• 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?

randman said:
I measure based on whether the facts match the data and for evos, they don't. If you mean do they "work" in terms of convincing people through illogic, faked data and overstatements, I don't accept that as valid.

Evo theory doesn't work. Doesn't explain the fossil record, or living biota, or molecular evidence, or just about anything.
Click to expand...

Evo theory works, for example in Modern medicine.

and do you have any evidence of faked fata?
 
randman said:
I measure based on whether the facts match the data and for evos, they don't. If you mean do they "work" in terms of convincing people through illogic, faked data and overstatements, I don't accept that as valid.

Evo theory doesn't work. Doesn't explain the fossil record, or living biota, or molecular evidence, or just about anything.
Click to expand...
Evo theory works. As a really trivial example, the discovers of Tiktaalik used the fact of evolution to look for this kind of fossil in a specific kind of geology and found it!
That is totally ignorant of you randman. Try learning the basics of evolution.

I suspect that your faked data is the usual dumb examples that people like creationists obsess over, e.g.
  • Piltdown Man - the only real fake that I can think of but I eagerly wait for randman's long, long list of faked data.
  • the Ernst Haeckel drawing of vertebrate embryos in the first edition of his book (1870), in which he exaggerated the similarities. This was pointed out by other scientists. The drawing became more representative of actual embryos in later editions.
    Of course the invalid theory of recapitulation is not the theory of evolution so it would be more idiotic than usual for a creationist or IDiot to cite this as a flaw of evolution.
Who cares what you think?
This is not a opinion thread - it is a science thread. Either produce the evidence that evolution is wrong or just accept the strong evidence that evolution is right means that it is scientifically correct.
 
randman said:
Actually, I don't have to show squat about creationism to show NeoDarwinism is wrong, and neither did Grasse have to in order to call your theory a myth.

I am not a YEC, at least not yet, but the more I read and learn of their research, the more I lean that way. The problem is I don't think young earth creationism accounts for everything. It definitely contributes to science however. And don't bother asking....I've shown numerous times their contributions and you guys just pretend I haven't and they don't exist. Their research on sedimentation alone devastates the evo paradigm. It will be interesting to see where the evidence leads.
Click to expand...

Yes it will be interesting, but not to creationists, evidence is no use to you as you have amply demonstrated in this thread.
 
randman said:
I am not a YEC, at least not yet, but the more I read and learn of their research, the more I lean that way. The problem is I don't think young earth creationism accounts for everything. It definitely contributes to science however. And don't bother asking....I've shown numerous times their contributions and you guys just pretend I haven't and they don't exist. Their research on sedimentation alone devastates the evo paradigm. It will be interesting to see where the evidence leads.
Click to expand...


The only way creationists get the evidence to lead to YEC is by disregarding anything that contradicts the biblical account.
 
randman said:
Since you guys don't want to debate ideas and pretend data showing you are wrong does not exist, it may be fruitless to continue.
Click to expand...
Wow.
Pot%2520meet%2520kettle.gif

You repeatedly lie, edit quotes and ignore scientific consensus because it contradicts you beliefs.


randman said:
I'll just say you are 100% wrong on Pierre Grasse. He referred to your theory as "a myth" and he was entirely correct on that.
Click to expand...
And yet Grasse believed in evolution, just a different (and disproved) form. I'll let the information from the other thread, the one you fled months ago, stand for itself; I see no reason to re-post that material just because you've failed to come up with anything new.
 
randman said:
Actually, I don't have to show squat about creationism to show NeoDarwinism is wrong, and neither did Grasse have to in order to call your theory a myth.

I am not a YEC, at least not yet, but the more I read and learn of their research, the more I lean that way. The problem is I don't think young earth creationism accounts for everything. It definitely contributes to science however. And don't bother asking....I've shown numerous times their contributions and you guys just pretend I haven't and they don't exist. Their research on sedimentation alone devastates the evo paradigm. It will be interesting to see where the evidence leads.
Click to expand...

YEC research, randman?
Do share.
 
YEC contributes to science? That is one of the funniest things that I have ever read on this site.
 
Whet Randman seems to be unable to understand is that merely showing that evolution is false (which he has yet to do) does not give any credit to ID or creationism.

Each of those (evolution/ID/creationism) could be wrong, with a different theory altogether being right in stead.

If you discredit Obama, that doesn't make McCain a good candidate, it just makes Obama a less good candidate, to use a political analogy.

The only thing which would make ID/creationism credible would be the discovery of strong evidence of a designer/creator. Until that time, they have no leg to stand on.
 
dafydd said:
YEC contributes to science? That is one of the funniest things that I have ever read on this site.
Click to expand...

I guess it could be fair to say that there are, potentially, YECers who do scientific research on the topic that can prove fruitful, even though it doesn't actually support YEC.
 
randman said:
Evo theory doesn't work. Doesn't explain the fossil record, or living biota, or molecular evidence, or just about anything.
Click to expand...

When you say something that is so clearly false, you should back it up with something. A bible verse...? A newspaper horoscope...? The Professor on Gilligan's Island said so...? Anything!
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
Whet Randman seems to be unable to understand is that merely showing that evolution is false (which he has yet to do) does not give any credit to ID or creationism.
Click to expand...

If there's a default to fall back on, it would be something like Lamarckism, which at least has some scientific basis (although it's demonstrably wrong, of course -- but being wrong doesn't seem to present a problem to these people).
 
elbe said:
I guess it could be fair to say that there are, potentially, YECers who do scientific research on the topic that can prove fruitful, even though it doesn't actually support YEC.
Click to expand...

If any actually published such evidence they would immediately lose their accredited status as YECs. It necessarily follows that no YEC could ever publish anything of use.
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
Whet Randman seems to be unable to understand is that merely showing that evolution is false (which he has yet to do) does not give any credit to ID or creationism.

Each of those (evolution/ID/creationism) could be wrong, with a different theory altogether being right in stead.

If you discredit Obama, that doesn't make McCain a good candidate, it just makes Obama a less good candidate, to use a political analogy.

The only thing which would make ID/creationism credible would be the discovery of strong evidence of a designer/creator. Until that time, they have no leg to stand on.
Click to expand...


The converse is also true, something you guys never understand. Evo
theory is false. The evidence does not match it. Bashing creationism or ID does not make evo theory any more valid; nor explain away where it does not fit the data.
 
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