh man..."

I think you're reading into the text what you want, much like Genesis.