ChatterBank0 min ago
Evolution Vs Creationism
33 Answers
Ok Im no expert and it seems to be very topical and already has been started by people here so I was wondering if both sides could present there arguments, or point out flaws in each others arguments?
I'll start off with:
If creationism is correct then can someone explain how they know that every geologist is wrong and everthing they've ever geologist has worked towards is wrong?
I'll start off with:
If creationism is correct then can someone explain how they know that every geologist is wrong and everthing they've ever geologist has worked towards is wrong?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by The Sherman. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
elte's cracked it. So, God gives us minds capable of logical thought and then plants misleading evidence of our origins. He gives us free will, but then puts temptation in our way.
What a devious, untrustworthy old devil this God is. Wonder why he bothered really, since some of us are not afraid to utilise the free will he gave us, nor to lend our minds to logical thought. See, God, you can fool some of the people some of the time ...... or in some cases, some of the people all of the time ......... but there are some you can't fool at all.
What a devious, untrustworthy old devil this God is. Wonder why he bothered really, since some of us are not afraid to utilise the free will he gave us, nor to lend our minds to logical thought. See, God, you can fool some of the people some of the time ...... or in some cases, some of the people all of the time ......... but there are some you can't fool at all.
Sherman, in a way, it's quite good that Clanad has decided to drop by and post some of his typical guff. It�s a good lesson in what we�re up against.
Clanad, as a firm believer in creationism, is well known on here for telling out and out lies. He's been called on them many times. He doesn't let evidence get in his way, he just spews out tons of so-called 'facts' and then sits back. Among the many dishonest things he does are 'quote mines' (quoting out of context to give a false impression of what is being discussed), assertation (stating things are true without evidence), obfuscation (the deliberate muddying of the waters (he's very good at this - a single post can contain so much BS that it would take a book to rebut it all properly)), a failure to date quotes if it might make it obvious they're totally out of date and a bit of common or garden ignorance.
It's a shame, because he gives the impression of being quite bright, but he's so intellectually dishonest when it comes to evolution, it makes your eyes bleed. There is, in short, no arguing with him, which is why I'm addressing this to you rather than him.
(You may think this is a rather aggressive attack on another member of this site, by the way. It is, and je ne regret rien. It�s all extensively provable in the back history of the AB, and is indicative of the way some people will go out of their way to attack a scientific theory for religious reasons.)
Clanad, as a firm believer in creationism, is well known on here for telling out and out lies. He's been called on them many times. He doesn't let evidence get in his way, he just spews out tons of so-called 'facts' and then sits back. Among the many dishonest things he does are 'quote mines' (quoting out of context to give a false impression of what is being discussed), assertation (stating things are true without evidence), obfuscation (the deliberate muddying of the waters (he's very good at this - a single post can contain so much BS that it would take a book to rebut it all properly)), a failure to date quotes if it might make it obvious they're totally out of date and a bit of common or garden ignorance.
It's a shame, because he gives the impression of being quite bright, but he's so intellectually dishonest when it comes to evolution, it makes your eyes bleed. There is, in short, no arguing with him, which is why I'm addressing this to you rather than him.
(You may think this is a rather aggressive attack on another member of this site, by the way. It is, and je ne regret rien. It�s all extensively provable in the back history of the AB, and is indicative of the way some people will go out of their way to attack a scientific theory for religious reasons.)
To move on and actually address some of his points, to show there's a genuine basis for my criticism of twit for brains:
1) Pak!cetus is apparently "reconstructed from two small portions of a skull and a a handful of teeth. No other fossils associated with this specimen have been located." (my bold)
FAIL: http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/wh ale_origins/whales/*********.html
This may be deliberate mendacity, or it may just be ignorance, since it's true that back in the mid 80s this was the case. Then we found better examples and we did indeed have to change how we'd imagined the skull to be. In fact, the real skull further confirmed its transitional status. We now have quite a complete skeleton, and certainly enough to be sure that Pak!cetus is what it is claimed to be; a transitional mammal to whale fossil.
2) "Ambulocetus is equally as sparse in it's evidence."
FAIL: http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/wh ale_origins/whales/Ambulocet.html
Note this is the same scientist Clanad quotes, who, knowing full well the value of their discovery, has looked further into it. Typically, creationists' knowledge will run out at the point the evidence stops being helpful to them.
3) "The pak!cetus fossils are consistent with land mammals, and was found, in its entirety with other fossilized land animals."
FAIL: Pak!cetus *was* a land animal. No one has ever pretended otherwise - this is a total straw man attack. You can hardly show transition from mammals to whales without having some land animals in there, can you? D'oh!
Additional FAIL: no it isn't
1) Pak!cetus is apparently "reconstructed from two small portions of a skull and a a handful of teeth. No other fossils associated with this specimen have been located." (my bold)
FAIL: http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/wh ale_origins/whales/*********.html
This may be deliberate mendacity, or it may just be ignorance, since it's true that back in the mid 80s this was the case. Then we found better examples and we did indeed have to change how we'd imagined the skull to be. In fact, the real skull further confirmed its transitional status. We now have quite a complete skeleton, and certainly enough to be sure that Pak!cetus is what it is claimed to be; a transitional mammal to whale fossil.
2) "Ambulocetus is equally as sparse in it's evidence."
FAIL: http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/wh ale_origins/whales/Ambulocet.html
Note this is the same scientist Clanad quotes, who, knowing full well the value of their discovery, has looked further into it. Typically, creationists' knowledge will run out at the point the evidence stops being helpful to them.
3) "The pak!cetus fossils are consistent with land mammals, and was found, in its entirety with other fossilized land animals."
FAIL: Pak!cetus *was* a land animal. No one has ever pretended otherwise - this is a total straw man attack. You can hardly show transition from mammals to whales without having some land animals in there, can you? D'oh!
Additional FAIL: no it isn't
4) "B.J. Stahl writes in Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution"
FAIL: A book originally published in 1974, and reprinted in 1985. You will already have noted from the links above quite how many advances in transitional fossils has occurred between 1994 and the early 2000s, so you can imagine how very credible this up to the minute this 1974 text book is. Barbara Stahl was a well regarded evolutionary biologist, but her work was of its time.
5) "Years and years after the experiments with the famous Peppered Moth standard, there is still no settled pronunciation as to the results, in fact there is still rather violent disagreements, none of which involve other than scientists."
FAIL: A tedious creotard classic which is blithely repeated with no regard for the actual facts. This gives an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evo lution#Criticism_and_controversy
All this is totally classic Clanad and creationists in general, Sherman. What will probably happen now is a massive response full of yet more BS all purportedly showing the massive gaps in evolutionary theory, whilst not a jot of credible evidence is ever put forward to support creationism.
It's just a giant waste of time and effort, and unfortunately, to someone who isn't sceptical or knowledgeable, it can appear quite convincing. The only benefit is that your knowledge of evolution does tend to improve as you need to research the truth of the situation!
FAIL: A book originally published in 1974, and reprinted in 1985. You will already have noted from the links above quite how many advances in transitional fossils has occurred between 1994 and the early 2000s, so you can imagine how very credible this up to the minute this 1974 text book is. Barbara Stahl was a well regarded evolutionary biologist, but her work was of its time.
5) "Years and years after the experiments with the famous Peppered Moth standard, there is still no settled pronunciation as to the results, in fact there is still rather violent disagreements, none of which involve other than scientists."
FAIL: A tedious creotard classic which is blithely repeated with no regard for the actual facts. This gives an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evo lution#Criticism_and_controversy
All this is totally classic Clanad and creationists in general, Sherman. What will probably happen now is a massive response full of yet more BS all purportedly showing the massive gaps in evolutionary theory, whilst not a jot of credible evidence is ever put forward to support creationism.
It's just a giant waste of time and effort, and unfortunately, to someone who isn't sceptical or knowledgeable, it can appear quite convincing. The only benefit is that your knowledge of evolution does tend to improve as you need to research the truth of the situation!
Well, I'm sincerely apologetic for striking such a nerve. In an effort to be brief and not rile further ire I would point out that the second neucom reference (the first cannot be opened) reference, is interesting when compared to another Thewissen proposal for a common ancestor. However included within the article is found a disclaimer from an equally well titled expert, Maureen O'Leary, Decide for yourselves: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=closest-wh ale-cousin
The National Geographic, states:: "What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in combination�the arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull�are absent in other land mammals but a signature of later Eocene whales". The scientists place the decisions on extremely complex issues affecting evolutionary science on subtle differences that, often, only they can detect. I suppose this is what makes them "experts", but wouldn't one have to have some scepticism when equally well trained peers disagree?
As to the Peppered Moth... any unbiased investigation would certainly have to see a professional disagreement between the original investigator Kettelwell and a later critic, Majerus. Again, decide for yourselves: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/m oths.html
The paragraph near the center of the page does conclude that aspects of the original experiments were faked; i.e. photographs were "arranged". The paragraph forgives this, but should it not have been noted in the original work?
In my opinion, the invective is uncalled for, since disagreements need not be so. However, admittedly, each has our own view
The National Geographic, states:: "What causes scientists to declare the creature a whale? Subtle clues in combination�the arrangement of cups on the molar teeth, a folding in a bone of the middle ear, and the positioning of the ear bones within the skull�are absent in other land mammals but a signature of later Eocene whales". The scientists place the decisions on extremely complex issues affecting evolutionary science on subtle differences that, often, only they can detect. I suppose this is what makes them "experts", but wouldn't one have to have some scepticism when equally well trained peers disagree?
As to the Peppered Moth... any unbiased investigation would certainly have to see a professional disagreement between the original investigator Kettelwell and a later critic, Majerus. Again, decide for yourselves: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/m oths.html
The paragraph near the center of the page does conclude that aspects of the original experiments were faked; i.e. photographs were "arranged". The paragraph forgives this, but should it not have been noted in the original work?
In my opinion, the invective is uncalled for, since disagreements need not be so. However, admittedly, each has our own view
Unfortunately the URL won't render because of the issue mentioned earlier about "pak i" (occasionally Clanad and I have to exist in the same universe). Replace the ! with an i and it will work.
http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/wh ale_origins/whales/Pak!cetid.html
Alternatively remove the last bit so it ends at whales/ and you can see the entire site. It's good stuff.
Other than that, I stand by everything I said last night.
Continuing to misrepresent minor (albeit fiercely debated) disagreements on specific mechanisms as though they represent serious challenges to the theory of evolution despite the fact that not one evolutionary biologist would a) pretend such disagreements didn't exist or b) ever claim that they are in danger of undermining evolution is just futher fuel for the fire.
Finally, Sherman, check out a guy called Potholer54 on YouTube. He has a series of videos that might be what you're looking for vis a vis a primer that won't overload you with scientific gobbledigook. Numbers 6-8 deal with the relevant areas. For a book, I always recommend Carl Zimmer's 'Evolution - Triumph of an Idea'.
I know someone else who should read that too.
http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/wh ale_origins/whales/Pak!cetid.html
Alternatively remove the last bit so it ends at whales/ and you can see the entire site. It's good stuff.
Other than that, I stand by everything I said last night.
Continuing to misrepresent minor (albeit fiercely debated) disagreements on specific mechanisms as though they represent serious challenges to the theory of evolution despite the fact that not one evolutionary biologist would a) pretend such disagreements didn't exist or b) ever claim that they are in danger of undermining evolution is just futher fuel for the fire.
Finally, Sherman, check out a guy called Potholer54 on YouTube. He has a series of videos that might be what you're looking for vis a vis a primer that won't overload you with scientific gobbledigook. Numbers 6-8 deal with the relevant areas. For a book, I always recommend Carl Zimmer's 'Evolution - Triumph of an Idea'.
I know someone else who should read that too.
When scientific investigation brings to light evidence which blasts huge holes through eons of cherished dogmatism its to be expected that those who faithfully swallowed the poisoned bait of the creation myth hook line and sinker will choke on it. But when it comes to creationism, a leap of faith is not required to determine who the real 'creator'/s is/are.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank1 min ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works5 mins ago
