Creationists Believe the Darndest Things

I have no claim to prove, so I am not the one who has to bring links to credible sourses to substantiate my opinion.

The link I offered was just to show an example of infamously failed attempt by unscrupulous member to perpetrate a hoax (to claim that Darwins' theory of evolution is scientifically valid one) and assume it will fly on this great free speech forum just because he wished so.


As to fossil "evidence"... here is an analogy of what it implies:

Let's say, for the arguments sake, that several hundreds of millions years after the apocalypsis (post nuclear war) the extraterrestial aliens arrive to planet Earth and start looking around for evidence of life.
What they see?
Insects!

Now, they dig up a little and look for fossils, for evidence of earlier lives and what they find?
The only thing they find is a remnant of human bones in fossiliferous. They check the age of rocks by means of radiometric dating method and find it to be several hundreds of million years old.
"Eureka!" screams one super intelligent extra terrestial alien "Insects evolved out of Humans ! What a brilliant theory I've got and here is my evidence!"
Upon return to his galaxy he shows to fellow aliens the fossils brought back from the planet Earth.
Open jaws, astonishment , applauds....

Fossils you say, huh? Very convincing to you, isn't it?
Well, not so convincing to me...

 

Using something similar to the scientific method I'm sure they would deduce there was once a technologically advanced culture living on the planet who self destructed do to tribal warfare, not that a culture of obviously intelligent beings devolved into incests.

What are your opinions on vestigial organs that are found in many species on Earth including humans?

 

Yeah your boring me as well, have fun on hip forums!

 

Of course the creatures intelligent enough to build spaceships that could fly accross the galaxies would also be prudent enough not to fall for some silly theory based on such "evidence".

The analogy was to demonstrate the gullibility of relying on incomplete, so called "fossil evidence", to prove the validity of the theory.
An "evidence" which, in fact ,is nothing but a scattered tiny fragments of a huge mosaic that lack any interconnecting pieces to solve the puzzle (except in a wishful fantasy world of its' overzealous followers).

 

So I'll ask you to play Devils advocate for a moment and propose what you would consider evidence of evolution through species.

 

I thought you had claimed evolution was a fraud of some sort, I guess I was mistaken, my bad.

 

Of course it is, unless proven to the contrary.

I thought you were the one who claimed it was a scientifically valid theory , must have been a misunderstanding

 

You have said you had no claim to prove, and yet you claim evolution false.

Flip flop?

 

Of course I have no claim to prove.
Did I claim to know how the species came to be what they are or did I claim that there is a valid theory that proves how they evolved from the most primitive to most advanced forms ?
No, I didn't.
So why should I be the one to prove anything

You are the one who, I believe, stated that the theory of evolution is a scientifically valid one.
Therefore, you are the one with burden of proof and I have a benefit of doubt for as long as you don't prove your claim (rubbing my hands together in a glee )

 

Transitional fossils and vestigial organs and limbs are not proof that living organisms change throughout time base on environment?

What about influenza strains that change on an almost seasonal bases?

Anyways have fun with remaining an unbeliever in evolution, maybe you should check out the flat Earth society, I'm sure you would get along great with them.

 

These are quotes from readers of the book by Lee M. Spetner titled "Not by chance".

Lee M. Spetner is a biophysicist, author, and critic of so-called Neo-Darwinism (he is not against evolution in a more general sense). He received his Ph.D in physics from MIT in 1950.

The book and readers reviews, quoted above, are here:

http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Shattering-Modern-Evolution/dp/1880582244/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt


Disclaimer: THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE BOOK AND READERS REVIEWS ARE OF THE INDIVIDUAL AUTHOR'S AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THOSE OF MINE.
Jumbuli55

 

What is Neo-Darwinism?

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/408652/neo-Darwinism

 

Now I may have taken this the wrong way but I will try to make an assumption based on the little I was able to gather about Spetners book, "Not by chance", I may be wrong because I have not read it, so if I'm way off center on this please correct me.

Here goes,

Spetzner claims that random selection based on survival of the fittest is not the mod us for evolution, instead he says it just happens at random, again I may be off base.

Now here's my question, if you have read this book in it does he claim that the "random" mutation either is or simply "could be" the work of a creator?

Again I may be off base.

 

He makes very strong quantitative analysis and shows that the odds are impossibly long for evolutionary process to take place as presumed by Darwin.
This is as far as refutation of Darwin's evolutionary theory goes (along with other important arguments).

It does not concern me a bit if he (and I am not saying that he does) , in some other context somewhere else, tries to use the valid refutation of Darwin's theory of evolution as basis of suggesting anything in favor of some other scientifically unprovable theory.

If anyone makes the following 2 statements:

# 1. Skies are not green.
# 2. There is a humanoid alien sitting 6 billion light years away who contemplates the same thing we do right now

the error or unprovability of second statement does not negate the validity of the first.

 

What is the time scale he is measuring them against?

[/QUOTE]

That is because the context of second question is of no impotence to the first.

 

I will quote one of the readers here, but I would suggest you to read the book on your own, instead of relying on interpretations and understanding of others:

It is simply irrelevant to the subject matter in question, speaking strictly of scientific validity of Darwins'evolutionary theory

 

What was your interpretation of his book, what theory did he offer if any to the explanation of life on this planet, how old did he reckon the human species was?

He did mention these things I would hope.

Your right it was, I'll take it as an attempt at humor on your part.