Is evolution really undeniable truth ?

Question

Please take a look at this article:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sherlock01.htm

Any glaring lies? Half-truths? Is this compelling?

Please read the article before answering. My question specifically pertains to this article and reactions to it.

Answer 1

remarkable it's a friggin miracle

Answer 2

Yup. Half-truths, misrepresenting actual evolutionary theory.

The fact that a cell hasn't been produced in a laboratory is true, but the construction of genetic material has happened. We've only been at it for a few years, and the Earth was stewing for billions of years, with material entering the atmosphere that had many more billions of years to stew dropping in all along.

The notion that natural selection is "anti'evolution" is false is comopletely untrue. The author implies that natural selection would lock a creature into a specific form, but he neglects to note that the environment changes, requiring consonant changes among the creatures.

This was not a real critique of Evolution, but seems rather a creationist posing as an objective devil's advocate. The fact that the arguments are all those posed by intelligent design advocates show the true nature of this transparent essay.

Answer 3

I got a few lines before being overwhelmed with glaring lies - 1. evolution has nothing to do with how life started, and 2. transitional forms with new, functional, DNA are abundantly observed, up to and beyond speciation (and 3. it doesn't understand what being 'scientifically proven' entails).

As it starts with lies to erect a straw-man to blow over, the rest of the article is not even worth reading. Even so I read on... Next it is misleading, natural selection SELECTS alleles, mutations create the diversity. Then a flat out lie - many positive mutations ARE observed. Next another straw-man lie, quote: "The evolutionist’s argument “It must have happened because we are here: we wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t taken place”" No. Oh then it gets bigoted. And where I finally had enough of reading such immoral trash is where it flat out lies again that there are no 'transitional fossils'. So can't speak for the rest of the article.

Paleontologist (disgusted).

Answer 4

It might help in your vegetable garden. The article is gibberish, written by an idiot who ignores facts, and uses babble to sound like he actually has a clue.

Just this excerpt proves what a total moron he is.
"Mutation: this is the only mechanism ever observed that can create new DNA information. It is a mistake made in copying the DNA when a cell divides in order to produce two in place of one."
It is verbose and means absolutely nothing."

His attempt to make natural selection and evolution distinct entities by introducing his own delusional definitions is a laughable attempt at deception by confusion. If I put a newspaper through a paper shedder, the output is more coherent than this.

Glaring lies:
"Positive Mutation: ... there is no specimen anywhere in the world, either living or dead (i.e. fossilized) that undeniably demonstrates it ever occurring!"
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931
"...evolution is the opposite of natural selection, because it requires an increase in DNA information, where natural selection normally reduces it."
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/20/11388

I could go on, but suffice it to say, his facts are wrong his logic is wrong, and his sole intent is not just to refute but worse, muddy
the waters with so much nonsensical garbage as to preclude real debate.

Answer 5

Genetic changes do occur. This is undeniable. Sometimes it means animals have so many differences they can't reproduce even though they look pretty much the same. But noone can say for sure Earth had no creator or that he did. Even data can be used by both sides. For instance.

Data: The dating of rocks shows the maximum age of earth to be about 4.65 billion years.
Evolutionist Interpretation: The earth has been slowly developing ever since its creation during the big bang. Since that time adding more oxygen to the atmosphere and cooling the crust.(evidence for that..we have oxygen and a cool crust.)
Creationists:A big hunk of rock has been floating in space for 4.65 billion years, maybe since God spread out the matter across our universe, and then a few thousand years ago decided to place life on it.
Both of those are simply interpretations of data. Both can be used as evidence, neither side can truely claim they are right. If there is data that supports evolution but in no way contradicts scripture, there is no reason to hate on it. But the Bible is to be the upmost authority.

Answer 6

"Evolution requires two observations in order to be ‘scientifically proven:’
A living organism emerging from inanimate matter;
Transitional forms demonstrating new DNA coding in their genome for a physical feature not previously seen in their species. "

there is the first one

This author does not understand natural selection at all. It is not a random roll of the dice,so his "odds" are useless.
now he has went on to confuse it with mutations even after trying to define both terms.

Answer 7

Just because evolution can’t be proven doesn’t mean you have to jump to conclusions with this god business. There’s always the possibility of extraterrestrial intervention, which is quite feasible and mathematically more probable than the other two speculations.

Answer 8

It depends on what you mean by evolution. Evolution on a local scale I believe is regarded as scientific truth, on par with the existence of atoms.

Answer 9

I'm not a Christian, but I don't believe that we just came here on a stroke of luck. I believe we were created, just not by a God who professed infinite unconditional love and then said if we fell in love with the same sex, which no one ever does by choice, we would burn in hell.

Answer 10

It's as much truth as the theories of quantum physics, gravitation, and relativity. I'm not saying that anything is undeniable but, if we take issue with one area of science, we need to take issue with it all given that it all follows the same methodology.

Answer 11

Evolution is a theory.