Problems With Evolution

[AzurePhoenix]

I think that evolutionists probably started the connection between these theories, not creationists.

You think this because of what exactly? The two field are entirely unrelated, there is no reason for them to be brought up as such in science. They're only common factor is that they threaten the safe little fantasy world of Bible Thumpers.

 

Chapter 10-Charles Darwin himself found evidence against evolution! Darwin admitted that if evolution was true there should many fossils that should exist. However, none of these fossils have been found.

Darwin was a long time ago. We have oodles of transitions now, and more are being found all the time. As for this business about fossils not representing gradual changes, they seem to miss the fact about the sheer unlikelyhood of anything being fossilized in the first place.

 

Chapter 12-They explain how there is no link between humans and apes. They said that evolutionists have tried to create this link without any real scientific evidence!

A "missing link" is a lousy term that only seems to be seriously used by people with no concept of evolution, and even so, we've found a number of what we could call "missing links" between hominids. Your movies' descriptions of the various ape and human fossils show a clear non-understanding of the subject, as well as simple false information. Pick any one of them Herme3, and we'll explain why (for instance, Gigantopithicus has nothing to do with humans; it's an ape from the orangutan brach of the family).

 

Chapter 13-Evolutionists always make a big deal about how similar Human DNA is to Chimpanzee DNA. This shows that Human DNA is similar to lots of other DNA, so that really doesn’t mean that Humans are closely related to Chimpanzees.

Erm... it shows that it's still CLOSER to the chimps? many others are going to be related too, but the farther off they go the farther they'll be, even in small increments. Funnily enough, the range of relationships shown by DNA always seems to resemble the relationships as they were described through other taxonomic methods.

[Dak]

It is interesting how you try to separate evolution with abiogenesis and the big bang.

 

There are very valid reasons for doing so, namely that ToE really, really does only concern itself with how life changes -- not how first life, the earth, or the universe, came about.

 

In order for something to evolve as discribed by the ToE, it has to meet certain criteria. Limitation of resorses (if resorses were unlimited, even those with bad designs would survive at the same rate as those with good designs, meaning that natural selection would not occour); replication (evolution is done across generations, not by one individual); a means to pass on hereditary information (otherwize any changes will not persist across generations). the ToE basically describes how, under these conditions, organisms can adapt and even increase in complexity over time, (and also describes the mechanical aspects, like how the info is stored in DNA etc).

 

Hence why the creation of the universe/Earth and even abiogenesis aren't directly anything to do with the ToE.

[ydoaPs]

Dak, you bring up some very interesting points in your post. I don't have enough knowledge about all of this to judge whether you are correct, or if the video is correct. You might want to e-mail ChristianAnswers and see what their response is to your statements.

judging by the other rubbish on their site, i'd say dak is right.

[alt_f13]

LOL. What came first, the chicken or the iguana?

 

Great video, except for the fact that they think that an animal somehow evolves completely on it's own in one generation.

 

If their argument against evolution is that lizards can't mate with birds... yup, they must be right.

[silkworm]

Dak, you bring up some very interesting points in your post. I don't have enough knowledge about all of this to judge whether you are correct, or if the video is correct. You might want to e-mail ChristianAnswers and see what their response is to your statements.

 

I had an idea. Let's all chip in on a letter to the producers of this video pointing out when they misrepresented accepted science and sign it SFN.

 

I wonder what the response would be? Would they admit it or not?

 

I bet they wouldn't. And if they did not totally stand behind it, who wants to bet they take it down?

 

Let's do it. Anyone with me?

 

I've looked and when contacting Christiananswers.net they ask you to use this form: http://christiananswers.net/forms/creationform.html, unless your question deals with "other issues." Since our query deals with factual errors, they ask us to go here: http://christiananswers.net/forms/editorialdept.html

 

If we write a letter together I'm sure they'll respond. I mean, they're honest, right?

[insane_alien]

Yeah lets go for it.

[ydoaPs]

we should start with Dak's link and revise into a letter and make it a bit more respectful.

[silkworm]

Agreed on both. Keep it chapter for chapter and very respectful. Let's not bring religion into it and focus entirely on poorly represented accepted science and poor methods.

 

We also want to keep it simple and keep it public so everyone who speaks English can read it and understand it.

 

Dak? Are you with us?

 

Let's also drop the whole Death to Creationism too and simply voice our concerns for flawed information.

[Dak]

me? disrespectful? never

 

work permitting, you can count me in.

 

I dont see why it shouldnt be on behalf of D2C, as that's what D2C is all about, but I guess the name should possibly be explained if it's sent on behalf of D2C.

 

Also... if it's ok with the admin (ie cap'n), may i suggest using a page on WiSci to do this (i dont mind using my user page)... this seems like the kind of thing that would be most easily done on a wiki.

[silkworm]

Good idea about Wiki. We need to send it directly too them as well. It would be good to have this exchange as public as possible to allow them the opportunity to explain themselves.

 

D2C just sounds too combative, and it's really not the point of our letter. The point of our letter is to address how science has been misrepresented in this video, and that there are many factual errors considering what is valid science. So the point here is not squashing creationism, the point is to inform them that they have misrepresented science and to ask them to not continue to do so. Respectfully and without consideration for religion.

 

It appears to me the most effecient method would be to each take a chapter, which are short, and simply and in as plain of language as possible to point out the factual error and explain what the truth is. I'll write a, respectful, draft for the head of the letter and post it here. We should also try to divy up the chapters based on our specific areas. I'll have to look again to see if there any many misrepresentations of chemistry specifically. Obviously expertise is not required by most of us because these errors are so basic, but it may help.

 

Do we dig?

 

Any other takers?

[Dak]

Let's also drop the whole Death to Creationism too and simply voice our concerns for flawed information.

 

D2C just sounds too combative, and it's really not the point of our letter. The point of our letter is to address how science has been misrepresented in this video, and that there are many factual errors considering what is valid science. So the point here is not squashing creationism, the point is to inform them that they have misrepresented science and to ask them to not continue to do so. Respectfully and without consideration for religion.

 

That is the point of D2C, but I can fully see how that's not represented by the name.

 

Dont forget, everyone, that this documentary covers everything from phisics (big bang), astrology (planetary/solar system formation), abiogenesis, evolutionary history, cladistics, and evolutionary theory, so pretty much anyone can help out. reguardless of what branch of science your in, it's probably covered (innacurately) in the documentary

 

Or shall we ignore everything apart from the ToE stuff?

[Dak]

I had an idea. Let's all chip in on a letter to the producers of this video pointing out when they misrepresented accepted science and sign it SFN.

 

quick point: we should probably ask blike or another admin to check through the letter before we post it if it's going to be on behalf of SFN.

[AzurePhoenix]

If I get the time I could pull a bit together for their fossil claims if no one else wants it

[Skye]

I wouldn't worry, they are all doomed to the fires of Evolutionary Hell. Due to my lack of imagination right now, it's very similar to regular Hell, only inhabited by those who don't accept evolution as the most plausible explanation for the current diversity and organisation of life.

[silkworm]

Or shall we ignore everything apart from the ToE stuff?

 

No. We focus on everything that is misrepresented as valid science. It bothers me when nonscientists are lied to, intentionally or not, about science. Of course, if chapter 14 is any indication, there will be a lot of clarification needed for how the scientific community thanks the scientific method actually works.

 

Okay, so current roster: Insane Alien, yourdadonapogos, Dak, Azure Phoenix, and myself. I'm sure there are more coming.

 

I don't think Blike would mind. And if he does we can simply send it as ourselves. I plan to sign my real name, my school, and my major to it anyway, to show that I'm operating honestly.

 

It will be respectful. I'll have that draft up tonight for the "intro" for lack of a better word.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Feel free to use a page on WiSci (your user page perhaps) to make a draft of this so we can all revise it. I'll look over it as well and probably add a few things.

[RyanJ]

Okay, so current roster: Insane Alien, yourdadonapogos, Dak, Azure Phoenix, and myself. I'm sure there are more coming.

 

I'll be glad to help for such a worthy cause

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Dak]

Cool. we can use my user page.

 

I've put my stuff up, so edit away! (or blank the whole thing if we want to start afresh).

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I've stuck it in a subpage for you and I'll start looking through it, providing references, etc.

[silkworm]

Sweet.

 

Thank you for joining Cap'n Refsmmat and Ryan J. That makes you two, me, Dak, Azure Phoenix, yourdadonapongo, and Insane Alien. Any other takers? This should be pretty stress free, and hopefully the introduction I'm writing will show what I find to be the best approach to such things.

 

I was thinking, if we had a page named "A Question of Origins" on WiSci, would it come up in a Google search if it got enough hits?

 

I also found two other places to find this video. So Creationists.org and ICR will also be included in the address.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Okay, good. I've stuck in a section for an introduction so we can make this all nice and professional, as well as a few references.

 

If we linked to this as a reference in arguments enough, it would show up in Google, I presume.

[herme3]

I agree that this letter will be a good idea. We should keep in mind that different scientists were interviewed for this video. If a certain person said incorrect information in the video, we should make sure that we mention the name of the scientist who said it. It usually says the name of each person they interview when they first start talking to the person.

 

We might also want to reference http://www.talkorigins.org so they can read some of that information themselves. However, I don't think that we should mention any links to http://www.deathtocreationism.com. It's not a very professional name for a web site. If I came here with a link to a site named http://www.deathtoevolution.com I doubt that many of you would even waste your time clicking on the link.

 

We should mention any errors they made in their explanations of evolution, abiogenesis, or the big bang. However, we should not say anything like "The big bang and abiogenesis are what really happened." We should say something like, "You seem to be misunderstanding the theories of the big band and abiogenesis." Tell them what the theories say, and the scientific evidence that supports the theories. Don't present the theories as facts.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's exactly what I intend to do.

 

I'll be looking for good references as well as TalkOrigins (which provides its own references as well).

[Phi for All]

We should mention any errors they made in their explanations of evolution, abiogenesis, or the big bang. However, we should not say anything like "The big bang and abiogenesis are what really happened." We should say something like, "You seem to be misunderstanding the theories of the big band and abiogenesis." Tell them what the theories say, and the scientific evidence that supports the theories. Don't present the theories as facts.

You're confusing us with the creationists. That's one of their main tactics. It goes like this:

 

Scientist: "... and that's the theory of evolution."

Creationist : "So you admit that it's only a theory?"

Scientist: "Well, of course. But a scientific theory is as close as we'll ever get to saying that something is true. This allows us to maintain a certain amount of skepticism that keeps us challenging our own evidence and constantly refining the process."

Creationist: "So your 'theory' isn't 100% certain?"

Scientist: "No. No theory is 100% certain. It's constantly being observed and tested."

Creationist: (turns to camera) "There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. When it comes to the so called 'theory' of evolution, science doesn't really know for sure. They admit they don't have all the evidence to support it. It's just some 'theory' that they've cooked up to deny God, who, as everyone knows, is infallible, omnipotent and omniscient, and in fact created the world in six days some 6000 years ago, because the Bible says so."

 

The problem is, the creationists have been told the truth about their lack of understanding. If they refuse to study the theory, or science in general, they'll never change their minds because the people they trust to tell them the truth are also not studying evolution and science.

[AzurePhoenix]

Tell them what the theories say, and the scientific evidence that supports the theories. Don't present the theories as facts.

Of course, there are facts within those theories that will likely be addressed, and should be addressed as such, but that can be done tactfully I think. Not like when I capitalize stuff when I'm irritated