Apology for creationism??

Question

i hope people who claim to be of science and embody all the attributes of which that would entail (open mind)

can take an objective/critical look at this article and write your opinions on whether it has any credence in your eyes - it may seem to come from a biased source but critique it on its merits

(dont respond if u dont bother to read)

http://www.amazingfacts.org/FreeStuff/OnlineLibrary/tabid/106/ctl/ViewMedia/mid/447/IID/93/LNG/en/7/How-Evolution-Flunked-the-Science-Test/SC/R/Default.aspx

Answer 1

religoun is fairytail science is fact.........DEAL WITH IT!!!!!

Answer 2

It all depends on your perspective I suppose.It does make some points but all in all they are all educated guesses

Answer 3

Wow. Talk about slanting things to fit your theory. This guy doesn't understand the first thing about how mutation works or for that matter how selective traits could make or break a species. He talks about the fossil record not supporting evolution. He needs to do a bit More research. Personally I don't think God and evolution need to be at odds. Life on Earth may have started as bacteria carried on meteorites or through the biggest accidental combination of radiation and atmosphere but where did it all start. He doesn't know and neither does anyone else...yet. Look at people with honest eyes and you will see mutation on a grand scale. Two of the same species in different environments will adapt and change. God set it up that way to ensure survival. Just because it's science does not mean that God had nothing to do with it.

Answer 4

I've read it - it is a compendium of half-truths and distortions.  For example, the calculation of the probability of "accidentally creating an organism" does not include known (and verifiable) chemical and physical interactions.  Two atoms do not form a molecule by chance - they form it because their chemical and physical properties require it of them.

Another example - the claim that "no species has ever been seen to evolve into another" is false (and, even if it wasn't, it's absolutely meaningless).  On the Galapagos, where Darwin observed finches over 125 years ago, new species have been found that are evolutionary descendants of those he observed.  They changed because the environment has changed.   A sort of "evolution in action" laboratory.

The book is neither amazing nor factual.

Answer 5

I have seen these arguments over and over, and they are absolute absurd.  No, the scientific fact of evolution has nothing to do with the story of god and creation(ism).

I don't know why folks have such a hard time envisioning creatures changing over time in order to form new species.  The whole of realm is about change, even change from one species to another.  Take particle physics for example, subatomic particles emerge, combine with other particles, annihilate one another, creating new species of subatomic in the processes; these new particles annihilate or recombine with others to form old species again or newer ones.  It is the same with life and reality. All matter in the universe is simply scaled up and quantum entangled versions of undulations (minuscule fluctuations) seen at the time of the singularity.  One example of how easily it is for new species to come about from old ones can be found in the self-assembly of viruses.

See: Molecular Graphic Lab

http://mgl.scripps.edu/projects/tangible...

Viruse component parts can self-assemble by ionic and valient charge alone.  If two different virus particles are self-assembling in the same immediate environment, it is possible for the resulting virus to be a hybrid, thus, a new species with unique characteristics independent of the make up of either the two parent viruses.

Evolution is perfectly natural and is simply a scaled up process from what happens at the atomic and subatomic levels governed by forces described by Einstein's general relativity and laws governing quantum mechanics.

When you have seen the over all big-picture, you discover that there is no need for a god nor a special creation.

Answer 6

Religious people are ignorant. end of story

Answer 7

It's easy to poke holes in both the evolutionary theory AND the creationist theory.  However, mankind seems to be incapable of saying, " I don't know" and just leaving it at that.  We have a drive as a species to believe in something, anything.  

As for me...I don't mind saying, "I don't know."  Furthermore, I don't care.  Granted, it would be nice to have definitive answers, but I'm not losing any sleep over it...

Answer 8

I read the article.  Quite simply it bolsters its arguments with 'facts' that are just false and very poor critical thinking.

1.  Evolution does not attempt to decribe the origin of life, only the origin if species of life.   So debunking evloution for something the theory does not address is fallacious.

2.  Same argument.  Evoultion describes how diversity and probably occurred over millions of years, it does not address the probablility of life.  Additionally, we do not know the probability of life, as we have only one observable domain - the earth where life is abundant.  it is fallacious to conclude that life is improbable because evolution does not explain it adequately - especially since the theory of evolution is the origin of species, not the origin of life.

3. This entire paragraph is just silly.  Mutations are observed in all species.  The fossil record is full of dateable faossiles that suggest points where later species diverged.  The essential claim here is that since the fossil record is incomplete, it states exactly the opposite of what science has settled on.  Fallacious in the extreme.

4.   lagghable.  This simply states that since the Bible says one species does not evolve into another,  then the fossil record disproves evolution.  I don't even know what to say about this.   The bible does not say this and even if it did, evolution is well established.

5.  Here again, the writer has declared the incompletelness of the fossil record to be irrefuteable proof of the bible's correctness and evoliution's falacy.  And here again that is just a fallacious, self serving argument that no 'open mind' can accept as compelling.   Darwin knew he did not have all the answers, as every scientist knows we still don't.  But every answer we do have supports evolution.   To suggest that any question, in the face of mountains of evidience is proof that the thoery is totally wrong is just poor crticial thinking.

6.  Again arguing against established facts, with stuff that is just made up.  Geoligist do not describe the age of strata as uniform all over the earth..

7.  Because there is not uniform agreement on the precise influence of evironmental natural selection on selecting for change, the writer declares the entire discipline wrong.  We know species go extinct (or does the writer believe God buried dinasuars bones to mess with our heads).  We know we can purposefully alter the attributes of species to enhance desired traits (selective breeding).  We know that in nature similar, but separate species breed.  We know that mutations occur in all species, some of which are expressed in new or differnt attributes.   Hmmmm now what could we make of that?  Nope - nothing as the bible does not tell me so.