Things that defy evolution

[GoSeminoles!]

Also in textbooks, the peppered moth, evolutionists believe they changed colors in the industrial revolution, this is also in textbooks, and has been proven not true. The moths do not rest on the bark of trees, thus making the pictures invalid.

Also with finches on the galapagos island, how they grew bigger beaks in the drought so they could eat. But with further study, it seems that they ones with smaller beaks moved out to another place so they could eat (makes sense.)

I'm delighted someone your age is interested in evolution. However, perhaps you should ask yourself some questions. If what you wrote above is true, why do you suppose so many scientists all over the world, including Christians, accept evolution? Are all these really smart people just making bonehead mistakes? Are they involved in a giant conspiracy to trick you? I suppose it's possible. Or maybe whomever is feeding you the above information is wrong. Do you think that's possible?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The bombardier beetle's chemical weapon

Now, why would a beetle need a chemical weapon in the pre-fall world, huh?

Also in textbooks, the peppered moth, evolutionists believe they changed colors in the industrial revolution, this is also in textbooks, and has been proven not true. The moths do not rest on the bark of trees, thus making the pictures invalid.

You might find the following threads interesting:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2472906-the-peppered-moth-hoax.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t1824726-arons-rebuttal-of-mark-ramsey-peppered-moths.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t2498950-the-peppered-moth-on-tree-trunks.html

From the last one I'll even quote the OP since it directly addresses your second sentence:

Why do creationists keep claiming that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks, when the 1998 paper by Majerus[1] found that of forty seven moths found in the wild

• 12 (25%) were found on tree trunks
• 20 (43%) were found on trunk branch joints
• 15 (32%) were found on branches

with branches providing a similar background to tree trunks?


[1]Majerus, Michael E. N., 1998. Melanism: Evolution in action, Oxford University Press.

 

[Hydra009]

It is another view of science

Geocentrism is another view of astronomy, homeopathy is another view of medicine, and holocaust denial is another view of history. Want any of these alternate views taught in public schools? "Teaching alternate views" isn't what science class is about, it's about learning science. There are a lot of nutjobs out there with all kinds of nutty ideas - that doesn't make them science and it doesn't mean they should be taught in public schools. Especially if those views are wholly religious, and not science in the slightest, but completely dependent on one's interpretation of the Bible.

you must remember that evolution is a THEORY, not a law.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

 

[Loudmouth]

Also in textbooks, the peppered moth, evolutionists believe they changed colors in the industrial revolution, this is also in textbooks, and has been proven not true. The moths do not rest on the bark of trees, thus making the pictures invalid.

Your sources have been lying to you. No one has ever claimed that the moths changed colors in response to industrial melanism. What they did say was that the camoflage of different colors shifted the ratio of dark to light. This example was and continues to be a great example of natural selection in action.

Also with finches on the galapagos island, how they grew bigger beaks in the drought so they could eat. But with further study, it seems that they ones with smaller beaks moved out to another place so they could eat (makes sense.)

The finches did not grow bigger beaks. Those with bigger beaks had more offspring so that more bigger beaked finches were found in the next generation. Again, a good example of natural selection in action. This work also showed speciation in action as interbreeding between the big beaked and small beaked varieties stopped.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You call them religious, why? It is another view of science, you must remember that evolution is a THEORY, not a law. Creation is science. If you think it is religious because of faith, then you are calling evolution religious too, because it is not a law, you have faith that it is true, as we believe that Creation is true.

Just because something is called a law, doesn't mean that it could not be false. And anyway, if of the two, theory and law, one is the better then it has to be the theory since it actually provides the framework for even formulating a scientific law. Moreover, don't you think that it is a bit different to reach a conclusion based on evidence (science) instead of clinging - no matter what - to a certain prescribed 'conclusion' (faith).

 

[Loudmouth]

Creation is science. If you think it is religious because of faith, then you are calling evolution religious too, because it is not a law, you have faith that it is true, as we believe that Creation is true.

Evolution is supported by empirical evidence, not faith. Check out this webpage for a small sampling of the evidence supporting evolution. Also, the theory of evolution is tentative and could be shown to be false tomorrow.

Theory is the best any idea can do in science. If evolution is a theory, then it is actually a complement.

Creationism, on the other hand, is supported solely by belief, not empirical evidence. Why do you believe that creationism is true? Because a Holy Book tells you so. No evidence, just a belief in the infallibility of a book written by men. Evolution, on the other hand, is based on facts that you can test yourself. For instance, evolution makes specific predictions on what should be found in your DNA. Evolution also predicts what types of fossils should be found in which strata. These predictions can be tested, and have been tested. These predictions continue to pan out which is why evolution is accepted by 99.9% of scientists in biology.

What does creationism predict about the placement of mammal and trilobite fossils in the geologic column? What predictions does creationism make about the placement and sequences of ERV's in the genomes of divergent species? The answer to both is none. Creationism is incapable of making predictions and it is incapable of being tested which is why it is accepted by faith alone.

 

[Nemoralis]

It is another view of science, you must remember that evolution is a THEORY, not a law.

Excellent! Theories are much more useful than laws anyway.

 

[Silent Bob]

It is another view of science,

I fail to see the science part in both ID and Creationism.

you must remember that evolution is a THEORY, not a law.

Evolution is both a FACT and a theory. Every SINGLE creationist and IDist worth mentioning accepts that evolution happens everywhere around us.

Creation is science.

Creationism you mean. Hmmm let us aply the scientific method to creationism then:

1)Define the question

The origins of the species.

2)Gather information and resources

Read Genesis 1 and 2. (which account do we agree with btw?)

3)Form hypothesis

It all happened according to a litteral interpretation of Genesis.

4)Perform experiment and collect data

Oups, well lets just take data from others.

5)Analyze data

Take fossils and date them. Arrange them according to date and layer found. Look into genetics of existing species.

6)Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses

Species form all the time, ERVs strongly support common ancestry, fossils offer plausible transitions from one taxonomic group to another, dating methods allow us to date and order fossils and strata they are found it, every single piece of evidence when taken on face value shows we are wrong.

7)Publish results

Realise that our ideas will never fly so write popular books and make money. Also realise that we have a bunch of gulable readers believing the garbage we feed them so turn the issue into a political debate since scientifically we dont have a leg to stand on.

If you think it is religious because of faith, then you are calling evolution religious too, because it is not a law, you have faith that it is true, as we believe that Creation is true.

Evolution is going to become a law with all the law suits that it has won. YECism is not even simply religious. It is beyond belief!!!!11!!

 

[Grengor]

Read Genesis 1 and 2. (which account do we agree with btw?)

A common rebuttal to that is that Gen 2 actually described the creation of Eden.
Upon review of Gen 2 I find this completely inadequate. Anyone else?

 

[JoshDanger]

You call them religious, why? It is another view of science, you must remember that evolution is a THEORY, not a law. Creation is science. If you think it is religious because of faith, then you are calling evolution religious too, because it is not a law, you have faith that it is true, as we believe that Creation is true.

Yes, it is a theory, and that is saying a lot as a scientific theory is the most profound assertion that science can make on a subject. And it just so happens that evolution is the most well supported theory in the scientific world, even more so than gravity.

I"m sure once you take some high school science courses they'll better explain how the scientific process works, at least I hope so.

 

[Lucretius]

Actually, today's high school science classrooms tend to avoid evolution altogether. At my school, we probably have a 50% population of Creationists, and so the school district seems to totally chicken out in teaching it, because they might get some people complaining that "everything's ungodly!"

 

[BVZ]

I think this thread is a good thing.

Creationists can post things they think deny evolution, and the evolutionists can then show them why it does not. A few creationists might actually learn something. I hate it when Creationists argue against things they do not understand. (Not only evolution.)

 

[Grengor]

(But also Cosmology, Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Anatomy, Anthropology.....the list goes on. In fact, it's identical to this)

I did not know acoustics was a science.

 

[BVZ]

Accoustics would be. I guess sonar is a direct result of this field of science.

 

[Grengor]

Oh it is, I just never really thought about it O_O

 

[BVZ]

I know this is completely off topic, but does anyone know how 'reputation' on this site works? (And blessings?)

 

[shadowmoses]

hello

 

[Opethian]

I know this is completely off topic, but does anyone know how 'reputation' on this site works? (And blessings?)

You get reputation from people if they like your posts, and I think you get about 1/1000th of their reputation when they give it (they don't lose any of that rep they give), so it wouldn't really help much if I gave you reputation, if only purely for the thought of complimenting you for your posts. You can see the people that gave you rep on your user account homepage, if you scroll down. Blessings can be given by other people too, but they lose the blessings they give you. You also get blessings for every post and for stuff like getting new people on the forum that mention your name etc...

 

[Valkhorn]

I did not know acoustics was a science.

I'm a musician. Acoustics is a HUGE science, and a very good one

 

[GoSeminoles!]

hello

Can you provide a link to support this claim?