Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

No, he really is that stupid.

Give it up!

He makes for a rather amazing spectacle. Never seen anything like him.

I don't think the old Testament is meant to be an accurate history of real events. I don't see how you can read many of the stories and accounts therein and think that they actually happened just exactly as stated. Probably many were based on actual events, or the authors understanding of certain events, but if you take the whole thing literally you end up having to explain and defend some really bizarre stuff. Even so, it doesn't mean there is no God. It seems that a lot of people feel it's all or nothing, the Bible is a 100% accurate account or else it's all worthless. I just can't see it that way.

I posted about what the Bible says about the Pangaea earth. When you make statements like this about the Bible, along with all your other alleged discrepancies, its obvious that you have a very limited knowledge of it, and don't understand the most basic rules of Bible interpretation--such as context--comparing scriptures to get a complete picture rather than isolating aspects that were never intended to stand in isolation or be considered the whole--or maybe just a good does of common sense.

Of course, it’s random chance. The fact that some random chances result in organisms more suited to survival than others is, indeed the entire theory.

Creationist literature is most likely more scientific than secular literature. At least they don't have change their discoveries. You challenge Jason Lisle's in the sun? You don't believe Henry Morris use of hydraulics is used by evolutionists?

The evidence for creation is at least the DNA and RNA molecules. Because your blind faith is so strong you can not see facts.

Neither is science.

The world isn't random, chemistry and physics is not random, evolution is not random, organisms evolve in response to their environment, not randomly. What doesn't work falls by the wayside, which is not random, it is deterministic....the macro world being deterministic.

Good luck with proving that RNA and DNA is evidence for creation. That science is reviewed is its strength, not weakness.

It is the dogma of faith asserted as truth that is a weakness when it comes to sorting fact from fiction.

Each religion asserting their own faith, yet contradicting each other on the nature of 'truth.'

It’s only deterministic in hindsight. Explain to me the mechanism by which the environment influences an organism to make a specific beneficial change or mutation.

"The Darwinian theory of evolution is the phlogiston of our day, festooned with a myriad and growing number of patches. Evolution is slow and gradual, except when it’s fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and how some lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures it made big and others small; some gloriously beautiful, and some boringly grey. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges; it produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield except when it demonstrates altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism. And it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses. Modern evolutionary theory is the Rube Goldberg of theoretical constructs. And what is the result of all this speculative ingenuity? Like the defunct theory of phlogiston, it explains everything without explaining anything well. (pp 198-199)"

Matt Leisola, Finnish Research Biologist who lost his faith in evolution.


https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/t...new-book-by-matti-leisola-jonathan-witt/

Just an example of faith overwhellming reason. Being human, it can happen.

Yes. The theory is held essentially on the basis of faith.

Wrong. That is the creationist claim.

A very small percentage of qualified people who hold to the idea of intelligent design do on the basis of incredulity, not evidence.


Matt Leisola is a poster boy of intelligent design, a belief that was put to trial with both side presenting their evidence and arguments, but Intelligent design failed to make the grade.


''A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a petition publicized in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a creationist "think" tank, which attempts to push creationism, in the guise of Intelligent design, into public schools in the United States.[2] The petition expresses denial about the ability of genetic drift and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. It also demands that there should be a more careful examination of Darwinism. The petition was signed by about 700 individuals, with a wide variety of scientific and non-scientific backgrounds when first published. It now contains 984 signatures.[3]

The Dissent is reminiscent of the 1931 anti-relativity book, Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein),[4] which only included one physicist, and can be seen now as "a dying cry from the old guard of science" based primarily on philosophical objections.[1]

The petition states that:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

The petition continues to be used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support. However, the language of the statement is misleading. It frames the argument in a way that anyone could agree with it. So long as they don't know the Discovery Institute's true motivations (which is to undermine evolution using deceit and trickery, not to show any kind of genuine fallibility with it), anyone who is open to the idea of scientific inquiry would agree that they should be skeptical of everything, including evolution. If only the writers of the statement (i.e. creationists) were skeptical of their own ideas, which they clearly aren't.

The petition is considered a fallacious Appeal to authority, whereby the creationists at the Discovery Institute are attempting to prove that there is a dissent from "Darwinism" by finding a few creationist scientists to support the statement. The roughly 700 dissenters who originally signed the petition would have represented about 0.063% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999, except, of course, that three-quarters of the signatories had no academic background in biology.[5][6] (The roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters would hence represent about 0.013% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.) As of 2006, the list was expanded to include non-US scientists. However, the list nonetheless represents less than 0.03% of all research scientists in the world.[7] Despite the increase in absolute number of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, the figures indicate the support from scientists for creationism and intelligent design is steadily decreasing.

Since scientific principles are built on publications in peer-reviewed journals, discussion in open forums, and finally through consensus, the use of a petition should be considered the last resort of a pseudoscience rather than a legitimate scientific dissent from the prevailing consensus.''

Once again you resort to logical fallacies to defend your position, thus revealing it's inherent indefensibility.

https://www.discovery.org/a/2400/The whole enterprise is fraudulent.

http://www.richardsternberg.com/smithsonian.php?page=statement

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/