Refutation of Darwinism

[TINNY]

Here's a great resource that will totally destroy all forms darwinism

<p><a href="www.harunyahya.com">HarunYahya</a></p>

[Tormod]

My only two thoughts after looking at that site was

 

1) why do you bother to post all these links? Most people around here are able to think for themselves and do not see science as a "battle" between different opinions

 

2) Any person or organisation proclaiming to have the "real truth", especially by mixing different faiths, should set all your alarm bells ringing, very loudly.

 

Tormod

[TINNY]

You should read the e-books or watch the documentaries.

[deamonstar]

there is no new evidence revealed in that book that has been proven beyond doubt and isolated cases whose circumstances are debatable at best (if not incorrect entirely), that has been disproven or explained by various theories of evolution. all points within it have alternate interpretations which are equally, if not more so, valid for a variety of reasons.

[TINNY]

What's your occupation?

[deamonstar]

carpenter by trade... astronomer, philosopher, artist, friend, father, husband, scholar by passion.

[Tormod]

Web communications manager, myself - working for the Norwegian Space Centre. Ten years as a journalist and reporter for Internet and radio, as well as web development for 8 years (concurrently, mind).

 

And I am a musician (Classical guitar) and philologist (English Lit) by education, and also a father and reader of an annoyingly large number of popular science books in my "real" life.

 

Tormod

[TINNY]

whats your specific arguments for the evidences on that website?

[Tormod]

<BLOCKQUOTE>Quote

 

<HR>

<I>Originally posted by: <B>TINNY</B></I>

whats your specific arguments for the evidences on that website?

<HR>

</BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I cannot possibly list all my specific arguments "for" the evidence...it would rather be "against". It is a site crammed full of creationist ideas. Now, creationism is a very strange thing indeed. A good creationist refutes most things in science (even science itself) as long as it does not fit in with his or her world view. Yet he or she claims to use scientific methods to refute the "bad ideas".

 

Take, for example the image caption next to Darwin's image on one of the first pages in the "A refutation of Darwinism" book:

 

"Charles Darwin developed his theory when science was still in a primitive state. Under primitive microscopes like these, life appeared to have a very simple structure. This error formed the basis of Darwinism."

 

This is typical: by saying his tools were inaduequate, the author can argue that Darwin must have been wrong.

 

But the assumption is incorrect - science was at its heyday and had been so for a long time. Darwin lived AFTER an age of industrial revolution, long after Isaac Newton had formulated his laws on mechanism, and Galileo had seen the moons of Jupiter (and also after many of the natural elements like oxygen, hydrogen etc had been isolated).

 

So the instruments were rather good. But more importantly - modern thinkers had learned to observe, discuss, and formulate ideas which were then up for discussion in public.

 

But the strongest point is of course that evolution is not something you need a microscope to observe - it is readily observable in nature.

 

So, like so many creationist websites, I dislike the tone of "look here, they got it all wrong", which I think is a dumbing down of people's minds. They make hard-working, honest scientists look like fools who got it all wrong. Of course, scientists DO get it wrong (Remember "cold fusion"...) - and during research, they mostly get it wrong until they find out why it is wrong and can correct it (this is why there is a method to the madness).

 

But all science, and the results of it, is open for debate - because, as we have discussed before, no theory is ever final. Darwinism has its opponents, even within zoology and biology. That does not mean it is "right" or "wrong". But evolution is much more than Darwin. Why not consider reading up on Darwinism and evolutionary theory instead of blindly buying the ideas of others? That is far better than listening to preachers of "anti-anything" who bring you a list of facts that "don't match biblical though" and which are impossible because "they don't have room for the Creator".

 

That is the only way to decide for yourself what you think.

 

Here is just one book at Amazon.com - if you click this link you will also find related books:

The Theory of Evolution http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521451280/qid=1078651884/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-9014793-4330514?v=glance&s=books

 

Tormod

[deamonstar]

also remember that Darwinism is an old theory in itself, and is but one of many theories that deal with the processes of evolution. Darwin was one of a few scientists who have laid the ground work for an ever ongoing road of discovery and that the various theories are constantly being refined to account for observations of living organisms and fossil records and the environments and climates in which they live/ed.

also, if you've read the bible, you will note that the description of the origins of the universe and all that dwell within it only takes up a few pages in the very first book and only a few passages in others. these desriptions are very vague at best... unless you have a thorough knowledge of the bible and a good understanding of it and how to interpret the passages within, almost any assumption could be made as to the exact meanings of the passages. however, if you do have a good understanding of them and a good understanding of the present theories of evolution and cosmology (FAR more detailed descriptions of the origins of all than the bible ever gives), you will find that they are NOT at odds... rather, they are in complete agreement with each other. and so... it is a rather bad idea to try to seperate the two schools of thought based on their different levels of detail in descriptions. instead, it would be far wiser to learn to understand where the similarities are and that the one could only reinforce the other and vice versa to give us all a better understanding of where we came from and our place in time and the universe.

 

here is a wise saying that I think will help to guide you through this and through life in general as well...

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

[lindagarrette]

There are loads of other forums where you can discuss science vs. religion to your hearts content. It is generally agreed that they are not compatible since one is evidence-based, and the other is faith-based.

[TINNY]

what's the address?

what's evidence-based and faith-based do u mean? i think science and religion are both evidence-based and faith-based.

[TINNY]

I quite agree with evolution, but not darwin's mechanisms. Any other evolution theories?

I dont know much, and i'm really making myself look foolish with all you experts. Doesn't matter....

But there needs to be adequate instruments to know more about DNA, mutation, and all related with the natural selection mechanism.

I suppose ye'all have read origin of the species. Darwin was quite open-minded, and ready to confess anything wrong with his theory.

[Tim_Lou]

there is a theory says that humans come from outerspace....we are aliens... anyone agree w/ that?

[TINNY]

make me agree with that.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: TINNY

I quite agree with evolution, but not darwin's mechanisms. Any other evolution theories? I dont know much, and i'm really making myself look foolish with all you experts. Doesn't matter.... But there needs to be adequate instruments to know more about DNA, mutation, and all related with the natural selection mechanism. I suppose ye'all have read origin of the species. Darwin was quite open-minded, and ready to confess anything wrong with his theory.

 

I suggest you google "evolution theory".

 

Darwin did not have the faintest idea about DNA. Neither did the people who wrote the bible.

 

If you don't know much, then I would be careful saying you don't agree with a theory. If you feel you are making yourself look foolish, it might be because you appear to want to kill a theory just because you don't like the name of it. For me, it is a theory which forms part of a larger picture - like you say, Darwin did not get everything right.

 

But he see a lot of things which others did not, and thus he managed to force people to see the creation in a new light. And for a lot of people, that creation does not need faith. It only needs to explain what we see in nature. It does not have to explain everything. Because *no* theory can explain everything!

 

And I would like to say that no, you are not a fool. Keep asking questions. But don't ask questions if you know the answer (unless you like to pick fights with the bad guys).

 

Tormod

[Tormod]

That should, of course, read "But he saw"... my speck cheller messed that up for me.

 

Tormod