Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Creationist Reply…challenging!

  1. Sep 26, 2004 #1
    A creationist book…like a reply file to evolutionists… to tell the truth a qualified one, what do you think about the "True Natural History - II" section? http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted1.php
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 26, 2004 #2
    Here's a much better website for the book (official website): http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

    I did a search on Amazon for this book and found nothing. Maybe this says something about it.
     
  4. Sep 26, 2004 #3

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From the few pages I read, it seems to be the standard creationist arguments. This author does seem to have at least read a basic biology textbook and learned a little something about the theory of evolution, but still has misunderstood or misrepresented a great deal of it.
     
  5. Sep 26, 2004 #4
    I love how religious people are so worried that science is trying to disprove all their little myths and stories.
     
  6. Sep 27, 2004 #5
    anyone care to summerise the main defects with the theory of natural selection?
     
  7. Sep 27, 2004 #6

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Are there any? It has been demonstrated in computer software, so it is capable of instantiation, and the genetic version of it is confirmd by the similarities between the genomes of, say fruit flies and humans (fruit fly genes have been inserted into mouse embryos, and they worked!).

    Some creationists are still saying it violates the second law of thermodynamics, but that just shows they don't understand thermodynamics! Real thermodynamics is completely consistent with evolution by variation and natural selection.
     
  8. Sep 27, 2004 #7

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And with the Human Genome Project, we've learned that humans are even more similar to other species than we even expected. The human genome has far fewer genes than were predicted before the project began.
     
  9. Sep 27, 2004 #8
    I *love* when people try to use the 2nd law as a disproof of evolution. The garbage that comes out of their mouths is worthy of a comedy goldmine.
     
  10. Sep 27, 2004 #9
    A very true statement. Its not the number of genes, but the splicing varients which is astounding. I believe the number is 30 000 genes, with over 100 000 proteins due to splicing. For example, foetal haemoglobin and adult haemoglobin are the same gene - but different end protein.

    Kind of off topic: Evolution doesn't invalidate (some) creationist theories anyway. It says nothing of how we came about in the beginning - only how we became as we are today. Who can say God didn't just create the laws of nature, and flicked the switch, knowing full well how it would turn out?
     
  11. Sep 27, 2004 #10

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't think it's off-topic at all. That really is the biggest misconception creationists have about evolution, and I think what leaves them feeling so "threatened" by evolution...they think evolution attempts to explain the origin of life (I guess they don't realize that isn't what Darwin meant when he titled his book "Origin of Species.") Evolutionary theory doesn't really care how life began on Earth, it's about how it has changed since then.
     
  12. Oct 2, 2004 #11
    Well if the creation of life is not part of the field of evolutionary biology; at least it exists in archaeology, where field data reveals that the basic 35 of 41 phyla of lifeforms on earth evolved in a mere 5 million year stratum called the Cambrian explosion. Life existed in elementary forms before then. But the data displays a cliff in the complexity of lifeforms, from which almost all complex species emerged.

    That is the basic argument of those promoting Intelligent Design. That much seems to be true. But they jump to conclusions that ignore many other possibilities more consistent with math and science.
     
  13. Oct 3, 2004 #12

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    (pressed for time now...I hope to return to this topic soon)

    Some examples of typical creationist arguments.

    With an example transitional fossil B between Species A & C and they reject it by either (1) simply saying it's just an example of A or C or (2) saying there are no examples of B-and-a-half, which therefore discounts the link.

    Misunderstanding of the transitional nature of features....exaptation...the changing use of anatomical features. The continued/changed use of a "vestigial" feature is evidence for evolution, not against it.

    Also quoting out of context.
     
  14. Oct 3, 2004 #13

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Okay, I'll bite. They are discounting that whales and land mammals are related because of where the backbone (vertebrae) ends relative to the pelvis? Um, have they never seen a dog, cat, rat, mouse, monkey, cow, etc? Any land mammal with a tail has vertebrae extending beyond the pelvic bones.

    The issue of transitional species is one of those arguments creationists toss around recklessly. You can demonstrate to them transitional species and they'll want to see transitional species between the transitional species.
     
  15. Oct 3, 2004 #14
    Yep! And the even less educated ones just demand more and more "missing links!" Like you said, if you show a transition B between A and C, they want a transition between A and B and then B and C. It creates an infinite amount of "necessary" transition states. Really shows a gross misunderstand of, well, basically everything.

    In an argument, how do you tell someone tactfully "You are wrong, you don't know anything."?
     
  16. Oct 3, 2004 #15

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Even that data does not address the origin of life. It addresses the diversification of life once it existed. A limitation of archaeological evidence is that most organisms, especially soft-bodied ones, just decay away, so leave no fossil record. We have to rely on the fairly uncommon circumstances by which fossils were formed to have evidence to study. Biologists and archaeologists acknowledge that there are large gaps. We can speculate about what types of organisms may have existed in between, but we have no proof of it. This doesn't discredit evolutionary theory, it means it remains a theory. Creationists use those gaps to promote their "theory," however, the problem remains that creationism is based on what is NOT observed rather than what IS observed. It doesn't fit with what we do know and the evidence that does exist.
     
  17. Oct 3, 2004 #16

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If you find a way to do that, let me know! :rofl: One can always suggest to them that if they wish to disprove evolutionary theory, the best way to do it is to get a PhD in evolutionary biology, and then use scientific method to disprove the theory. They never take me up on that suggestion. [shrug]
     
  18. Oct 3, 2004 #17
    Ah, but that is a good suggestion :) I will definitely use that!

    I'm always amazed at how people that have never had a single course in biology will proceed to tell me how wrong evolution is because of whatever tale they heard in church or from their pastor or whatever.
     
  19. Oct 4, 2004 #18

    Another God

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    These websites just make me sick with their use of logic. Ignoring all else, ignoring the lack and abuse of evidence and quotes, they don't even actually pose an argument. The few paragraphs I could bear to read came down to this:

    The lie that evolutionists tell you is misleading and wrong. It is wrong because it displays incorrect information, and says things which are not true. It undermines our values with lies, and says things that I do not agree with. Because it does this, it is therefore incorrect. And Evolutionists never prove to us how they manage to ignore these facts.
     
  20. Oct 4, 2004 #19

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'll have to check the reference for the full context of this; however, it may be related to the fact that the early whales are believed to have come from one of two lineages...either the mesonychids or the artiodactyls...and the current theory is leaning toward the artiodactyls.
     
  21. Oct 4, 2004 #20

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    More from the cited website...

    Here we go again with that non-sensical IC argument.

    (if I may recycle an old post of mine...)
    There are modern animals that can do quite well with incomplete flying ability….e.g., colugo (Cynocephalus volans), flying lizards (Draco volans), flying frogs (Rhacophous nigropalmatus), marsupial sugar gliders (Petaurus breviceps), or flying snakes (Chrysopelea). (thx - Dawkins - Climbing Mt. Improbable)

    And of course, there are many flightless birds today that still have wings but they do just fine.

    The wings of a bat can also serve to help it walk across the ground.

    The “half-feet” of mudskippers are certainly not useless.

    A 1300 cc brain is certainly not useless compared to a 1400 cc brain.

    It’s a false impression that stages between A and B are useless (where A and B are his personally selected starting and end points in the bush of evolutionary history). Each step (evolutionary change) between A and B was either beneficial (or at least not detrimental) to that species. Creatures did not decide they wanted to fly...willed wings to sprout and waited millions of years for them to finish. They lived their lives using what they had at that time and the process of evolution kept modifying existing structures to some benefit over time.

    Proto-birds with "half a wing" did not fully fly, but being able to stay airborne for an extra few feet when jumping (i.e., gliding) would have a benefit over competitors that could not do that.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Creationist Reply…challenging!
  1. Creationist Arguments. (Replies: 14)

Loading...