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!

Evolution Fallacies

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Rex, Sep 1, 2004.

  1. Bastet

    Bastet Vile Stove-Toucher

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    5,555
    Ratings:
    +606
    If you secluded a group of modern day adult humans on an island, away from all other contact, then, over time, they would lose what technology they had to begin with. In my travels, I found this rather interesting site...I refer you to the part about Tasmanians. No offense to any Tassies on board, but gee...sure explains a lot! :p

    http://home.entouch.net/dmd/neantas.htm
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. YawgmothsAvatar

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    86
    Ratings:
    +8
    I have heard the taller thing... but I never heard of the brain shrinkage. Mind getting a source?

    Oh, and the reason why are getting taller is primarily nutritional.
     
  3. Druidus

    Druidus Keeper of the Grove

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,816
    Ratings:
    +515
    http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t_rv/t_rv_agraw_pottery.htm

    I'm sorry I can't find more, it's an obscure topic. ;) Take my word for it though, I wouldn't post it here if I knew it was a fallacy.
     
  4. YawgmothsAvatar

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    86
    Ratings:
    +8
    Interesting. I was under the impression that humans jaws were getting smaller to accomodate our growing brains, not because of agriculture.

    From http://www.priweb.org/ed/ICTHOL/ICTHOL04papers/68.htm
     
  5. Druidus

    Druidus Keeper of the Grove

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,816
    Ratings:
    +515
    Our brain still is quite large, and was large as well, so we probably lost that back when it started to grow.
     
  6. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    Reason # 20 makes an assumption that is not proven. It quotes Genesis 1:29 Vegaetation "was upon the face of the earth" as meaning there was only one climate that it covered the world. What utter nonsense!!! It flies in the face of seasons produced by earth rotation and angle of inclination toward the sun

    -pah-
     
  7. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    Reason # 22 contradicts reason # 4

    Reson # 7 does not give a rate of Helium leakage from the misidentified primary resevoir. It (reason # 7) specifies rock as the source whereas Science identifies natural gas.

    Reason # 10 poses two questions "How would the earth have survived without the moon and how would the moon have gotten here without getting so close" It only addresses the second question and fails to account for various masses orbiting other masess. Pluto is the example that shots down their answer to the second question. The smaller moons (Leda, for example) of Jupiter beyond Io (the 3rd largest) should have flown off if Reason #10's logic is to be beleived.

    -pah-

    P.S.
    Maybe, just maybe I'll invest good time in showing more fallacies in the fallicies
     
  8. LongGe123

    LongGe123 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Messages:
    496
    Ratings:
    +58
    Yes once again I'm with you Druidus (if this is the first one you've seen I posted something on a different thread of yours, one to do with Hell).

    But as for the original idea about the Big Bang being a big dud - no offence to whoever said that put up by the admin guy but that idea about "where did it all come from" is so old. So we don't know for sure how it all works it doesn't make it nonsense. It's not as though scientists generally claim the Big Bang to be gospel - it just seems a fairly good start to an explanation. We're on a tiny insignificant rock with some water on it floating around in space, what the hell chance do we have of truly finding out how the universe was made in the forseeable future?

    Frankly the idea of a great cosmic being making everything is in my opinion childish, talk about searching for an easy way to explain-away everything. At least science makes more of an endeavour to seek out the truth in a rational way from the evidence we can see and measure in our universe. This is more worthy of our praise in my opinion. I believe the world would be better if we all encouraged and rewarded academic, artistic and scientific endeavour more strongly and shook off the religious shackles holding the world back!
     
  9. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic


    Pah,
    How does this mean that there is only one climate?

    ~Victor
     
  10. Ryan2065

    Ryan2065 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,037
    Ratings:
    +175
    The site no longer works =( I was going to read all the points and respond to them...

    :(
     
  11. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    I honestly don't know. I tried to go to the list and see if it was the reason I used those words - but alas the link is no longer valid. It is not a thought that I would have - so that's why I wanted to check it.
     
  12. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Oh ok....you have bad luck with links man.....:D

    ~Victor
     
  13. CaptainXeroid

    CaptainXeroid Following Christ

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,782
    Ratings:
    +755
    That's one of the drawbacks of resurrecting a nearly year old thread.:p I tried the root website of the link, and it came up 404 as well. I bet you can find simliar answers on answersingenesis or whatever that site was.
     
  14. dorsk188

    dorsk188 One-Eyed in Blindsville

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    187
    Ratings:
    +30
    How a little thread called "Evolution Fallacies" almost became "The Evolution of Phalluses."

    The best things in life are free...
     
  15. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,675
    Ratings:
    +2,658
    I must admit the idea of how the thread got to the point of someone posting "what is the male gender creater for?" has me a bit confused!:D

    If anyone is interested in resurecting this thread, I think the best Idea would be to do so, with Rex's opening posts as a starter, and we go from there; would anyone wish me to do that ?:)
     
  16. JerryL

    JerryL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,601
    Ratings:
    +313
    Replying to the original post.

    Firstly: The Big Bang theory is part of astrophysics, not evolution. Secondly, it really doesn't say anything about the nature of the universe prior to the Big Bang. We know that the bang started from a very small area (relatively) and we can speulate on what the universe might have been like at that point, but we really have no idea... and any guess about how the universe got that way, or what it was like before before the big bang is just that: a guess.

    This is not an accurate depection of the very early universe. Just after the big bang, the energy state in the universe was too high for even atoms to form. The universe was just time-space and energy. It took time for the universe to cool down anough for matter to form.

    "Laws of nature" are simply written down things on "how reality works". So your question is "Why is reality the way reality is". I don't know that there is a "why", and if there is I don't know what it would be. You could ask the same question of God to a theist (why is God the way God is), and likely the answers are the same.

    You are correct in the statement "we don't know what the universe was like before it became the universe". It's also true that we don't know where the matter-energy came from. Perhaps it always existed. Perhaps it was created. Perhaps it just popped into being. We don't know anything about the nature of reality outside of the universe, nor the nature of the universe pre-big-bang.

    A large problem with your argument is that from "we know nothing" you then assert things you claim are true (you claim to know something). For example, you claim that the energy came into being and that such an act is impossible in extra-universal reality. You don't know either of these to be true.

    Since your presuppositions are entirely unestablished, no valid conclusions may be drawn from them.

    Evolution is a different theory in a different branch of science. Evolution is well proven.

    No. All objects will continue with their current inertia unless influenced by outside objects. The number of assumptions in there (from material consistancy to yoour choice to completely ignore gravity, magnitisim, and dark energy) is rife and problamatic to your position.

    You now move on to another (non-evolution) topic that again assumes an awful lot about the nature of the solar-system which is unknown.

    I'll ignore getting into a detail of how we go from solar nebula to proto-solar-system as you've not complained on that, and we will skip forward to the point where the sun has coeleced, along with most of the planetary disk. At this point, they are all orbiting in the same direction and spinning along with their orbits (there's an interesting gravitational locking that occurs to encourage this).

    Why do they spin? As a rotating cloud condenses it gets hotter and spins faster. It's a basic law of physics to maintain the same momentum, if no outside forces are acting which was the case. But now it's called angular momentum, since it's motion of gas (and some dust, it turns out) is more-or-less along circles and not along straight lines. So all that was needed was a big cloud of gas and dust spinning somewhat slowly to give a small fast spinning planet after gravitational condensing. Notice that the planets are nearly spherical in shape, including Earth. Well, as the parts of the big cloud condense and heat up they go into a molten state, making it easy for the internal gravitational forces acting uniformly in each (in a spherical sense) to make a lot of spinning spheres. In physics we say it's a minimum energy state, which nature always strives for.

    In many cases the moons form around planets in the same way that the planets formed around the sun... so they too fall into predictable planes and rotations. There are exceptions however.

    In the case of Earth's moon, the moon was actually ejected from the Earth's mass by a collossal impact. In other cases, "free-range" objects are trapped by the gravity of a planet. Usually that just spins them off in some odd direction. Sometimes it creates an orbit that eventually collieds with the planet (The Shoemaker_levy comet when it got trapped by Jupiter), and sometimes they end up in a reasonably stable orbit (Earth does have a couple of captured rocks in orbit).

    As to Uranus: something hit it pretty hard and tilted it up on its side. It maintained it's original pole and spin, but the orientation relative to the sun moved. Most all planets show some level of deviation from perpendicular, and most all show some level of wobble.

    The sun is also less contracted than most (the ice-skater has put her arms out during her spin). In point of fact, the sun does not have a single rotational speed: the core rotates differently than the equater surface which is different from the pole's surface.

    But feel free to put up your actual math and we can discuss it.

    Gogole has your answer. I don't see enough relevence to type it out for you.

    Earth is similar to Mars and practically identical to Venus. Unless you are discussing the results of sitting where they do in the solar-system (Mars is arid and cold, venus is a hot-house), in which case your answer includes "because Earth is in a different spot than every other planet".

    These are simply unspported assertions.
     
  17. Finnyhaha

    Finnyhaha Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    125
    Ratings:
    +19
    This was bothering me so I did a quick search on yahoo. Came up with this:
    http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/dna.htm
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/science/25dino.html?ei=5090&en=b273d4463ac5bade&ex=1269406800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&adxnnlx=1124662548-0IbI6QZ2ptSJ6rWlemIgiA
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

    The wikipedia article includes this:

    Far from saying that DNA has been extracted from unfosilized dinosaur bones, but we all know how things get a little stretched once in a while. ;)

    Peace,
    Finny
     
  18. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,652
    ahh but this isn't what the site was refering to... they clame that a whole unfossilized hadrosaur had been found in Alaska...
    Not a chemically softened bits of a Montaian T.rex... though many Creationists like to misrepresent that find now too. :rolleyes:

    wa:do
     
  19. Parma

    Parma Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    16
    Ratings:
    +1
    Parma : I felt compasion today, I saw this girl on TV. who was not well. I asked people
    around me. Do you think god has compasion after seeing it . They all turned around and said that she must
    have done somthing evil in her past life. Now what view would you follow? I cant accept there's. Reason if I do I
    lose my compasion and gain there thought which is the total opposite, am I wright or am I wrong?
    [Parma] 2:18 pm: I created room "How do you percieve others ?"
     
  20. Parma

    Parma Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    16
    Ratings:
    +1
    What I learnt was that a person that can bring into the world the purity of another persons soul without uttering a word, but just by looking at them is beyond the deeds of many great men. Has to be a great being. The view of them being something from an evil past to me is something that has changed into todays saint. There isnt many religions or philiosophers that are more influencial then a person that that can bring influnce onto someone with one look. An influence of your own pure soul with one look is beyond a thousand words and to me I'd class that girl as a saint. Please correct me if im wrong?
     
Loading...