Questions about scienceagainstevolution.org

[MarcoPolo]

I've got someone debating on my boards (http://forums.debatenation.com/forumdisplay.php?f=46) that uses scienceagainstevolution.org (http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org) pretty religiously.

Anyone out there care to comment on that site? He SEEMS to be using only scientific arguments, but being the layman that I am, I'm sure there is a lot more he's not using.

EDIT: See the thread (http://forums.debatenation.com/showthread.php?t=112) itself if you want.

[Aria]

First big sentence:
According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds.

Is simply wrong. The ToE says no such thing, and will never say such a thing. You can safely ignore anything else.

[Aria]

Oh man, I kept reading, there are some screamers.

It is established scientific fact that like begets like.

Wrong. If it produces sexually, it will produce something similar but not exactly the same as itself.

On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent.

Every single sexual procreation produces something different from the parent.

Only a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are arguably beneficial.
Holy shit, this guy has NEVER heard of bacteria or something. We're in dire straits at the moment BECAUSE things are mutating (beneficially) faster than we can compensate!

None of these transformations have ever been observed in a laboratory.

This is in reference to boobs growing and whatnot. Not all too surprising being that we've been studying evolution for 150 years or so, and Evolution has been happening for BILLIONS OF YEARS.

[Peez]

MasterBator:
In fact, there are competing models of evolution (one is "punctuated equilibrium"),Punctuated equilibria is a proposed refinement to the theory of evolution, it does not challenge that all living things have evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors through mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.and the models are (if I may) evolving all the time.Like all of science. I always find it amusing that creationists think that being ready to change one's view in response to new evidence is a bad thing.Because an evilutionist sees the structural similarities of living creatures as evidence of evolution.Except that scientists started out assuming that organisms did not evolve, but the evidence convinced them otherwise 150 years ago.Apes and man... related. Dogs and wolves... related. Platypus and... oops.Just another example of the extreme superficiality of creationist thinking: just because a platypus has a wide, flat mouth that looks something like a bird's beak, the creationist takes this as being equivalent to the masses of detailed evidence that humans are apes. It is no more than a testiment to their ignorance and disinterest in learning or thinking.In neither of the above examples cited by Isaak was the natural (i.e., unaided) generation of a new species accomplished or observed, in which an unequivocally â œnewâ trait was obtained (i.e., new genetic information created) and carried forward within a population of organisms.Tee-hee. Leaving aside for the moment that new species have evolved, regardless of the dancing about that MasterBator is doing, it is always fun to insist on a definition of "information" in this context. The point being, people who actually do study information know that it can be created by simple things like random mutation.fatnhairless:
Anyway, adaptation is a function of evolution.
MasterBator:
But it's not evolution.Semantics. As biologists use the terms, adaptation certainly is evolution (though evolution is not necessarily adaptation).MasterBator:
Actually, I reject it based on scientific reasons.Boy, we have never seen that claim before. :rolleyes: What we really have not seen is someone actually present scientific reasons to reject evolution. Hey, who knows, maybe this individual is due for a Nobel prize.It's amazing how much variety God programmed into that little strand of DNA.LOL! :D Too funny. The Index to Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/) is a good summary of the usual well-worn creationist arguments, and of course Talk.Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/) is a great resource.

Peez

[judanne]

I always find it amusing that creationists think that being ready to change one's view in response to new evidence is a bad thing.
Hi Peez! It's only a bad thing if you are a creationist ;)

[anthrosciguy]

Platypus and oops.


He misspelled "echidnas".

[MarcoPolo]

He misspelled "echidnas".

lol... that's good.

Thanks for the responses people! Hopefully I can use it correctly.

[Graculus]

On the subject of abiogeneis, this link (http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004/articles_2004_Before_DNA.html) may come in handy.

A group of scientists figure that with $20 million doallars and three years in the lab they can actually produce life from chemicals. It's called "testing the Clay World hypothesis".

[Sven]

On the subject of abiogeneis, this link (http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004/articles_2004_Before_DNA.html) may come in handy.

A group of scientists figure that with $20 million doallars and three years in the lab they can actually produce life from chemicals. It's called "testing the Clay World hypothesis".
You know, this would only demonstrate that one needs intelligence to get life started. :rolleyes:

MarcoPolo: If you search the forum (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/search.php?searchid=713599) for "scienceagainstevolution", you'll find four other long threads dealing with this site.
I'd say it's more scientific than other creationist sites, but this of course doesn't say much.

[Graculus]

You know, this would only demonstrate that one needs intelligence to get life started. :rolleyes:There has to be a way to crazy glue the goalposts into place.

[Plognark]

There has to be a way to crazy glue the goalposts into place.

I suggest nails and a hammer.

[IanC]

I suggest nails and a hammer.

I suggest nails and a hammer.

Ahh, tradition.

[Sven]

Ahh, tradition.
I nearly fell off my chair! :rolling: :notworthy

[Peez]

You know the story about Jesus walking into a hotel, placing some nails on the counter, and asking "Can you put me up for the night?"
:)
Peez

[Trigger]

I've got someone debating on my boards (http://forums.debatenation.com/forumdisplay.php?f=46) that uses scienceagainstevolution.org (http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org) pretty religiously.

Anyone out there care to comment on that site? He SEEMS to be using only scientific arguments, but being the layman that I am, I'm sure there is a lot more he's not using.

EDIT: See the thread (http://forums.debatenation.com/showthread.php?t=112) itself if you want.


You are correct.The site only "seems" to be using scientific arguments.They're twisting facts to suit themselves.Changing definitions of words,and flat out making false outragous claims that are totally transparent if you sit and read it closely.Totally pathetic.

[Trigger]

I was doing a little research on scienceagainstevolution.org and I discovered they are linked to another site called The Institute for Creation Research.They're website is http://www.icr.org.Here is just one thing I found on their home page.







[Welcome to the Institute for Creation Research]
We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ� (II Corinthians 10:4,5).


"godless and uncompromising dogma"?
"casting down imaginations"?
"bringing into 'captivity every thought' "?

I can't speak for anyone else,but it sure sounds like a cult to me.

[Trigger]

The notion that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.


Another example of how they twist things around.Dead material used to be alive, but now it's not. You can't bring the dead vback to life.

[chriswithstix]

i remembered reading about some software that makes evolution observable. i did a search and found a short article about in the MSU newspaper. the software is called Avida. the article only touches on it, but basically, evolution of digital organisms is completely observable now. so, the argument that evolution is not demonstratable should be done IMO

http://www.statenews.com/article.phtml?pk=27933

[RBH]

Avida Home Page (http://dllab.caltech.edu/).

RBH

[IanC]

i remembered reading about some software that makes evolution observable. i did a search and found a short article about in the MSU newspaper. the software is called Avida. the article only touches on it, but basically, evolution of digital organisms is completely observable now. so, the argument that evolution is not demonstratable should be done IMO

People will argue it was started by an intelligent being. I know, I know, this isnt anything to do with evolution, but considering many believe that evolution is disproved with the following line of argument: "where did the chemicals that caused the big bang come from", its very likely.

Ian

[Sven]

I was doing a little research on scienceagainstevolution.org and I discovered they are linked to another site called The Institute for Creation Research.They're website is http://www.icr.org.Here is just one thing I found on their home page.

You are new at debating evolution, are you?
The ICR is one of the very first things I heard about when reading about the evolution/creation "controversy" - it made me go :banghead:
I would be surprised if any one of the regular posters have not heard about the ICR.

[Plognark]

Ahh, tradition.

:rolling: :notworthy

[Trigger]

You are new at debating evolution, are you?
The ICR is one of the very first things I heard about when reading about the evolution/creation "controversy" - it made me go :banghead:
I would be surprised if any one of the regular posters have not heard about the ICR.

FYI, I'm not a regular poster here, and that was the first time I have seen that particular site.