CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by JEDsContour:
Yada Yada Yada...
People like cjbladw already know the truth. It is this knowledge, this blind faith fueled by a desire for power and political goals that closes their minds to the simple and obvious reality in front of them. Actually people like cjbladw are probably just unwitting pawns who really believe what they say. Mores the pity.
Cjbladw there is no controversy within the scientific community over the reality of evolution. There is plenty of argument and reflection on the details and how best to apply this theory to an incredibly wide variety of problems. This kind of argument is a normal and healthy part of the scientific method. Scientists who insist on pushing ideas that do not stand up to scrutiny will naturally lose credibility and eventually lose their status as "scientist." Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Evolution has withstood the most amazing levels of scrutiny for over a century and a half.
Portraying evolution as a theory in crisis because of ongoing debates about its details is simply an example of lying. Obviously the audience for such lies is not the scientific community. These lies are intended for the most uninformed public.
Of course any power or influence built on falsehoods and subterfuge is temporary at best. Putting God back into public life is a noble goal that deserves better than what we see here.
You can continue to attack "people" like me, even though you have no idea what my beliefs are, you can continue to dismiss arguments based upon the same rhetoric the NCSE does (you've done a great job so far  ), or you can keep this thread on topic and argue based upon the merits, which you continue not to do, I am still waiting.
Just to make it clear, I am not opposed to the theory of evolution, I am opposed to presenting theory as fact when there is both considerable fossil record evidence that directly opposes evolutionary theory (in particular surrounding the pre and post Cambrian explosion ages) as well as a considerable lack of fossil record evidence to substantiate the theory of evolution. Who knows, maybe some day the evidence will be uncovered. I highly doubt it though.
The single greatest problem which the fossil record poses for Darwinism is the Cambrian explosion of around 600 million years ago (using the carbon dating other people in this thread have mentioned). Nearly all the animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period, without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require. Richard Dawkins, renowned evolutionary biologist, puts it, "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." In Darwin's time there was no evidence for the existence of pre-Cambrian life, and he conceded in The Origin of Species no less that "The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." If his theory was true, Darwin wrote, the pre-Cambrian world must have "swarmed with living creatures".
In more recent years, empirical data shows evidence of bacteria and algae in some of the earth's oldest rocks, and it is generally accepted today that these single-celled forms of life may have first appeared as long as four billion years ago. Bacteria and algae are prokaryotes, which means each creature consists of a single cell without a nucleus and related organelles. More complex eukaryote cells with a nucleus appeared later, and then dozens of independent groups of multicellular animals appeared without any visible process of evolutionary development in the fossil record. Darwin's theory requires that there have been very lengthy sets of intermediate forms between unicellular organisms and animals like insects, worms, and clams. The evidence that these existed is missing, however, and with no good excuse.
The absence of pre-Cambrian ancestors has been debated now for over a century. The artifact theory - that they existed but the fossil record does not contain them - and the fast-transition theory - they really did not exist and the evolution of modern anatomical plans occurred with a rapidity that threatens established ideas about the gradual pace of evolutionary change. The fact is these massive holes in the theory are still up for debate to this day JEDSContour, and no matter how much you post dismissing the data I've provided, it doesn't dismiss these facts. It only further proves my overall point, that "people" like yourself are just as brainwashed in one direction as your erroneous assumption about "people" like me.
I won't even go into mass extinctions that have also been documented at this point in time, and how much more problematic these events make evolutionary theory.
So, I'm still waiting for a coherent argument based upon the merits JEDSContour, and I have a feeling there will not be one coming from you because in my experience when people have no cogent argument they resort to personal attacks, if not aimed at the person directly, then aimed at the assumed type of person they are dealing with, however erroneous that assumption may be. Care to step up to the plate with some actual facts for a change?
|
