Ten reasons why creation scientists don't believe in evolution

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If this is so, I wonder why do you insist on dogmatic perspective then? You surely must know that you cannot "prove" anything in science then as well,

I dissagree.As I said there are exact sciences like some math. I dont insist on a dogmatic perspective. I just think that both are correct. I think god created everything and that evolution is one of his means of doing so. I believe many people share this view if not most.

[Papewaio]

You cannot prove everything in maths (axioms and such).

[Byzantine Prince]

NOOOO! PAPE why did you change your ultra-cool avatar!?!?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You cannot prove everything in maths (axioms and such).

Of course you cant thats why theres postulates and therums. Its also why I said some math.

[Papewaio]

Of course you cant thats why theres postulates and therums. Its also why I said some math.

Are maths axioms universal?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Are maths axioms universal?

I dont know but as axioms they are not part of what Im speaking about. Im talking basic math.

[Papewaio]

Maths is only exact within boundary conditions.

Example one.
1010 in Base Ten is one thousand and ten.

1010 in Base Two is ten. The boundary conditions have changed so a different result is found.

Example two.
A triangle has a total internal angle of 180 degrees. This is true only on a flat surface.

If you drew the triangle on a sphere the total internal angle would change.

Maths is only right within a very tight set of rules. This is the same for most sciences, the larger the scope of the boundary conditions the less it is likely to get an 'exact' (high probablity) model.

[SwordsMaster]

Of course you cant thats why theres postulates and therums. Its also why I said some math.

Thats why when mathematicians say "clearly" and "obviously" means that they cant prove it but they hope it is like they say.

[Papewaio]

NOOOO! PAPE why did you change your ultra-cool avatar!?!?

Because after getting to 6k posts I felt like a change and the Geisha while colourful was already taken...

[Adrian II]

3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Lol! This is surely the funniest. Show me one evolutionist who states that matter resulted from nothing. On the other hand, creationists do believe that matter resulted from nothing. Boy, are these guys confused.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

OK wise guy where do scientists say matter came from? and do you dispute the other two points?

[Adrian II]

OK wise guy where do scientists say matter came from?

You know very well that any basic science book will tell you about some of their hypotheses; no need for me to unpack that here. They certainly do not state that God somehow pulled the world out of his butt.

(..) and do you dispute the other two points?

Certainly not. Why would I?

EDIT
Elementary wise guy link

[Papewaio]

Where matter came from is in the realm of Astrophysics and Quantum physics. Those theories do not rely on evolution nor vice a versa.

It not a good form to bundle a theory with other ones.

Evolution is one thing.

'Macro' Evolution is a Creationist term that scientists do not use. Scientists refer to things like the Big Bang, Star Sequence, Star (Solar) System formation, Planetary formation. Which for some reason creationists try and bundle altogether with evolution.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Macro' Evolution is a Creationist term that scientists do not use.

Is that so?

MACROEVOLUTION


Were Darwin's extrapolations justified? Judging from the conclusions of many of the scientists attending one of the most important conferences in evolutionary biology in the past forty years, the answer is probably not.

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.

... Evolution, according to the Modern Synthesis, moves at a stately pace, with small changes accumulating over periods of many millions of years yielding a long heritage of steadily advancing lineages as revealed in the fossil record. However, the problem is that according to most paleontologists the principle feature of individual species within the fossil record is stasis, not change...

In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."

* Lewin, R. (1980)
"Evolutionary Theory Under Fire"
Science, vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883

"Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. They are very interesting, highly modified and elongated reptilian scales, and are not incipient feathers."

* Feduccia, Alan (1985)
"On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers"
The Beginning of Birds
Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, p. 76

"The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species -- Darwin's problem -- remains unsolved."

* Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff (1996)
"Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology,"
Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0032, 1996, p. 361

This theme is developed at much greater length, and with considerable insight, in Rudy Raff's new book, The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form, University of Chicago Press, 1996 (520 pages, $29.95 in paperback).

"The facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution."

* Goldschmidt, Richard B. (1940)
The Material Basis of Evolution
New Haven Connecticut: Yale University Press, p. 8

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: 'The emperor has not clothes.'"

* K. Hsu (1986)
"Darwin's Three Mistakes"
Geology, vol. 14, p. 534
(K. Hsu is a geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich.)

"Micro-evolution involves mainly changes within potentially continuous populations, and there is little doubt that its materials are those revealed by genetic experimentation. Macro-evolution involves the rise and divergence of discontinuous groups, and it is still debatable whether it differs in kind or only in degree from microevolution. If the two proved to be basically different, the innumerable studies of micro-evolution would become relatively unimportant and would have minor value in the study of evolution as a whole."

* Simpson G.G. (1949)
Tempo and Mode in Evolution, p97

"[T]he origin of no innovation of large evolutionary significance is known."

* R. Wesson (1991)
Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 45


"[L]arge evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any."

* R. Wesson (1991)
Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 206

Its a commonly used term and was not made up by creationist but by the . I suppose these guys are creationists

Macroevolution can be defined simply as evolution above the species level, and its subject matter includes the origins and fates of major novelties such as tetrapod limbs and insect wings, the waxing and waning of multi-species lineages over long time-scales, and the impact of continental drift and other physical processes on the evolutionary process. With its unique time perspective, paleontology has a central role to play in this area: the fossil record provides a direct, empirical window onto large-scale evolutionary patterns, and thus is invaluable both as a document of macroevolutionary phenomena, and as a natural laboratory for the framing and testing of macroevolutionary hypotheses. This is a vibrant field (if underpopulated relative to the wealth of material and questions within its domain), with a steady stream of papers, books and symposia and an increasing interaction with a broad range of disciplines from astrophysics to developmental biology. The result has been a number of insights into the processes that have shaped the major evolutionary patterns of present-day and ancient organisms.

LINK

Maybe you meant scientists have a differnt definition of Macro evolution. In that case I agree. Evolution cannot account for the creation of man nevermind the universe. You mention the big bang theory. Where di the matter come from and how did it get condensed and the explode in the first place? This is where it gets heavy. Does everything have a beggining and an end? Or is it a never ending circle ?

[Papewaio]

The formation of matter is not a theory involving evolution unless you are one of these creationists with their version of macro-evolution.

I've seen posted a few times Macro-evolution in the creationist sense including the big bang, planetary formtation and a host of other things.

Where matter comes from does not change how evolution occurs.

[Adrian II]

Please, let's stop the nonsense that 'no transitional forms have been found'. Here's something about whales for y'all. Fill in the rest for yourself if you want, but don't repeat cr@p from creationist websites without doing a little checking.

Link

[hrvojej]

I dissagree.As I said there are exact sciences like some math. I dont insist on a dogmatic perspective. I just think that both are correct. I think god created everything and that evolution is one of his means of doing so. I believe many people share this view if not most.

Don Corleone said it all

I see nothing in it that precludes some divine force acting behind it, yet nothing that requires it either.

While I personally don't believe in it and you do, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand - plausibility of evolutionary thought. Divine origin of this or that is not a part of evolution or science in general, it's a matter of philosophy and religion, and the distinction should be made clear. Science cannot provide evidence about the existence (or non-existence) of God, and it shouldn't deal with those questions either as they are not the part of it in the first place. But in the same vein, one should not try to use religion and creed to pass judgements on scientific things and issues. In short, science and religion do not necessarily conflict each other, but rather they deal with different questions and using different approaches.

If it would make it more approachable to you, you can think of evolution as studying the methodology of how it all came to pass, while retaining your beliefs about how it all begun. But that doesn't mean that the answer to everything that doesn't seem logical in science comes down to a singular answer of divine intervention.