For those who are evolutionists. Have you actually read any of the work dicounting the theory or are you just?

Question

taking it as an act of faith? This is a legitimate question I see people arguing but not using any data It would seem that if you really wanted to discuss the point you would be knowledgable about the counter argument not just gainsay negating it.

I am not so sure that if each argument is broken down we could not discuss it. What about communication theory? What I am trying to do here is start with a civil discourse.

Gravtol Thank You I am looking for discourse and not just negation. Such as I saw in a magazine which when asked if there was any doubts about evolution just had a full page spread that said NO. This doesn't get any of us anywhere. It also demeans the person being talked to. What I have read on this question is more information than I have seen on any of the others combined. I have read some of the documents some of you have referred too. But I still think a civil discourse is a better way to do this ( By the way I am not a big fan of Ken Hamm.)

Don , Perhaps you are write My initial idea was to want a dialogus But part of my response came from reading other questions that gave no discussion and just came across as people being rude to each other. I apologize if I came across that way also. I find that rudeness and blanket statements on either side of an argument doesn't lead anywhere including changed minds.

1) I apologize for the miss spellings.
2) My thought was to get a discussion going in the different areassome of which you mentioned. 3) For those of you who have been thank you for being polite.40If some would like to start at one area How about DNA and communication theory?I would prefer both sides if possible.

Answer 1

I haven't seen any arguments against it that hold any water. If someone actually had a valid argument that disproved evolution, it would be all over the news in a heartbeat.

But, to humor you, what are the works that you have in mind?

EDIT:

I'm not against discourse. Feel free to email me with whatever arguments you're talking about. Like I said, I have yet to see one. The scientific community has yet to see one. I'm pretty sure your arguments have been disproven over time.

Answer 2

Yes, I have actually read books on the subject.

Their was a time in my life I was skeptical about Evolution.

Until I realized that all the arguments mearly did was poke holes at some parts of evolutionary theory and attack them by calling them Darwinists.

What their arguments basically came down to is: Science dose not know exactly how evolution happens so it must be false.

That would be like saying 150 years ago that we do not know what exactly makes the elements different so the periodic table is false. It took 100 years to discover the atom after the periodic table was created.

So to the genetic study of evolution will take time. By saying we do not know everything dose not make what we do know false.

Answer 3

Here's the big problem: you are confused about the meaning of the word "faith". It means believing in something without any evidence to back it up. Many people use "faith" interchangeably with "a belief based on evidence".

Faith has no place in science. Science is a method for classifying data about the world in an orderly manner, data gathered by observation or experiment. If a accepted theory is disproven by new information, then the theory is modified or discarded. Science is not based on hunches, guesses or faith.

Creationism (whether Christian, Hindu, etc) is not an alternative to a scientific theory. No religious ideas can be verified by observation or experiment, and are not disprovable (as scientific theories must be to be scientific).

Science is driven by a desire to resolve mysteries and replace ignorance with understanding. Faith demands that mysteries remain mysteries, for without ignorance, faith in anything is useless.

If you wish to understand why the theory of evolution has survived as an explanation of human origins for over a century, after modifications due to discoveries in genetics and in the fossil record, then go and study it. Stop treating "faith" and creationism as credible counter arguments to science.

Science applications give you your cell phone and the internet, among other things. That is why it is credible.

Religion cannot do this, because it is superstition that demands its believers remain ignorant and use faith. Science has explained many mysteries traditionally explained by gods .

Answer 4

Yes I have read the "counter arguments".

Which all inevitably come down to an Argument or Irreducible Complexity.

Which is NOT a valid argument in the least.

I have also taken 12 credit hours studying Evolution and genetics during college. Evolution is one of the best understood and most well documented theories in all of science. It truly is foolishness that others discount it because of their irreconcilable religious beliefs.

The reason I no longer post sources and counter evidence is because it is a waste of time. The asker is never interested in the truth. They just want to flame evolution. I got tired of caring about others will full ignorance.

Answer 5

Yes, and I have even contacted some of the professors misquoted by such people as Ken Ham. I am a very skeptical type person. If there was a reason to doubt the basic tenants of the theory or to doubt the research done I would have found it.
Let me say in parting that Ken Ham is a big barefaced liar. I know this from researching his claims.

Contact me with a real question, if you dare.

Answer 6

I've read quite a bit of the 'evidence' that attempts to discount evolution. Unfortunately, it fails from the start.

Those who attempt to use the scientific method to prove biblical creation, pervert it to suit their own needs.

Science starts with a question ('how did we, as humans come to be?' for instance), and does extensive work and research to find the answer. Scientists then submit their work to thousands of others who refute, debate, and re-test (repeatedly), until all are in agreement. Then, and only then, is the answer accepted as fact. If evidence supports a different conclusion, then the work is re-done until the correct answer is found.

Faith based science, on the other hand, approaches things differently. It starts with a pre-determined conclusion ('god did it') and then sets out to 'prove' or rationalize that answer, ignoring any evidence to the contrary. The conclusion will never change, regardless of the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

This is a limited forum, so the ability to cite evidence chapter and verse (so to speak) is quite limited. Many people on this board are quite knowledgeable in the basics of evolution, and science in general.

Answer 7

One of the difficulties with using data on a site like this is the spaghetti method used by creationists:
Throw one hundred pieces of spaghetti on a wall.
Wait for supporter of evolution to pick off ninety-eight, missing two through tired eyes and inattention.
Point to remaining two and claim victory.

Defending creation science on a site like this is extraordinarily simple: "I don't understand how this could have happened naturally. Therefore, God."

Defending evolution is technical, and the feeling one gets is that an asker is not exactly interested in hearing the answer, or he or she would have gone to a different site, or, at the very least, the Biology section of Y!A.

Answer 8

I have read some of the "anti" evolution arguments. They make no sense whatsoever, and are typically based on facts that were current about 45 years ago.

They talk about carbon dating as if it were the only dating methods used (there are dozens if not hundreds of dating methods used to verify the age of fossils). They talk about their being no transitional fossils found, and no proof of macro-evolution, even though there have been transitional fossils found and there is proof of macro-evolution.

It is like they stopped keeping up with scientific discoveries around 1962. They need to open up a Newsweek from time to time.

Answer 9

I've actually read up on the subject and know what it is.

Have you, or are you just taking the anti-evolution propaganda on faith?

P.S. Yes, I've read up on Irreducible Complexity. Not as compelling as those biased Christian sites make it sound. In fact, Michael Behe, the man responsible for spearheading this idea, had to admit in court that Intelligent Design is not scientific and that Irreducible Complexity was far from proof of anything. Read about it here:
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Answer 10

Please look up the word 'faith'. Taking something based on faith is believing in something without evidence or documentation of proof. You should restate your question to ask whether we can argue it based on fact or based on our ignorance.

To clarify, I believe in evolution but I only know the general idea of it. I do not know the specifics to make a valid argument at this time. Are you looking for a layman or someone who is a specialist or expert?