I said to read a book on evolution as it is presently understood first. Then read anything else you want and compare for yourself. But make sure you first have a basic comprehension of what it is you wish to dispute and the actual evidence which you wish to subsequently discard in favor of whatever else you read elsewhere. Do I think you could do that? Probably. Do I think you WILL do that? Probably not.
Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
Like others here, you don't even know what you don't know. Anatomically, many species appear to have evolved from a bottom-up, incremental perspective rather than from a top-down grand design viewpoint. I already addressed this matter earlier in this thread just before you went on parole again. The positioning of the laryngeal nerve and the vas deferens are only two of many. The problems many people have with their lower backs is consistent with our ancestors being land animals for about 400 million years, although we've walked on our hind legs for only about one percent of that time. Sinuses are a problem for many people because, as Dawkins wrote, their drainage hole is in the very last place a sensible designer would have chosen: the top! That's not such a great idea in terms of using gravity for drainage of fluid. That's because we are bipeds. However, when our ancestors were quadripeds, the "top" was not the top but rather the front, which makes much more sense. Following the breadcrumbs yet? And how about the koala bear, which has a pouch facing downward? Seems silly, right? Until you understand from genetic testing that koalas are descended from a wombat-like ancestor. Wombats are diggers. If their pouches did not face downward, their babies would have grit and soil in their eyes and teeth.
Change takes time, and it is not always perfect. All the available evidence is consistent with incremental bottom-up, naturally selected random mutation. Not grand design top-down. It's all in Dawkins' books among many others. If you only took the time to read one of them you might not remain so stupid.
http://www.arn.org/docs/newman/rn_statusofevolution.htm
I thought this interesting, here are some excerpts.
It appears that evolution in sense (3) is well-established as an explanation for small-scale or microevolutionary changes. At this level, one can say that evolution (3) is a fact, or at least a "laboratory" theory describing currently-occurring, short-term, repeatable phenomena...
...But evolution (3) runs into serious problems on the macroevolutionary level. Attempts to simulate the Darwinian mechanism by computer have not produced the desired result of generating new organizational structures. Instead random changes in the computer model simulating the DNA sequence have produced degradation rather than increasing order.
In addition, since transitional forms are systematically lacking in the fossil record, attempts have been made to reconstruct the pathways by which various plants and animals may have been derived from ancestors. In cases where a transition across a major subdivision of the biological classification scheme is involved, enormous problems have been encountered which raise the question whether such transitions could have occurred at all without a large number of coordinated mutations in a single generation...
...What a majority of scientists may believe in the matter should not be the issue if we follow the guidelines laid down in the California Science Framework Draft: Students should be told about evidence and how scientists reached their conclusions, not whether scientists "believe" something or how many do or don't...
...a proof of the theory of evolution, even in most of its macroevolutionary forms, would not disprove the existence of a Creator God...
I thought this interesting, here are some excerpts.
It appears that evolution in sense (3) is well-established as an explanation for small-scale or microevolutionary changes. At this level, one can say that evolution (3) is a fact, or at least a "laboratory" theory describing currently-occurring, short-term, repeatable phenomena...
...But evolution (3) runs into serious problems on the macroevolutionary level. Attempts to simulate the Darwinian mechanism by computer have not produced the desired result of generating new organizational structures. Instead random changes in the computer model simulating the DNA sequence have produced degradation rather than increasing order.
In addition, since transitional forms are systematically lacking in the fossil record, attempts have been made to reconstruct the pathways by which various plants and animals may have been derived from ancestors. In cases where a transition across a major subdivision of the biological classification scheme is involved, enormous problems have been encountered which raise the question whether such transitions could have occurred at all without a large number of coordinated mutations in a single generation...
...What a majority of scientists may believe in the matter should not be the issue if we follow the guidelines laid down in the California Science Framework Draft: Students should be told about evidence and how scientists reached their conclusions, not whether scientists "believe" something or how many do or don't...
...a proof of the theory of evolution, even in most of its macroevolutionary forms, would not disprove the existence of a Creator God...
I cant speak for Lucrum, only for myself.
Basically the only reason i dont waste time on people like Peil, is because he is completely delusional, there is no way you can argue with a person who believes that things like "Noahs Ark" are real.
So while I dont believe in organised religion, i have questions about theories like the big bang, and in my mind, something bigger then what we can acknowledge may or may not exist, i dont pretend to know.
But the only people you cant really get into a logical argument with are people like peil, who believe dinosarus existed 5000 years ago. That is why i spend more time debating atheists then i do with hard core bible thumpers.
I dont believe in organised religion, but i dont know whether or not something bigger than what we know about is truly out there, In my mind if the god i have been taught about since i was young is really forgiving then masybe he will let me off the hook, if he is a vengeful god then im fucked anyways, and if he doesnt exist then who cares, i wasted some time trying to figure out a philosophical debate.
Stupid political ploy... it's always "anybody that doesn't swallow the whole evolution story is anti-science"...
I use the term "science" in quotes to refer to the stuff that is not proven but presented as fact.. speculative things like macro evolution and global warming just to name a couple of big ones...
I've done a lot of science, engineering, research, etc. in my decades as a worker, it taught me to question assumptions and sort out data from information and assertions from conclusions... and to sort out political levels of argument from scientific levels of argument.. once the politics creeps into the discussion I know that person has not a clue about anything above the political level in the argument...
Can't quite pick up a real book and read it from cover to cover, can you?
No one can disprove the existence of a god any more than disprove the existence of unicorns, blue swans, and spaghetti monsters. Do you not already get that?
And as for the rest of the post it's ideological crap (also). GIGO, boyo. Dawkins covers it fully, and he discusses how shits like Trader666 (and now you) seek to obfuscate that which has already been substantiated time and again. The question is this: is your god so important to you that you need to hold back human understanding in any way you can just to keep your pipedream alive? You talk about it not having to be just the one or the other, but everything you and those like you present comes from that same "other." Hypocrisy much?