Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Credit for these lucid refutations of creationism (ID) goes to Phil Porvaznik. Face
it, ID is as much a pseudoscience as phrenology. Without even considering the manifold evidences in geosciences, evolution is proven vis-a'-vis
biosciences on many levels.
The biological evidence for evolution fits into several categories: the unique universal phylogenetic tree of life, transitional forms and the fossil
record, past history of vestiges / atavisms, evidence from embryology, from biogeography and global distribution of species, from anatomical and
molecular paralogy / analogy, the molecular sequence evidence (cytochrome-c and pseudogenes), etc. Here are a few dozen questions taken from a
summary, that six-day creationists, or any creationist who opposes macroevolution and "common descent" would find difficult to answer. Again, to
answer "God did it" (although ultimately, theistic evolutionists agree) would not be a scientific explanation.
mod edit of lengthy cut and paste
[edit on 14-9-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]
First off -- all the examples you cite to "prove" evolution DON'T. They could just as easily be turned around to prove Creationism and do so more
convincingly.
Transitional life forms in the fossil record or otherwise? There aren't any, and scientists aren't even looking for them anymore. Darwin spent
many long years searching for just one fossil that would show a transition -- and finally concluded he'd not be able to find it. Scientists have
pretty much dropped the use of gradulalism as the explanation to origins. Instead, Sagon and his cohort Jay Gould and others champion the theory of
punctuated equilibrium y to explain origins. Fact is, nobody really expects to EVER discover any so-called transitional life forms. In the past
when such have been claimed to have been "found" -- they turn out to be not what they seemed or, in most cases, outright hoaxes.
And certainly with the literally billions of life forms on Planet Earth -- (counting all the bugs, plants and animals) -- there would be evidence of
SOMETHING that was "transitioning" -- either in nature around us or in the fossil record. But, no. Everything is complete, finished. We see no
scales turning into feathers or plants growing brains and eyes, or fish whose fins are turning into legs and whose gills are turning into lungs.
True, there are many weird and strange creatures -- like bats, platypuses, euglenas, on and on, but these creatures are what they are -- just strange
creatures. If the bat were, for example, an example of a bird "turning into" a squirrel, well it's just not going to happen. There is nothing in
the bat that's transitioning. It's just a bat. You get my drift? And it will still BE a bat in 1 million years (if we're all still here, which I
don't think we WILL be.) Fact is, God has an amazing imagination and he's not limited in what he creates, makes things that frustrate the person
trying to organize creatures into categories.
Creatures. Get it, creatures (something created)?
Fact is there are things that change and things that don't. Evolution is the science of documenting change. Well, they're still looking for just
one thing to document. This sounds more like a religion to me than science -- i.e. desperately searching for 100 years for just one example of
change? The more they look, the more the evolutionists keep running into more evidence and proof that the change they are looking for doesn't
exist. No wonder most of them have given up ever finding it, and very few are seriously looking.
Just like nobody's seriously trying to duplicate in the laboratory what they claimed happened in nature by accident -- i.e. the creation of life
itself. Rather, they are tinkering with life, with the stuff of life, trying to manipulate it and understand it. But they think this happened by
accident, that dead matter can produce life. If this is not religion, what is? It certainly is ascribing god-like attributes to matter (that it's
self-existent, capable of producing life from itself, and that it can form itself into all lifeforms).
And embryology does not prove evolution. It proves only embryology. Embryology takes place in a period of months. Evolution takes place over eons
of time. So embryology hardly is proof of evolution -- to the contrary. Creationism claims things are as they are, and life comes from life. And
speaking of embryos, which DID come first -- the embryo or the parent? Answer: The parent (so he could take care of the baby, and because life
comes from life). It's a scientific fact. Check it out. I'm not lying. And which parent came first -- the male or the female? since they were
both supposedly evolving to the point where they could finally mate and produce offspring.
There is no proof for evolution. ALL the proof is piled in favor of creationism. No matter what example you use to try to "prove" evolution, its
reverse much more solidly proves Creationism.
Evolution is just wishful thinking by people who don't want God looking over their shoulder, expecting things from them, and waiting at the end of
their life to judge them. Evolution requires extreme, even fanatical, devotion to its ideology. I mean, what are you going to believe -- evolution
or your lying eyes?
[edit on 29-9-2005 by resistance]
[edit on 29-9-2005 by resistance]
[edit on 29-9-2005 by resistance]
[edit on 29-9-2005 by resistance]
. Me too, but we'll see how it goes one day at a time. Who knows what will happen tomorrow. 
