• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Evolution a hoax?

Wowbagger said:
If your approach is too demeaning to your opponent, it only drives them down the hole of cognitive dissonance that much further, making the situation worse, not better.

Maybe it is possible to find ways of getting the "gears" churning in the minds of creationists, while also acting "like a dick". But, it won't be nearly as easy as acting like a somewhat nice guy.
Click to expand...

Have to do a Claus on you and say "Evidence?".

I know we all (I do anyway so that's the same as all) like to think that if we are reasonable and polite and so on that is best way to get through to someone but is that supported by evidence?
 
There is no discussion with a true believer, but explanation and education seem to work. Every now and then it seeme that some people are open minded and the data changes thier minds.
 
Lamuella said:
oh god, is this one of these boring things were someone takes a single data point they don't understand and think it disproves a huge field of science they haven't experienced or understood?
Click to expand...
Got it in one.

Creationists are like ants which are trying to knock down a massive building, expertly built on solid foundations, by selecting one or two individual bricks and continually headbutting them.
 
randman said:
Nah. Might be recognized years later and that happen but the old guard isn't going to let a little thing like facts get in their way, imo.
Click to expand...

If a scientist comes up with a theory that shows our current measurements of radioactive decay are wrong, this would have implications in everything from nuclear power and nuclear weapons to medical imaging and fire alarms. Do you seriously believe that scientists wouldn't want in on that? You'd become world famous, you'd go down in history as the guy who made einstein look like an irrelevant footnote, and the money you'd earn from patents would block out the sun.
 
Wowbagger said:
I have asked countless times for examples of productive results coming from creationists and IDers. The best example I've seen was the computer game Spore. (Yes, it is possible to create a fun computer game based on the principles of Intelligent Design. I will concede that much. :D )

The Theory of Evolution, on the otherhand, has a rich history of delivering reliable solutions to real world problems, in the field of biology, and beyond!

There is a great resource of examples to be found here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topics.php?topic_id=15

If I am wrong about the value of I.D., perhaps you can share some examples of what it can do for us.
Click to expand...

Google the Discovery Institute and read some of the papers there for starters. I've posted them at length before and believe you were on those threads. They explain at some length how the ID paradigm is the basis and effective for scientific research and discovery with specific examples of such. As far as evolution, it has a rich history if distorting science, particularly in areas like removal of so-called vestigal organs and so butchering people and preventing a clear assessment of data. As far as microevolution, Darwin made a contribution and evos have in general, but since all models incorporate that, it makes no sense to claim NeoDarwinism has contributed all that much.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure most of us are already familiar with the pack of liars at the Discovery Institute. You need to post one real and good example here before people are going off on a wild Google chase at your suggestion.
 
randman said:
Google the Discovery Institute and read some of the papers there for starters. I've posted them at length before and believe you were on those threads. They explain at some length how the ID paradigm is the basis and effective for scientific research and discovery with specific examples of such.
Click to expand...

Yes, but where is the research? The ID started at least one research arm, the Biologic Institute, but it has yielded no fruit. If the DI cannot use this ID paradigm to do research through it's wholly owned and operated arm designated for this work, how or why should anyone else?
 
randman said:
Google the Discovery Institute and read some of the papers there for starters.
Click to expand...
I have seen lots of content from the Discovery Institute. I have yet to see any actual science coming from their "theories".

Perhaps you can point me to some good examples of their work?

I can point you to lots of examples where the science Evolution has been put to good use:

Macro-evolutionary thinking saving the Kakapo, an endangered species:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060401_kakapo

More general information on the subject of conservation:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070601_hotspotstrategy

Understanding Avian Flu through evolution:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/051115_birdflu

Here's how evolution is helping us keep the Fire Ant population in check:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/fireants_01
(this is a multi-page presentation)

Conserving the Monterey Pine through investigating its ancestral history:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/montereypines_01

And there's LOTs more where that came from!

If Evolution all sooo distorted, then tell me why it seems to be so gosh-darned reliable, in so many different ways?
 
shadron said:
Yes, but where is the research? The ID started at least one research arm, the Biologic Institute, but it has yielded no fruit. If the DI cannot use this ID paradigm to do research through it's wholly owned and operated arm designated for this work, how or why should anyone else?
Click to expand...

It has yielded fruit and it's not the only place Intelligent Design is used. You are simply making stuff up.
 
Wowbagger said:
I have seen lots of content from the Discovery Institute. I have yet to see any actual science coming from their "theories".

Perhaps you can point me to some good examples of their work?

I can point you to lots of examples where the science Evolution has been put to good use:

Macro-evolutionary thinking saving the Kakapo, an endangered species:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060401_kakapo

More general information on the subject of conservation:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070601_hotspotstrategy

Understanding Avian Flu through evolution:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/051115_birdflu

Here's how evolution is helping us keep the Fire Ant population in check:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/fireants_01
(this is a multi-page presentation)

Conserving the Monterey Pine through investigating its ancestral history:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/montereypines_01

And there's LOTs more where that came from!

If Evolution all sooo distorted, then tell me why it seems to be so gosh-darned reliable, in so many different ways?
Click to expand...

If you haven't seen any actual science, that's because you refuse to accept reality. Ton of actual science, published papers, etc,.....have been done and it's not the only place. Creationists have done a lot of "actual science" as I've shown you before. Just the examples of research on sedimentation, on whale fossils and sediments and a whole host of other work proves you wrong. Furthermore, quite a few prominent scientists like Grasse were IDers in the past though the term wasn't used. Clearly however, he'd be called and in the ID camp today because he advocated the same concepts.

And ID isn't just confined to biology.

You just don't know what you are talking about.

As far as your examples, I'll take a look but bet NeoDarwinism didn't contribute squat.
 
Wowbagger, just as I thought.

1. The first study has absolutely nothing to do with macroevolution but discusses one single species' "evolution". So you are wrong there.

2. 2nd study has absolutely 0 results for success so far. It's merely speculative and so you are wrong there.

3. 3rd study deals with viral evolution, not macroevolution. So you're wrong there as well. It's funny but how did I know none of your studies would show macroevolution?

4. Same with the 4th, just as I expected. No macroevolution whatsoever. Hey, people have been breeding dogs for a few thousand years based on microevolutionary principles (you know basic heredity). So how could they do that without the theory of evolution? The answer is none of this requires or is even assisted by NeoDarwinism.

5. Same sort of thing. You get the same results of knowing where the pines used to be from fossils whether you accept or base anything on macroevolution or not.

So you've come up with nada.
 
Here is just one example of a YEC doing original research and publishing his findings which led to a greater understanding of sedimentation. I am sure you guys have seen this before and so am just posting the first googled article that references it. More research has been done showing, for example, that boundaries for sediments on the ocean floor could not have occurred through drying as geologists used to claim since the water penetrates further down than previously believed.

It's also been shown sediment on the ocean floors are similar to sediments from banks where the lower layers are not actually younger but are spread out so that the older part is the same layer horizontally.

http://creationanswers.net/geology/STRATEXP.HTM
 
Randman, if there's so much science coming from ID, why can't you show any examples?

ETA: That last post snuck in before I saw it. But what does it have to do with ID? It's geology, not biology.
 
Last edited:
This is a typical sort of thing from evos. A creationist does original, significant research, and evos balk at it, and then years later they do similar research and experiments and pretend the creationist had nothing to do with it.

Now Nature has finally caught up! That is, the weekly international science journal Nature, arguably the world’s leading scientific publication, has just published and commented upon the results of experiments similar to those performed by Berthault,11,12 thus finally acknowledging what a creationist researcher has been demonstrating for more than ten years. However, not surprisingly, Berthault’s work is neither mentioned nor referenced in the Nature articles.
Click to expand...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/nature.asp

Now why do you think evos won't acknowledge Guy's work? Could it be they want to keep up the smear and canard to pretend there are no creationists or IDers doing any "fruitful" science?

I think that's likely the answer.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
This is a typical sort of thing from evos. A creationist does original, significant research, and evos balk at it, and then years later they do similar research and experiments and pretend the creationist had nothing to do with it.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/nature.asp

Now why do you think evos won't acknowledge Guy's work? Could it be they want to keep up the smear and canard to pretend there are no creationists or IDers doing any "fruitful" science?

I think that's likely the answer.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with ID?
 
The problem with YEC and Creationist research, randman, is they start with a conclusion and try to fit the evidence (sometimes dishonestly) to the conclusion. It's bad science.

The biology community took Michael Behe's work on the flagellum seriously. They found the genetic precursor and proved his hypothesis wrong. Instead of accepting the valid genetic science and moving on, Behe still clings to his failed hypothesis to this day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom