Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Evolution

"Darwinian evolution was found to be unscientific, going against the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology."

It has been found unscientific by 1) preachers and other non-scientists, 2) lay people too lazy to do any homework on the subject, and 3) tenth-tier nobodies who have, collectively, made very little contribution to science - and almost none in the areas they use to "refute" evolution.

On the other hand, Nobel laureates in science and medicine agree that evolution is great science and creationism is not science at all: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

They also reject "intelligent design."
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/15/nobel_laureates_urge_rejection_intelligent_design/?breaking


"Have you ever read, "On the Origin of Species"?"
Yes.

"The guy doesn't have a clue about what science is."
It's brilliant. I recommend that you read it - carefully.

However, the best way to learn exactly what evolutionary theory is about is to read a book by Ernst Mayr called "What Evolution Is." Its purpose is not to prove evolution, though it does offer substantial evidence. Its purpose is not to refute creationism, though it does contain some of that as well. Its purpose is exactly what the title says: to explain exactly what evolution is.

If you read it very carefully - and think about it very carefully - you can come to a clear understanding of what evolution means.

I know this goes against the creationist paradigm, but IDEALLY, you would try to understand what evolution theory actually says and THEN you would think about it carefully before finally coming to a conclusion. It's much easier though to come to conclusions before one understands a subject.

The reasons why people reject evolution:

1) What they "know" about it amounts to barbershop gossip,

2) What they "know" about science is a comic-book caricature of science.

In addition to all those nobel laureates in science, the national academies of science and many other professional organizations researching this area have issued statements supporting evolution and refuting creationism and its doppelganger, Intelligent Design:
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?
pagename=NEWS_statement_president_
02142001_BA_science_education
(National Academy of Sciences statement)

http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp
http://www.agiweb.org/gapac/evolution_statement.html
http://www.aapt.org/Policy/evolutandcosmo.cfm
http://www.aip.org/gov/gov/policy7.html
http://www.aibs.org/position-statements/980602_aibs_endorsed_st.html
http://www.botany.org/newsite/announcements/evolution.php
http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/evolution.htm
http://www.vertpaleo.org/policy/policy_statement_evolution.html
http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/Teaching%20Evolution.htm
http://depts.washington.edu/hssexec/hss_evolnstate.html

Reasonable conclusion:
Evolution is great science.
Creationism is not science.
Intelligent Design is not science.

The lay people who believe this stuff are rejecting the good science of evolution, because they are largely grossly ignorant of actual science.

Darwinism is good in that it started other scientist to thinking along that line. according to some, the scientist that originally got into evolution did so to refute Darwin. Once they got to looking at it, they changed the understanding of it a bit.

Tim wrote:
"Darwinian evolution was found to be unscientific, going against the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. Have you ever read, "On the Origin of Species"? The guy doesn't have a clue about what science is."

No it wasn't Tim. No such finding has ever taken place. You are absolutely totally and flawlessly DEAD WRONG.

Who is feeding this nonsense to you?

It is absolutely not true.

You are, in my opinion, being brainwashed.

Do any of you know why Darwin studied Natural selection and the theory of evolution? It was because one of his family members had died (his niece, I think)after he got back from his trip to the Galapagos. He lost his faith in God (he was studying to a priest before that) on the account that God wasn't fair or just. So he concoted a theory that would take a god out of the picture. He said, ?I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the ichneumonidae (parasite) with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.? What he saw was the fallen creation; the suffering, death, famine, and assumed that it was God's doing that all this had entered the world. So he concoted a theory that would take out the possiblity of Adam being the first human that caused sin to enter the world; the theory that the world was billions of years old and the first human was just an exalted monkey, not a fallen human. I find this true with other evolutionists; their denial of a Creator is not on scientific evidence but on theological.

would someone please show me an example of a creature who has evolved.

perhaps there is evidence of a dinosaur that evolved over the millions of years they were on the earth...

or

perhaps there is evidence of something that has evolved somewhere.

I am not speaking of environmental adaptation however such as the different races of humans here on earth.

just show me two creatures whos bones reflect evolution.

for instance
a tyranasaurus rex.
a chicken.
a dog.
a cat.

a shark.
a horseshoe crab.
a roach.


also:
dont bother showing me the bones of two seperate species , and claim that they are related directly , because many species that were here are gone.

Heres a "put up" from one who belives what GOD can do.

will the science community "put up"
or "shut up"?

or just say that we are right based on what we have taught ourselves...and you are wrong.

why didnt he evolve?
why cant he stop swimming?


why didnt he evolve?
perhaps he could use the ability to change colors?



why didnt he evolve?
maybe some feet or a pair of hands?




etc...etc...etc...

now where are the pictures you have of creatures that evolved?

I've looked around a while and find nothing but conjecture , presumption , nothing.

hmmmm Tyranasaurus Rex ?
did he evolve?


NOPE

Paul,

Your post shows a profound lack of understanding of evolution. Evolution doesn't predict that cockroaches will evolve hands.

You have "looked around," but you haven't tried to understand what evolution actually is and what it means.

"Do any of you know why Darwin studied Natural selection and the theory of evolution? "

Tim, your ensuing explantion is a concoction by creationist liars. Darwin made extensive observations and took meticulous notes. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that evolution grew out of anything but his data.

Regardless, it is irrelevant. Current theories of evolution are not predicated on Darwin's observations. Creationist liars want to try to run down Darwin in hopes of demolishing his theory. Intellectually lazy people repeat their lies. None of them is interested in discovering the truth. Instead they want to define it.


"I find this true with other evolutionists; their denial of a Creator is not on scientific evidence but on theological."

Evolution doesn't say anything about a creator.
What you have "found," is what your handlers told you to expect you'ld find.

____________________________________________________________

Your post shows a profound lack of understanding of evolution.
____________________________________________________________

My understanding normaly comes from things I see.

why dont you help me to visualize the theory of evoloution by showing me an example of evolution?

I have shown you an example of creatures that have not evolved.

that was a very simple task for me to perform.

since you believe so much in evolution then perhaps you could show me a evolved creature.

ie...
____________________________________

Put up a evolved creature or shut up
____________________________________

it should be simple for you to do this.
you have all of that evidence to use.
put it to use... thats all Im asking.

You have not showed examples of creatures that have not evolved. You haven't written a single sentence that shows you understand anything at all about evolution. You disbelief a theory you don't even understand. You don't know what it is - but gosh darn, you know it's wrong!

There is a book called "What Evolution Is," by Ernst Mayr. That's the place to start, if you can pry your mind open, and your head from your backside.

If you want to see a creature that has evolved, look in the mirror. You are not looking for evidence. You're looking for confirmation.

Instead of looking for confirmation, check out the book. Read it carefully. Try to understand what evolution actually is. Then you can examine the evidence.

let me help you...
here are some available on Google ...

an evolved creature
evolved creature
images of evolved creatures
any type of an evolved creature

please find one and "PUT UP" its picture...

I could not find something that isnt there...

I can understand now what evolution is , it is a word used to describe something that has no evidence to back it up.

therefore evolution is not scientific.
because science is the gathering of data.
science is using that data to determine a fact.

evolution is theory , conjecture , presumption , many words have been written but no "PROOF" has been found...

All creatures alive today have evolved from anscestral creatures. Understand the theory first.

What you demand is not what science demands. What you demand is nonsensical and not related to evolutionary theory.

Learn what evolution is. You express intense antipathy for science and for evolutionists, but nothing you say betrays a remote understanding of the subject or people you berate.

I dont have any understanding?

so what you want me to do is read about a theory?
and from what I read about the theory I will understand the theory of evolution?

WHY?

theres nothing on this earth that even sudgest that evolution ever happened...except what someone has written.

I could write that I am on jupiter right now and typing on my keyboard these words to you.

now are you to believe that simply because you read it?

belief usualy comes from examples or from seeing something , suppose I read about evolution , what evidence would be introduced to me while I read that would cause me to believe in it?

"I dont have any understanding?"

You don't have any understanding on the subject of evolution - or of logic or science in general for that matter.

I don't care whether you believe in evolution. I'm suggesting that you could at least try to understand the theory before you make stupid statements about it.

The primary reason people reject evolution is because what they "know" about it amounts to barbership gossip - that and the fact they have a comic-book understanding of science.

show me.

show me two sets of bones that are evidence of evolution.

actually he did.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/09/MNGH6H58GM1.DTL

evolution has to have some time to causes changes. an abrupt change in the envirement can wipe out many species that cant adapt. that is what happen with the T Rex.

look what I shotcaught yesterday with my rifelpole


heres the weapon I took it down with its a 50 cal barret and when the bullet struck the thing it blew up into a thousand pieces..

the drawing is a reconstruction made by several evolutionist in the area trying to deliver some type of proof of their theory.

then enlighten me ... PLEASE.
or do you choose to just harp about things.
never delivering any sort of evidence.

The primary reason people reject evolution is because what they do "know" about it amounts to barbershop gossip.

well if science has a negative balance of proof of evolution in reguards to the positive balance of proof of creation , then if peoples comic book attitudes about science continues to be mainstream then it is sciences inability to produce that causes this , its not the reasoning of the people.