A.J. Phillips

Evolution is not science because
1. because it can't be observed. One Professor of physics rightly wrote
''In fact evolution became in a sense scientific religion; almost all science have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it.'

2. It can't be tested. One senior Palaentologist writes 'It is easy to make up stories of how one form rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for their is no way of putting them to the test.

3. If evolution was scientific the fossil records would back it up. Instead we have been left with desperate attempts and often lies to come up with one fossil that 8is in any way conclusive. Many stories are built around some very dubious claims. LIke the founder of Lucy's skull which was later to be described as "imagination made of plaster of paris" by his son.

Evolution is crap science and has done nothing to enhance man's life. A century after Darwin's theory evolutionist still only have stories to tell.

Dear david f,

Thanks for the kind words.

>>Why not contradict what I wrote?<<
I meant your reference to Gould and Eldridge and Margulis, since I trust your knowledge of facts (sic), about biological evolution, more than my own.

AJ,
By what you’re saying, it’s okay for evolutionists to enter into the numbers fallacy but not creationists.

It’s okay for you, Rusty, Michael Zimmerman, and the people of Project Steve to talk about the large numbers of people who concur with evolution. But when creationists make mention that thousands of scientists around the world doubt evolution to be factual, then only they have committed the ‘numbers fallacy’. For after all, according to the sheet of logical fallacies, truth is not a nose count.

According to you, when evolutionists talk about numbers, they’re excused (they must be, they’re on the good guys side.) They’re not committing the numbers fallacy because they are just ‘bringing some perspective’ to the discussion, or having ‘a bit of tongue-in-cheek- fun’, and not really offering that as any kind of argument or proof, unlike those wretched, conniving, sneaky, creationist cheats.

Listen AJ, what I suggest you do is to take your famous list of logical fallacies, and file them deeply back where you found them, and don’t bring them out again until you’re willing to apply them evenly across the board to all parties concerned.

Dan,you are quite right.
I wish to offer this slender post as my humble and modest contribution
There can be no confrontation of science and religion therefore there can be no choices to be made,neither right nor false.
There is a reason for what I say.
Sciences are about the things that makeup this earth. They have a strong sense real basis.There are measurements that can be made and theories sustained and made fact.
Religon is all about God and whatever flows from God. God is not of this earth and there can be no definitive statements about it that csn be verified or disproved.
I believe God is an ineffable and ultimate reality way beyond human comprehension.You either experience God or you dont. If you do you cannot articulate anything about god despite the hundreds of tomes written about that reality. The extraordinary thing is that it doesnt stop the authors from affirming that God can never be understood.
But there is no real choice to be made between science and religion,neither good nor false.

socratease

Runner,

You still didn’t answer my question. And thanks for the mined quotes; they’re a classic example of the ‘Argument from Authority’ fallacy. Could you provide links to the entire book/article/chapter they were said in?

You see, the ‘Argument from Authority’ quotes you quoted don’t give the context of what was being said, nor do they convey why the quoted person believed what the quotes many or may not show them to believe. That’s the most important point.

<<Evolution is not science because
1. because it can't be observed...>>

Evolution is both observable and testable. Lenski’s experiment both tests and observes evolution. Now I know you’re tempted to claim that we haven’t seen one ‘kind’ of animal evolve into another ‘kind’, but before you do, just remember that if we were to observe, say, a wolf-like creature turn into a whale in a life-time, then this would disprove evolution, so your point is invalid.

Creationists seem to think that the fact that we can’t repeat history is some sort of gift handed to them on a plate, but it isn’t.

First, you have to specify at which point one species becomes another (scientists would usually consider the point at which two species couldn’t reproduce to be a species change - which we see all the time), then you have to identify a mechanism - or something - that prevents species from evolving into what we would consider a totally different species.

We can still observe the continental shifts along with the fossils buried throughout different layers of the strata; and all observations here fit evolution perfectly. There have been thousands of fossils found, many of which show some surprisingly smooth transitions form one species to another.

If you know of any example that contradicts evolution, then by all means, please mention it.

<<Many stories are built around some very dubious claims. LIke the founder of Lucy's skull which was later to be described as "imagination made of plaster of paris" by his son.>>

Described by Creationists I presume.

Could you provide a link to this claim?

Continued...

...Continued

Even if you could though, it would be irrelevant as it is the entire body of Lucy supports the idea that she’s a very early human, not just the head.

<<Evolution is crap science and has done nothing to enhance man's life.>>

Evolution has done a lot of things, some of the many were mentioned recently by david f... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3445#82071

<<A century after Darwin's theory evolutionist still only have stories to tell.>>

Could you give an example since the lucy “story” [sic] example fell? While you’re at it, could you answer the question please? What is this “true scientific process” you speak of?

Some references to your quotes would be good too.

Thanks.

Dan,

<<By what you’re saying, it’s okay for evolutionists to enter into the numbers fallacy but not creationists.>>

I neither said, nor implied anything of the sort, and if “evolutionists” [sic] used the numbers fallacy, then that would be just as wrong. Fortunately, they don’t need to.

I will thank you not to misrepresent what I say.

<<It’s okay for you, Rusty, Michael Zimmerman, and the people of Project Steve to talk about the large numbers of people who concur with evolution.>>

As I explained earlier, I didn’t use the numbers fallacy. And if Rusty and Michael Zimmerman have, then it was still fallacious.

Let us assume for a minute that they definitely did though, there would still be one big difference between their fallaciousness and yours...

Their fallaciousness wasn’t intended to deceive...

Firstly, you used a fallacy to give a false impression; Secondly, you use that as evidence for Creationism (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7353#116311).

So my points still stand; rendering the following irrelevant...

<<Listen AJ, what I suggest you do is to take your famous list of logical fallacies, and file them deeply back where you found them, and don’t bring them out again until you’re willing to apply them evenly across the board to all parties concerned.>>

Now, instead of hyper-focusing on what you thought was a glass jaw, can you address the other points I made in my first response to you on this thread?

Thanks.