Evolutionary theory in crisis?

[Audie]

Say what you will about Hugh Ross but he was so much more believable than Victor Stenger in the debate they had and Hugh Ross was outnumbered too and destroyed Victor Stenger in their debate. I don't think Hugh Ross is necessarily right on everything he sais about science or his interpretations of the bible but I can tell you this you can listen to Hugh Ross or Lawrence Krauss and get taught pretty much the same science just from different perspectives.I actually think Hugh Ross is alot smarter when it comes to science than Lawrence Krauss so he may be a bad example but Hugh Ross knows science and can get in their with the big dogs of science and debate on their level.

I don't care much for debate or personalities when it's science we're talking about. What evidence do we have? Evidence matters.

And yes you are right we can throw away things that Darwin said or held, but so what? The ToE is based on evidence, not just Darwin. Darwin was wrong about things but how did we come to know that? Because there is evidence that is was wrong. But on the things that he was right and what evidence has brought to light via DNA and fossils is simply too much to be cast aside because Darwin was wrong on a few points.

As far as Darwin I don't see how you can dismiss Darwin and his influence on evolution like you are doing in order to overlook how bad science did confirming Darwin's predictions because he was the reason it became a scientific theory and so science needed to demonstrate Darwin's predictions and then do more research but they never did and its not just no transitional fossils but also how Darwin described evolution and life evolving based on variation and how scientists have had to weaken and water down what it means for life to evolve because of a lack of evidence.

If you understood what I know evolution science has regressed since Darwin. But this is something that you'd have to look into yourself with a desire to try to get to the truth.I doubt I will change your mind,it is always better for the other person to honestly look into it themselves to verify.

But I do sense that you are hiding behind the evolution wall implying that because we have this massive wall protecting evolution,that it is useless to try to go up against evolution,but evolution has never really gone up against Gap Creationism yet,except for so far back that nobody remembers or knows how bad Gap Theorists were defeating evolutionists in debates. It is a little kept secret that not many people know about,but the ToE does not want to tangle with the Gap Theory like it has the others. You'll just have to trust me.

One of the problems I have with the “conspiracy theories” such as the one you are claiming; is there are too many people involved, and in order to pull it off, those involved would have to be too perfect.

If we assume there are flaws in the Theory of Evolution that even a non expert such as yourself can plainly see (as you claim) That would mean the thousands of Biologists, Paleontologists, and various other scientists WORLD WIDE, who swear up and down about this theory, and who knows a heck of a lot more on this subject than you and I combined would have to conspire to deceive the public on an issue they know is not true.
They would have to turn down fame, and fortune in order to keep this deception going. And for what? The greater good? To refute God? So Darwin doesn’t look bad?

I don’t think mankind is perfect enough to keep such a secret hidden for the past 150 years without not one person slipping up and taking the fame and fortune. I believe people are too greedy, too selfish, too fame driven to sit on top of such a story for such a long time; especially with so many people involved.

I do not know a lot about everything under the umbrella of Evolution, but when I look at the big picture, such a conspiracy doesn’t sound realistic to me.

Ken

This kind of stunningly unrealistic thinking is the same as what goes into
the beliefs about religion.

[Kenny]

Say what you will about Hugh Ross but he was so much more believable than Victor Stenger in the debate they had and Hugh Ross was outnumbered too and destroyed Victor Stenger in their debate. I don't think Hugh Ross is necessarily right on everything he sais about science or his interpretations of the bible but I can tell you this you can listen to Hugh Ross or Lawrence Krauss and get taught pretty much the same science just from different perspectives.I actually think Hugh Ross is alot smarter when it comes to science than Lawrence Krauss so he may be a bad example but Hugh Ross knows science and can get in their with the big dogs of science and debate on their level.

I don't care much for debate or personalities when it's science we're talking about. What evidence do we have? Evidence matters.

And yes you are right we can throw away things that Darwin said or held, but so what? The ToE is based on evidence, not just Darwin. Darwin was wrong about things but how did we come to know that? Because there is evidence that is was wrong. But on the things that he was right and what evidence has brought to light via DNA and fossils is simply too much to be cast aside because Darwin was wrong on a few points.

As far as Darwin I don't see how you can dismiss Darwin and his influence on evolution like you are doing in order to overlook how bad science did confirming Darwin's predictions because he was the reason it became a scientific theory and so science needed to demonstrate Darwin's predictions and then do more research but they never did and its not just no transitional fossils but also how Darwin described evolution and life evolving based on variation and how scientists have had to weaken and water down what it means for life to evolve because of a lack of evidence.

If you understood what I know evolution science has regressed since Darwin. But this is something that you'd have to look into yourself with a desire to try to get to the truth.I doubt I will change your mind,it is always better for the other person to honestly look into it themselves to verify.

But I do sense that you are hiding behind the evolution wall implying that because we have this massive wall protecting evolution,that it is useless to try to go up against evolution,but evolution has never really gone up against Gap Creationism yet,except for so far back that nobody remembers or knows how bad Gap Theorists were defeating evolutionists in debates. It is a little kept secret that not many people know about,but the ToE does not want to tangle with the Gap Theory like it has the others. You'll just have to trust me.

One of the problems I have with the “conspiracy theories” such as the one you are claiming; is there are too many people involved, and in order to pull it off, those involved would have to be too perfect.

If we assume there are flaws in the Theory of Evolution that even a non expert such as yourself can plainly see (as you claim) That would mean the thousands of Biologists, Paleontologists, and various other scientists WORLD WIDE, who swear up and down about this theory, and who knows a heck of a lot more on this subject than you and I combined would have to conspire to deceive the public on an issue they know is not true.
They would have to turn down fame, and fortune in order to keep this deception going. And for what? The greater good? To refute God? So Darwin doesn’t look bad?

I don’t think mankind is perfect enough to keep such a secret hidden for the past 150 years without not one person slipping up and taking the fame and fortune. I believe people are too greedy, too selfish, too fame driven to sit on top of such a story for such a long time; especially with so many people involved.

I do not know a lot about everything under the umbrella of Evolution, but when I look at the big picture, such a conspiracy doesn’t sound realistic to me.

Ken

This kind of stunningly unrealistic thinking is the same as what goes into
the beliefs about religion.

Care to be a little more specific?

Ken

[Audie]

I don't care much for debate or personalities when it's science we're talking about. What evidence do we have? Evidence matters.

And yes you are right we can throw away things that Darwin said or held, but so what? The ToE is based on evidence, not just Darwin. Darwin was wrong about things but how did we come to know that? Because there is evidence that is was wrong. But on the things that he was right and what evidence has brought to light via DNA and fossils is simply too much to be cast aside because Darwin was wrong on a few points.

As far as Darwin I don't see how you can dismiss Darwin and his influence on evolution like you are doing in order to overlook how bad science did confirming Darwin's predictions because he was the reason it became a scientific theory and so science needed to demonstrate Darwin's predictions and then do more research but they never did and its not just no transitional fossils but also how Darwin described evolution and life evolving based on variation and how scientists have had to weaken and water down what it means for life to evolve because of a lack of evidence.

If you understood what I know evolution science has regressed since Darwin. But this is something that you'd have to look into yourself with a desire to try to get to the truth.I doubt I will change your mind,it is always better for the other person to honestly look into it themselves to verify.

But I do sense that you are hiding behind the evolution wall implying that because we have this massive wall protecting evolution,that it is useless to try to go up against evolution,but evolution has never really gone up against Gap Creationism yet,except for so far back that nobody remembers or knows how bad Gap Theorists were defeating evolutionists in debates. It is a little kept secret that not many people know about,but the ToE does not want to tangle with the Gap Theory like it has the others. You'll just have to trust me.

One of the problems I have with the “conspiracy theories” such as the one you are claiming; is there are too many people involved, and in order to pull it off, those involved would have to be too perfect.

If we assume there are flaws in the Theory of Evolution that even a non expert such as yourself can plainly see (as you claim) That would mean the thousands of Biologists, Paleontologists, and various other scientists WORLD WIDE, who swear up and down about this theory, and who knows a heck of a lot more on this subject than you and I combined would have to conspire to deceive the public on an issue they know is not true.
They would have to turn down fame, and fortune in order to keep this deception going. And for what? The greater good? To refute God? So Darwin doesn’t look bad?

I don’t think mankind is perfect enough to keep such a secret hidden for the past 150 years without not one person slipping up and taking the fame and fortune. I believe people are too greedy, too selfish, too fame driven to sit on top of such a story for such a long time; especially with so many people involved.

I do not know a lot about everything under the umbrella of Evolution, but when I look at the big picture, such a conspiracy doesn’t sound realistic to me.

Ken

This kind of stunningly unrealistic thinking is the same as what goes into
the beliefs about religion.

Care to be a little more specific?

Ken

Not really. I was referring to abe's ideas and beliefs.
I dont think specificity is appropriate.

[Philip]

Audie: Beats discussing the personality of an imaginary god.

Imaginary gods - yes, waste of time! The REAL God, exactly the opposite. But, if you don't want to discuss His personality, let's discuss what we DO see about Him - His incredible engineering, design and beauty - that exists all around us, and we can see and study His handiwork. Once you realize that the handiwork cannot self exist or self create and organize, then you'll be closer to wanting to study His character. But the constant TOE banter is because it's comforting to discuss processes as opposed to their Cause - as there absolutely had to be one (One!).

[Audie]

Audie: Beats discussing the personality of an imaginary god.

Imaginary gods - yes, waste of time! The REAL God, exactly the opposite. But, if you don't want to discuss His personality, let's discuss what we DO see about Him - His incredible engineering, design and beauty - that exists all around us, and we can see and study His handiwork. Once you realize that the handiwork cannot self exist or self create and organize, then you'll be closer to wanting to study His character. But the constant TOE banter is because it's comforting to discuss processes as opposed to their Cause - as there absolutely had to be one (One!).

So make the same complaint of any topic at all other than the philosophical construction of a god.

Evolution and deep time are of interest and occasional practical application
for those whom they concern.

Studies are not done in any reference to "god" , however much our
less grounded friends may think it is. It's not to disprove or dispute god or any
intsrpretation thereof. It is not conspratorial, atheist nor Satan-driven.

Nor is it any of the weird fantasy versions of some such as post
their opposing opinions. It isnt "paradigm" it isnt "bias", it isnt faith
or philosophy.

Why discuss with such eccentrics, you could ask me? I can say if you are interested.

What is your concern, such that you wish to terminate others' discussions
with elabourate yawns and talk of the primacy of "first cause"?

[IceMobster]

Is adaptation part of the evolution?

[Audie]

Is adaptation part of the evolution?

Could you rephrase that for clarity?

[abelcainsbrother]

Say what you will about Hugh Ross but he was so much more believable than Victor Stenger in the debate they had and Hugh Ross was outnumbered too and destroyed Victor Stenger in their debate. I don't think Hugh Ross is necessarily right on everything he sais about science or his interpretations of the bible but I can tell you this you can listen to Hugh Ross or Lawrence Krauss and get taught pretty much the same science just from different perspectives.I actually think Hugh Ross is alot smarter when it comes to science than Lawrence Krauss so he may be a bad example but Hugh Ross knows science and can get in their with the big dogs of science and debate on their level.

I don't care much for debate or personalities when it's science we're talking about. What evidence do we have? Evidence matters.

And yes you are right we can throw away things that Darwin said or held, but so what? The ToE is based on evidence, not just Darwin. Darwin was wrong about things but how did we come to know that? Because there is evidence that is was wrong. But on the things that he was right and what evidence has brought to light via DNA and fossils is simply too much to be cast aside because Darwin was wrong on a few points.

As far as Darwin I don't see how you can dismiss Darwin and his influence on evolution like you are doing in order to overlook how bad science did confirming Darwin's predictions because he was the reason it became a scientific theory and so science needed to demonstrate Darwin's predictions and then do more research but they never did and its not just no transitional fossils but also how Darwin described evolution and life evolving based on variation and how scientists have had to weaken and water down what it means for life to evolve because of a lack of evidence.

If you understood what I know evolution science has regressed since Darwin. But this is something that you'd have to look into yourself with a desire to try to get to the truth.I doubt I will change your mind,it is always better for the other person to honestly look into it themselves to verify.

But I do sense that you are hiding behind the evolution wall implying that because we have this massive wall protecting evolution,that it is useless to try to go up against evolution,but evolution has never really gone up against Gap Creationism yet,except for so far back that nobody remembers or knows how bad Gap Theorists were defeating evolutionists in debates. It is a little kept secret that not many people know about,but the ToE does not want to tangle with the Gap Theory like it has the others. You'll just have to trust me.

One of the problems I have with the “conspiracy theories” such as the one you are claiming; is there are too many people involved, and in order to pull it off, those involved would have to be too perfect.

If we assume there are flaws in the Theory of Evolution that even a non expert such as yourself can plainly see (as you claim) That would mean the thousands of Biologists, Paleontologists, and various other scientists WORLD WIDE, who swear up and down about this theory, and who knows a heck of a lot more on this subject than you and I combined would have to conspire to deceive the public on an issue they know is not true.
They would have to turn down fame, and fortune in order to keep this deception going. And for what? The greater good? To refute God? So Darwin doesn’t look bad?

I don’t think mankind is perfect enough to keep such a secret hidden for the past 150 years without not one person slipping up and taking the fame and fortune. I believe people are too greedy, too selfish, too fame driven to sit on top of such a story for such a long time; especially with so many people involved.

I do not know a lot about everything under the umbrella of Evolution, but when I look at the big picture, such a conspiracy doesn’t sound realistic to me.

Ken

Kenny the ToE is a conspiracy theory,it has all of the very same characteristics that conspiracy theories do,except it is coming from scientists. Like if you don't know about the evidence we have you don't know about it,you have to understand the evidence we have and from people who know what they are talking about. Lizard people are real and if you don't believe it you don't understand the evidence we have,you are ignorant about it.
Flat-earth? The same thing.I give information about the problems in evolution science that are real serious problems but unless you look into it yourself and remove your bias,nobody can make yoy change your mind,you can believe anything you choose to,but it does not mke it true or right just because you give scientists the benefit of the doubt. This is why I encourage people to look into it themselves and verify,but if they don't? There is nothing I can do to change your mind.

[abelcainsbrother]

Say what you will about Hugh Ross but he was so much more believable than Victor Stenger in the debate they had and Hugh Ross was outnumbered too and destroyed Victor Stenger in their debate. I don't think Hugh Ross is necessarily right on everything he sais about science or his interpretations of the bible but I can tell you this you can listen to Hugh Ross or Lawrence Krauss and get taught pretty much the same science just from different perspectives.I actually think Hugh Ross is alot smarter when it comes to science than Lawrence Krauss so he may be a bad example but Hugh Ross knows science and can get in their with the big dogs of science and debate on their level.

I don't care much for debate or personalities when it's science we're talking about. What evidence do we have? Evidence matters.

And yes you are right we can throw away things that Darwin said or held, but so what? The ToE is based on evidence, not just Darwin. Darwin was wrong about things but how did we come to know that? Because there is evidence that is was wrong. But on the things that he was right and what evidence has brought to light via DNA and fossils is simply too much to be cast aside because Darwin was wrong on a few points.

Well my point was not so much about debates but was more about trying to point out how smart Hugh Ross is when it comes to science. I mean even if you disagree with Ross,you can tell when he debated Victor Stenger that he was debating on a science level and could call Victor Stenger on his non-peer reviewed scientific views.

As far as Darwin I don't see how you can dismiss Darwin and his influence on evolution like you are doing in order to overlook how bad science did confirming Darwin's predictions because he was the reason it became a scientific theory and so science needed to demonstrate Darwin's predictions and then do more research but they never did and its not just no transitional fossils but also how Darwin described evolution and life evolving based on variation and how scientists have had to weaken and water down what it means for life to evolve because of a lack of evidence.

If you understood what I know evolution science has regressed since Darwin. But this is something that you'd have to look into yourself with a desire to try to get to the truth.I doubt I will change your mind,it is always better for the other person to honestly look into it themselves to verify.

But I do sense that you are hiding behind the evolution wall implying that because we have this massive wall protecting evolution,that it is useless to try to go up against evolution,but evolution has never really gone up against Gap Creationism yet,except for so far back that nobody remembers or knows how bad Gap Theorists were defeating evolutionists in debates. It is a little kept secret that not many people know about,but the ToE does not want to tangle with the Gap Theory like it has the others. You'll just have to trust me.

It is useless to go against evidence without evidence to the contrary (which you don't have), no matter which way it lies. I changed my mind because I honestly looked into it and verified. For all it matters, you can take Darwin away and ToE would still stand on evidence, not on Dawrin.

And I'm sure Ross is very smart but as Lenox said "nonsense is still nonsense..."

I know it is useless to go against evidence without evidence which is one reason why Gap Creationism is more believable of a theory than the ToE is. Quantity of evidence will never beat quality of evidence. Yes,Hugh Ross is smart scientifically and he's alot smarter scientically than alot of atheist scientists that get propped up over him for some reason.

[Audie]

So when do we hear even one fact contrary to ToE?

[abelcainsbrother]

So when do we hear even one fact contrary to ToE?

Open your eyes and read girl,and verify.

[Audie]

Read? You want me to read? Write down your disproof of ToE, that I made read it!
Why dont you? Let me guess! You got zip, nada, nothing, zero? Funny boy.

[Audie]

Anyone else care to try to meet the chsllenge? I know ab cant do it.

[Philip]

Audie: What is your concern, such that you wish to terminate others' discussions with elaborate yawns and talk of the primacy of "first cause"?

Because most non-theists who are here constantly arguing over evolution typically are motivated because they see that as a validation that the Bible is untrue, and thus is an argument against Christianity. Most of the theists who argue over it do so because of how they view Scripture, and what it may or may not be talking about, or what it means. So, for the purposes of this forum, the over-arching question is whether God exists. I just like reminding them that evolution or not, God MUST exist - even if one only realizes that some super intelligent and powerful source had to pre-exist/be eternal and responsible for all we see, and that because of the massive sophistication, design, function of things that weren't here one moment, and in the very next they are operating with extraordinary power and precision, both as independent mechanisms and as well as they all necessarily interacted with one another - and still do.

It's good to remind people of the bigger issue, of the more important debate, within the central subject matter that this website is devoted to. And a big part of that reminder is that evolution is a secondary and entirely dependent, far LATER process that originated with some extraordinary intelligence that existed before all that physically exists - and that whatever that "thing" is, it was never in any way random or chaotic. It did not self-create itself. It did not accumulate vast intelligence by just pure chance, randomness and immense time. So, argue evolution all day and night, it won't change the much bigger refutation of non-theism.

[neo-x]

Say what you will about Hugh Ross but he was so much more believable than Victor Stenger in the debate they had and Hugh Ross was outnumbered too and destroyed Victor Stenger in their debate. I don't think Hugh Ross is necessarily right on everything he sais about science or his interpretations of the bible but I can tell you this you can listen to Hugh Ross or Lawrence Krauss and get taught pretty much the same science just from different perspectives.I actually think Hugh Ross is alot smarter when it comes to science than Lawrence Krauss so he may be a bad example but Hugh Ross knows science and can get in their with the big dogs of science and debate on their level.

I don't care much for debate or personalities when it's science we're talking about. What evidence do we have? Evidence matters.

And yes you are right we can throw away things that Darwin said or held, but so what? The ToE is based on evidence, not just Darwin. Darwin was wrong about things but how did we come to know that? Because there is evidence that is was wrong. But on the things that he was right and what evidence has brought to light via DNA and fossils is simply too much to be cast aside because Darwin was wrong on a few points.

Well my point was not so much about debates but was more about trying to point out how smart Hugh Ross is when it comes to science. I mean even if you disagree with Ross,you can tell when he debated Victor Stenger that he was debating on a science level and could call Victor Stenger on his non-peer reviewed scientific views.

As far as Darwin I don't see how you can dismiss Darwin and his influence on evolution like you are doing in order to overlook how bad science did confirming Darwin's predictions because he was the reason it became a scientific theory and so science needed to demonstrate Darwin's predictions and then do more research but they never did and its not just no transitional fossils but also how Darwin described evolution and life evolving based on variation and how scientists have had to weaken and water down what it means for life to evolve because of a lack of evidence.

If you understood what I know evolution science has regressed since Darwin. But this is something that you'd have to look into yourself with a desire to try to get to the truth.I doubt I will change your mind,it is always better for the other person to honestly look into it themselves to verify.

But I do sense that you are hiding behind the evolution wall implying that because we have this massive wall protecting evolution,that it is useless to try to go up against evolution,but evolution has never really gone up against Gap Creationism yet,except for so far back that nobody remembers or knows how bad Gap Theorists were defeating evolutionists in debates. It is a little kept secret that not many people know about,but the ToE does not want to tangle with the Gap Theory like it has the others. You'll just have to trust me.

It is useless to go against evidence without evidence to the contrary (which you don't have), no matter which way it lies. I changed my mind because I honestly looked into it and verified. For all it matters, you can take Darwin away and ToE would still stand on evidence, not on Dawrin.

And I'm sure Ross is very smart but as Lenox said "nonsense is still nonsense..."

I know it is useless to go against evidence without evidence which is one reason why Gap Creationism is more believable of a theory than the ToE is. Quantity of evidence will never beat quality of evidence. Yes,Hugh Ross is smart scientifically and he's alot smarter scientically than alot of atheist scientists that get propped up over him for some reason.

So show the evidence. Quality/quantity don't matter as long as the evidence has merit.