This lady make me doubt Evolution theory.?

Question

This is a very interesting article and only for people who want to learn more. Not suite for basher. It is a nice site. I only want your input when you read through the article and share some thought. Not appreciate people who is just bashing for no reason when they are see the phrase doubt about evolution

http://www.susancanthony.com/aboutSusan/evolution.html

Answer 1

this is very intriguing. i do remember reading a story about a man that buried his dog several years prior to digging it up, calling a scientific crew out, who then determined the "fossils" to be millions of years old. the man later challenged them by telling them the dog had died x amount of years prior. we really don't know as much as we think we do. i thank God for the truth that has made me free.

Answer 2

I took the time to read through your article (hey, it's one of those days when the sun is beating down so hard that even moving is a challenge)

First off, I agree that scientists often will defer you to their authority, and that you shouldn't trust blanket statements, but I would qualify that by saying you should also do your own research if you want to have an opinion rather than just a reaction.

The following segments are utterly to be discarded as they misinterpret and misrepresent the laws of physics:

Law of cause and effect.
First law of thermodynamics.
Second law of thermodynamics.

now I would say trust me I'm a physicist, but if you don't want to trust me you are welcome to study up on statistical mechanics and take about 40 hours of lectures to reach the same conclusion, sit an exam to validate your understanding and when you have done that, then you will be making a decision on the same basis I am making mine.

"Natural law. Scientists investigate the laws of nature. The very existence of law and order in the universe points to a source or lawgiver." Rubbish - science studies the way things behaves and finds patterns in them.

Biogenesis IS a theory and not a law. Its also about 200 years out of date Wiki it.

Complexity of cell and code is a natural process which spontaneously arises out of recombinant molecules. As is the interdependence with Protein and DNA. Now Im not a biologist but I have read Watson's "The Double Helix" and he is the fellow who with James Crick discovered DNA. If you want an opinion on this matter I suggest you read this book.

Sexual reproduction is a non argument really, in that it is catered for as an evolutionary process.

The whole mutations and natural selection arguments made ignore the fact that evolution agrees that most mutations are harmful. Animals exhibiting them simply fail to propagate.

The adaptation section deliberately misrepresents.

The last and most compelling arguments rest on probability. And yes, life is improbable. But the spontaneous generation of a recombinant molecule is more likely than an entire omnipotent God. And indeed, we would not be here talking about it if it had not happened, which is the anthropic principle.

I do not believe this article was written with any intellectual honesty. I hope the question was posed with sincerity as it took some time to answer it.

Answer 3

There are some good points in the article, but it could be a bit better written. The author clearly has a bias, but admits as such so a reader can take that into consideration.
Sadly most people inherently accept Darwinian Evolution without doing any serious research or thought. There are quite a large number of holes in Macro Evolution and is certainly not unreasonable to reject it. Here's hoping people who read this article will be encouraged to research Evolution in all its forms and theories so they can think for themselves.

Answer 4

As a compendium of every incorrect, discredited, and/or outright dishonest argument ever put forward to prop up creationism, the article has some value, I suppose.

Otherwise she doesn't say anything that hasn't be seen and rebutted a dozen times or more here on YA.

Answer 5

there have been some theories that Darwin switched over returned to Christanity on his deathbed, after until eventually now putting forward thatt "an Agnostic (somebody who can not come to a call whether or not God existed) may be ... the stunning description of my physique of ideas". besides the indisputable fact that, this declare has been refuted via his daughter Henrietta, and has been brushed off as fake via historians. His final words on his dying mattress have been infact to his spouse Emma: "undergo in ideas what a sturdy spouse you have been". Claims have been by no skill extremely made that he brushed off his thought, in common terms that he switched over returned to Christianity (particularly a distinctive component, because of the fact he by no skill extremely believed that God and his thought have been jointly unique), and besides those claims have been chanced directly to be fake via witnesses.

Answer 6

Wow, reading that really did make me actually think about Christianity(if that was your question). Thank you for sharing it with me... but I'm still all for the Evolution theory. See, in my mind, that's just how things became, and i can't think of it any other way

Answer 7

Ok she lost me in the first three or four paragraphs especially after mentioning Michael Behe, who knew that his hypothesis did not have any supporting evidence and choose to publish it for layman anyway.

She then goes on to make about 20 common errors that creationist make and have been corrected on countless times.

Note the link is to a collection of "debunked" creationist claims, it is not about religion, just the facts.

Edit:
The idea that 10 to he 50 is considered impossible is an unsupported assertion, as are the probability calculations. Think of it this way, if you have one universe then anything that is in it has a probabilit of 1 since it has already happened. You can only compute odds if there are other known different "states".

While the writing style is ok, the total lack of anything remotely resembling facts makes it totally unbelivable.

Answer 8

You ask me not to bash. I won't bash.
I read several parts of your Susan Anthony page. I will not go through it refuting her material. None of it is original. It is mostly from the Creation Institute, North West Creation or Answers in Genesis.
It has all been refuted before.

I suggest that you try "Talk Origins" and go through Susan's page point by point.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/welcome.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-welcome.html

I can tell you that I found many false statements in her page.

Answer 9

I found the information of reproduction between Chimps and man very interesting. I've never heard that before.

Answer 10

Wow, thats a very well thought out paper. I like how she accepts invitation to disprove any facts.

Also, I did not know that the odds of anything that is 10 to the power of 50 is considered impossible, no matter what length of time. Because time is always used as the argument against the improbable odds.

Very good paper, thank you.

Answer 11

That's good that she wanted to learn more because ignorance can't be bliss sometimes..