Things that defy evolution

[Opethian]

Can you provide a link to support this claim?

http://www.hellomagazine.com/

 

[DJ_Ghost]

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.

Okay I can’t take any more.

I am a scientist and I am a Christian. Theories do not become laws EVER. The two words mean two completely different things in science.

A law is a statement of observation that we always see as a result of certain circumstances. A theory is the explanation of WHY we see what the law tells us.

Theory does not mean “Guess” or “Unproven” in science.

Ghost

 

[Army of Juan]

really? did you even begin to read my post.

How can a giraffe evolve, when its heart pumps so hard to get blood up its long neck, when it goes for water, it will blow its head off. It has to start with everything, or it dies, it wont evolve when its dead.

Also, as even Darwin said, the religious view needs to be included, or the result is invalid.

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question"
-Charles Darwin

Yes and I've read the rebuttals, have you?
Not one thing in the OP was an issue since they pretty much represent misunderstands and falsehoods of how evolution works.

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.

Hurrrr...you are way in over your head dude.

Are you aware the Newton's LAW of Gravitation was falsified by Einstein's THEORY of General Relativity? Theories and Laws are two different things and one doesn't become another.

Creation(ism) is not a science, not by a long shot since there is no evidence to support it.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Creation(ism) is not a science, not by a long shot since there is no evidence to support it.

I think one of he things that clearly demonstrates that Creationism is not a sceince is the fact that hardly any creationists understand what the terms “Law”, “Theory” and “Hypotheis” actually mean in science.

Ghost

 

[HairlessSimian]

And it just so happens that evolution is the most well supported theory in the scientific world, even more so than gravity.

This is something I keep reading in this forum, and it kinda jabs me in the side each time. So, please pardon this nit-picky diversion while I make myself feel better.

I don't think there's an adequate and objective way by which to quantify the level of support for any one theory, and so to judge one theory against another. And it's not a horse race anyway.

Modern evolutionary theory rests on many great shoulders, like atomic theory and the theory of chemical bonding, which are exceedingly well supported. Without these two foundations, there would be no molecular basis to evolutionary theory and common ancestry.
This is, of course, a view biased by my chosen field (chemistry).

Setting that aside, doesn't the phrase "the most well supported theory" (which is bad English, anyway) imply that it's not fully supported? that there is contrary evidence that science sets aside? I don't think that this is what one wants to convey.
Here are some non-superlative alternatives:
"evolutionary theory is incredibly/staggeringly/extremely well supported" (strong)
"evolutionary theory is too well supported to be easily dismissed" (understated)
"evolutionary theory is very thoroughly supported" (neutral)
"the supporting evidence for evolutionary theory is so formidable and manifold that withholding acceptance of it would be tantamount to insanity" (with apologies to S. J. Gould)
"the level of support for evolutionary theory is too deep and too solid for a single mind to comprehend, let alone assail" (I'm not sure about this one)
"as deep as the deepest oceans, as vast as the desert of Araby, as solid as the highest mountains, is support for evolutionary theory" (poetic, no?)
"evolutionary theory rules, dude ! " (hip)
"evolutionary theory is the cat's pyjamas" (oldie)
"resistance is futile; you will be assimilated" (Borg)

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

This is something I keep reading in this forum, and it kinda jabs me in the side each time. So, please pardon this nit-picky diversion while I make myself feel better.

I don't think there's an adequate and objective way by which to quantify the level of support for any one theory, and so to judge one theory against another. And it's not a horse race anyway.

Modern evolutionary theory rests on many great shoulders, like atomic theory and the theory of chemical bonding, which are exceedingly well supported. Without these two foundations, there would be no molecular basis to evolutionary theory and common ancestry.
This is, of course, a view biased by my chosen field (chemistry).

Setting that aside, doesn't the phrase "the most well supported theory" (which is bad English, anyway) imply that it's not fully supported? that there is contrary evidence that science sets aside? I don't think that this is what one wants to convey.
Here are some non-superlative alternatives:
"evolutionary theory is incredibly/staggeringly/extremely well supported" (strong)
"evolutionary theory is too well supported to be easily dismissed" (understated)
"evolutionary theory is very thoroughly supported" (neutral)
"the supporting evidence for evolutionary theory is so formidable and manifold that withholding acceptance of it would be tantamount to insanity" (with apologies to S. J. Gould)
"the level of support for evolutionary theory is too deep and too solid for a single mind to comprehend, let alone assail" (I'm not sure about this one)
"as deep as the deepest oceans, as vast as the desert of Araby, as solid as the highest mountains, is support for evolutionary theory" (poetic, no?)
"evolutionary theory rules, dude ! " (hip)
"evolutionary theory is the cat's pyjamas" (oldie)
"resistance is futile; you will be assimilated" (Borg)

mmm, I think the Borg would be more "Creationism is irrelevent, you will be assimilated"

 

[Geeoob]

Giraffes necks were'nt always that long. it gradually became longer to reach food on trees. when it got longer there was a slight rush of blood to the head and the body reacted to it and so on and so forth.

 

[Tomk80]

Giraffes necks were'nt always that long. it gradually became longer to reach food on trees. when it got longer there was a slight rush of blood to the head and the body reacted to it and so on and so forth.

[pedantry]
Actually, although the initial growth of the giraffe neck can likely be explained by the need to reach food on trees, this isn't the whole story. Several lines of evidence - the fact the most giraffes only eat the leaves below their neck length in stead of at the height of their head (so they almost always eat with their necks bend) and that male giraffes use their neck as a weapon - suggest that sexual selection might have had a far stronger impact on the evolution of the long necks of giraffes.

 

[Nightson]

Things that defy evolution?

So things that don't change?

 

[gluadys]

When Darwin proposed his famous theory back in 1859, he was aware that one of the glaring weaknesses of his speculations was how to explain complex features in animals by small and gradual evolutionary steps. He admitted, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (Origin of Species, p. 149).

Beware the quote miners. Did your source tell you what Darwin said in his next sentence?

"But I can find out no such case."

In 1859 Darwin could find no case of a complex organ which could not have been formed by evolution. Nearly 150 years of research have still not turned up any such case.

 

[jeki]

thank you for this great thread!!!! I have NOTHING TO SAY more just thank you!!

 

[Jet Black]

why did monkeys lose their feathers?

 

[h2whoa]

why did monkeys lose their feathers?

Carelessness.

 

[Jet Black]

laugh all you like, it's a genuine creationist question[sup]TM[/sup]

http://www.christianforums.com/t252...eys-if-you-say-so-answer-these-questions.html

 

[ThePenguinMafia]

Do you people ever wonder why, if evolution can be disproved by the un-peer reviewed ramblings of 1 biochemist, the majority of biologists (I have yet to meet one that isn't a neodarwinist) trust in this theory?