1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

20 points which show evolution is not science

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by MiniBoglins, Nov 10, 2010.

  1. MiniBoglins

    MiniBoglins Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Ratings:
    +1
    Hello, i am a Hindu and i support creationism i do not believe in evolution. I have read over many evolutionist books, articles and websites from the internet and did you know evolutionists are actually their own worst enemy? I quote here mainly evolutionists who admit themselves evolution is not science.

    Evolution has never been observed

    Evolution has never been observed and leading evolutionists have even admitted evolution cannot be witnessed in the lifetime of an observer. The lack of a case for evolution is therefore most clearly recognized by the fact that no one has ever seen it happen.

    Richard Dawkins: ‘‘Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening.’’

    G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed.’’

    2. Evolution relies upon non-observable time periods

    The theory of evolution relies upon vast periods of time, billions or millions of years. However these time periods are non-observable and non-repeatable, therefore falling outside of the scientific method.

    Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of human history.’’

    3. Evolutionists do not know how to define a species

    Evolutionists admit they don’t know how to define a species (this is the ‘‘Species Problem’’).

    Charles Darwin: ‘‘... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties.’’

    Henry Nicholson: ‘‘No term is more difficult to define than ‘‘species’’, and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word.’’

    4. Speciation has never been observed

    Speciation has never actually been observed, but some evolutionists claim it has (despite the fact they can’t even define or identify what a species is) however many leading biologists and palaeontologists over the years have admitted speciation has never been witnessed.

    T. H Morgan: ‘‘Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another.’’

    Dr. Colin Patterson: ‘‘No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it...’’

    5. Evolutionists do not know what started evolution

    Evolutionists admit they don’t know what started evolution. The mechanism or driving force for evolution has even puzzled the staunchest of evolutionists.

    G. G Simpson: ‘‘Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned.’’

    6. No fossil evidence for evolution exists


    No fossils have yet shown a transitional structure.

    Charles Darwin: ‘‘Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.’’

    Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontologists.’’

    Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘All palaeontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record’’

    David B. Kitts: ‘‘Despite the promise that palaeontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists...’’

    Steven M Stanley: ‘‘The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition…’’

    Carroll Robert: ‘‘What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin…’’

    7. Evolution fails to meet the requirements for the scientific method

    Evolution is non-observable and non-repeatable, so it cannot be put to the scientific method.

    Theodosius Dobzhansky: ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible... the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.’’

    Henry M. Morris: ‘‘Science requires experiments that can be replicated. Evolution cannot be replicated, so it is not science’’

    8. Evolutionists don’t know the origin of species

    Evolutionists don’t know the origin of species. Despite Darwin’s title to his 1859 book Origin of Species he did not know of one instance of a species changing into another or where species originated.

    Gordon R. Taylor: ‘‘You may be surprised to hear that the origin of species remains just as much a mystery today, despite the efforts of thousands of biologists.’’

    Ernst Mayr: ‘‘…Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated in the title of his work.’’

    9. The theory of evolution does not even qualify as science

    Science is defined as: ‘‘The systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms’’

    Or more simply:

    ‘‘Knowledge attained through study or practice’’

    Evolution however is not observable and cannot be experimented or replicated.

    Theodosius Dobzhansky: ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible... the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.’’
    Dr. Colin Patterson: [describing evolution] ‘‘…unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England…unique events are, by definition, not a part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test’’

    Paul Ehrlich: ‘‘No one can think of ways in which to test it.’’

    Henry M. Morris: ‘‘Evolution has not been and cannot be, proved. We cannot even see evolution…much less test it experimentally.’’

    10. Evolution is based on assumptions, guesses and inferences not facts

    Since there is no actual concrete evidence for evolution, evolutionists have to start with assuming, guessing, speculating and inferring.

    George P. Conger: ‘‘Evolution is in the last analysis not a matter of evidence, but a matter of inference.’’

    Austin Clark: [commentating on the evolutionist view of common ancestry] ‘‘It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived…There is not the slightest basis for this assumption’’

    L. Harrison Matthews: [writing on Whales] ‘‘...we can only guess at their evolutionary history by inference.’’

    11. Evolution is a mathematical impossibility

    The theory of evolution is based on mutation over very long periods of time. Maths however in terms of probability speaks strongly against evolution. For example, Julian Huxley a leading evolutionist of the mid-twentieth century calculated that to create a single horse by evolution it would require 103000 mutations. However not only are mutations incredibly rare, in no way do they actually lend support for evolution (see 12 below).

    12. Mutations do not cause evolution

    Mutations in nearly all instances cause a loss of information, not a net gain - as the theory of evolution requires. So in no way do mutations cause evolution.

    Pierre Paul Grasse: ‘‘No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.’’

    Richard Goldschmidt: ‘‘It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation [a combination of many mutations]; it is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutation [one or only a few mutations].’’

    13. No Evidence for common descent from similarities

    The existence of similarities in different organisms is not evidence for common descent.
    Sir Gavin de Beer: ‘‘It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced.’’

    14. Vestigial Organs do not prove evolution

    In no way do vestigial organs give credit to the theory of evolution, this is mainly due to the fact in recent years many have been found to actually have functions.
    S. R. Scadding: ‘‘An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures… leads to the conclusion that vestigial organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.’’

    Henry M. Morris: ‘‘Practically all vestigial organs in man have been shown to have definite uses and not to be vestigial at all.’’

    15. Evolutionists can only interpret fossils

    Fossils evolutionists attempt to use to support their theory can only be interpreted. Most evolutionists overlook this simple fact and believe fossils are direct evidence for evolution but mere interpretation is not evidence. Over the years some top zoologists have come to recognise this fact.

    Professor Mark Ridley: ‘‘In any case, no real evolutionist... uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation...’’

    Ronald R. West: “Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.’’

    R. W Merrit: ‘‘Interpretations of the fossil record must be made with great caution…With so few insect fossils available and fossils absent from critical geologic periods, it is difficult to base evolutionary trends in any of the insect orders solely on the fossil record.’’
     
  2. MiniBoglins

    MiniBoglins Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Ratings:
    +1
    16. Evolutionists create frauds because they have no evidence

    The theory of evolution is filled with fraud, for example Piltdown man and Haeckel’s faked embryological drawings. Frauds are only made when no evidence for a theory is presentable.

    Russell Grigg: [On Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings] ‘‘A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist.’’

    Harold G. Coffin: [Writing about Piltdown Man] ‘‘Careful examination of the bone pieces revealed the startling information that the whole thing was a fabrication, a hoax perpetrated by Dawson, probably, to achieve recognition.’’

    17. Many missing links

    Many missing links exist within the evolution theory, especially in relation to the fossil record. Since Darwin’s day, evolutionists have still not been able to find them.

    Richard E. Leakey: ‘‘Unfortunately no fossils have yet been found of animals ancestral to the bats.’’

    Martin R. D: ‘‘There are no fossils available as plausible ancestors of the primates, leaving the primate tree without a trunk.’’

    A. S Romer: ‘‘The origin of rodents is obscure...no transitional forms are known.’’

    Robert L. Carroll: ‘‘The transition between pelycosaurs and therapsids has not been documented.’’

    Robert L. Carroll: ‘‘We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians.’’

    Alfred Sherwood Romer: ‘‘The common ancestor of the bony-fish groups is unknown.’’

    18. Gaps in the fossil record

    There are numerous gaps in the fossil record which pose numerous problems for the theory of evolution, even Darwin stumbled across them.

    Charles Darwin: ‘‘If species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? ...Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?’’

    Ernst Mayr: ‘‘Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the palaeontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.’’

    Professor Eldredge: ‘‘… the fossil record is so deficient, so full of gaps, that the predicted patterns of gradual change simply do not emerge…’’

    Jeffrey H. Schwartz: ‘‘…most palaeontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species.’’

    George T. Neville: ‘‘The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.’’

    19. Evolutionist reconstructions are dishonest

    Since evolutionists have no real evidence for evolution, they have to resort to creating hypothetical reconstructions to infer common ancestry.

    Barbara J. Stahl: ‘‘Because of the nature of the fossil evidence, palaeontologists have been forced to reconstruct the first two-thirds of mammalian history in great part on the basis of tooth morphology.’’

    Earnst A. Hooton: ‘‘To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip, leave no clues on the underlying bony parts…These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public.... So put not your trust in reconstructions.’’

    W. Howells: ‘‘A great legend has grown up to plague both palaeontologists and anthropologists. It is that one of; men can take a tooth or a small and broken piece of bone, gaze at it, and pass his hand over his forehead once or twice, and then take a sheet of paper and draw a picture of what the whole animal looked like as it tramped the Tertiary terrain. If this were quite true, the anthropologists would make the F.B.I. look like a troop of Boy Scouts.’’

    20. Evolution is pure faith

    Evolution cannot be observed or experimented; it is therefore not scientific but based on pure faith or imagination. Many notable academics have noted upon this.

    Karl Popper: ‘‘Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.’’

    Michael Denton [On the theory of evolution] ‘‘…as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would have us believe.’’

    Dr. Fleishmann: ‘‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.’’

    L. Harrison Matthews: ‘‘The theory of evolution forms… a faith on which to base our interpretation of nature.’’
     
  3. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Greased up & ready for action!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    151,437
    Ratings:
    +42,948
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    Your argument is a lengthy list of objections to evolution, but it doesn't clearly address why evolution isn't science.
    I suggest that you post a definition of "science", & succinctly show why evolution doesn't meet those criteria.
    Also, you rely too much on quotes to establish authority. Famous experts have their opinions, but they can (& often are) wrong.
    Honestly, I'd much rather see a shorter & really well thought out argument against evolution. That would generate some interesting discussion.
     
    #3 Revoltingest, Nov 10, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2010
  4. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Spam is not thought out.
     
  5. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    45,809
    Ratings:
    +14,373
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    It is sad that so often we keep stumbling upon this kind of claim.

    Truth is, it is seriously obsolet and misinformed. Evolution is not only scientific and in fact a significant scientific tool for all kinds of biological technology, it has been so for decades.

    The vigor of its adversaries is due to emotional trouble with the idea and a jumbo-sized lack of proper information.
     
  6. Magic Man

    Magic Man Reaper of Conversation

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    18,514
    Ratings:
    +1,447
    I know how futile this is, but I'm bored.



    This is just factually incorrect. Evolution is observed all the time. If you become a biologist, you pretty much have to observe evolution in action. You can quote mine all you want, but it's not going to change the fact that we can observe evolution happening.

    I don't really feel like responding to the rest of the nonsense, so I'll leave it at that. What you need to do is actually learn about evolution, instead of just seeking out sources that will support your ignorant rejection of it.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. MiniBoglins

    MiniBoglins Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Ratings:
    +1
    well its not spam. me and my brother wrote this article. unlike evolutionists who just copy and paste from talk origins, i actually write all my own stuff.. so atleast give some credit.
     
  8. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Come on. It's spammed all over the internet.
     
  9. MiniBoglins

    MiniBoglins Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Ratings:
    +1
    hmmm i think we should leave the science to actual people like myself who are out there observing life.

    You obviously are not a scientist, for the sake of this thread, and with honesty can you actually put up what qualifications do you have? What exactly do you do for a living? Would be interesting to know. Il take a potshot here and say that you are some kind of web designer and you spend most of your life behind a computer screen. There really is nothing wrong with that, whatever floats your boat. But leave the science to the scientists... i have many field trips i spent 2 months observing various ecosystems in New Zealand. I have done much nature observation it is my life, i have spent 48 hours in one spot in Scotland studying the behaviour of the ruddy shelduck and the blue winged teal. Just last week i was down devon (south west of england) on the beach studying fossils. I know my stuff, i have studied nearly every topic in botany and ecology part of my work is to actually go out indentify, study, classify and observe plant and animal species. Speciation is non observable. I spend my life in nature i am a botanist student, if you actually got out into the real world like me you would see evolution is not happening. But of course most evolutionists just sit behind there computer all day or in a lab. Reality is in nature, and macroevolution the theory that species evolve into different species can not be observed it simply is not happening, it is not natural and it is not scientific. Evolution it is a theory which can not be tested, repeated or observed... it is not based on science.
     
  10. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Greased up & ready for action!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    151,437
    Ratings:
    +42,948
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    Alas, you're ignoring my advice. See what it inspires in others?
    And going into great detail on your science related journeys doesn't affect your argument.
    To start, what definition of "science" do you use? Pick a single aspect of it & address that. Then you won't be derailed by accusations of spamming.
    I'm here to help.
     
  11. Magic Man

    Magic Man Reaper of Conversation

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    18,514
    Ratings:
    +1,447
    Huh? We should leave science to scientists. If you were actually observing life, you'd have a much more accurate view of things.

    What does it matter? No, I'm not a scientist, nor have I ever claimed to be. However, it's obvious that I have a much better understanding of science and scientific theory than you do.

    Close. I do helpdesk. Now, explain to me why this matters to the question of evolution.

    Oh, I will. I'll leave it to scientists like our very own painted wolf, who has observed evolution.

    So, what you're saying is you have done a bunch of stuff that's not actually science, so you have a good grasp on what's science and what's not? Sorry. No, evolution is a scientific theory, which means it has ridiculous amounts of evidence and facts involved. It can be tested, and it has been for over 100 years. It is science. Deal with it.

    P.S. - I did very much enjoy your "I go out and look at nature, so I know evolution is BS". That's a new one, and very entertaining.
     
  12. MiniBoglins

    MiniBoglins Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Ratings:
    +1
    in other words you have no qualifications and you just spend your life behind a computer this is the case for most evolutionists, sorry but you have no qualifications and you have never actually seen or studied anything in nature, why should anyone listen to your opinions on this topic? You have no experience in the real world. considering that i have seen many things face to face in nature which you will probably never see in your life...my viewpoint here is more reliable, i was in australia last year i spent 1 week observing life in a swamp ecosystem. have you done this? listen i respect you and your beliefs.. im just saying if you actually get out into the world like i have, i have to study over 40 plant species everyday.. you will see none are evolving...too much time behind a computer for you it has cut you off from reality...
     
    #12 MiniBoglins, Nov 10, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2010
  13. RedOne77

    RedOne77 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Messages:
    461
    Ratings:
    +39
    LOL, I don't know any evolutionist who just copy-pastes from TO, or any other website. Most can write their own stuff and use articles/links to support their writings.

    Still, quote mining isn't something that is seen as a good source of information, and as mball said, some of your criticism are just factually incorrect no matter how many quotes of evolutionary scientists you can produce to the contrary.

    Like "evolution and speciation has never been observed" is just wrong. We've observed speciation so much scientists have been able to categorize different types of speciation each with their own observed cases in nature.

    Or "We don't know what started (drives) evolution" is wrong as well. While scientists don't know everything, and keep in mind no field of science claims to know everything or is complete, scientists have a good idea of how it basically works and what factors are involved.

    Or "there is no fossil evidence" seems to be a favorite creationist misconception. There is a wonderful twin nested hierarchy of the fossil pattern in the geological record that is supported by genetic testing. As of now, no fossil (which there should be many if evolution is wrong) has been found that defies this pattern which truly does shout "EVOLUTION".

    In short everything on that list is either flat out wrong, or has been twisted to support creationism. Like the "evos can't define species (which they have, but it isn't perfect), which is what we should expect if evolution is true! It should be easy to define species if each species is a created kind that can't evolve into another species and cannot interbreed at all with other species as they have no common ancestor.

    Instead of going through a list of PRATT, I'm with Revoltingest in that either synthesize your points, focus on a few, and/or better yet define science and explain why evolution aint it as suggested in a develop, thoughtful argument against evolution that is shorter.

    Edit: BTW, can you give a definition of evolution? I want to make sure everyone is on the same page here, thanks. :)
     
    #13 RedOne77, Nov 10, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2010
  14. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    3,505
    Ratings:
    +1,878
    Religion:
    None
    Speaking of which, do you have references for the quotes in your article?

    Also, you should be able to explain why most of your 20 points have nothing to do with saying whether evolution is science or not and several say exactly the same thing just worded differently.
     
  15. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    It's a shame none of this did you any good at all.

    And you lower yourself to spamming something on the internet.
     
  16. Dan4reason

    Dan4reason Facts not Faith

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Ratings:
    +29


    Actually we can observe evolution. People have actually died because of it. We have seen the AIDS virus mutate because of natural selection. We also observe evolution in the fossil record see below.
    [​IMG]
     
  17. MiniBoglins

    MiniBoglins Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    Ratings:
    +1
    angellous_evangellous im jsut trying to bring up a point here, im not a liar or trolling.. im just a botanist student i spend my life doing field studies and observational research. i spend my life in nature. yes i have brought this up a few times sorry for repeating myself and yes i did put this on another forum, but evolutionists who spend no time in nature, why exactly are there opinions more valid than mine? i am actually out there all day studying nature my opinions are much more valid becuase i experience nature i directly observe nature everyday.. why should we listen to evolutionists with no qualifications who just sit on the internet all day? i have been doing field research on my course now for 4 years... been round 100s of ecosystems and habitats... i have not observed evolution once.. evolution is not directly observable... becuase i study plant science i am interested in direct observation in this field. and evolution simply can not be observed.
     
    #17 MiniBoglins, Nov 10, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2010
  18. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    To put it simply: you are not addressing the arguments concerning evolution. This leads me to believe that your opinion based on your observation is not educated nor valuable. That is, no botanist is going to say that you can sit out in a clearing and see a dandilion evolve into a different species within a year. You are not apporaching evolution in the terms of its arguments.

    What you're doing amounts to basically filling up a baloon with helium and arguing that it disproves Newton's theory of gravity because he couldn't be he to observe the same thing. It's nonsense.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Magic Man

    Magic Man Reaper of Conversation

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    18,514
    Ratings:
    +1,447
    Because I have a good grasp on science and how it works. I also have a good grasp on evolution, unlike you. You're appealing to authority here. The fact that I'm not a scientist doesn't mean I can't understand a scientific theory.

    No, it's not. All you're doing now is "I don't care if my views don't line up with the entire scientific community, I'm right because of my personal experiences, and since you don't have any scientific personal experiences, you're wrong". The more reliable viewpoint is the one based on facts. Mine is; yours isn't.

    Have you studied evolution? It doesn't seem that you have. Studying plants doesn't make you qualified as an authority on evolution. I could go out and study lions for 10 years, but if I'm not studying evolution of biology, then my work studying lions is irrelevant to a conversation about evolution.

    So, instead of trying to use the fact that you study plants as an argument, why don't you use a real argument? Like one based on facts.
     
  20. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    If you're not a liar, you're woefully incompetent in your field.

    Are you receiving any support in your theories from your teachers?
     
Loading...