[Agamemnon]

Evolution is not a ‘world view.’ I do not base any moral or ethical decision on evolution. I do not know any scientist who bases his or her world view on evolution.

I'll wager that you actually do so routinely and don't even realize it.

I can’t speak further on the lizards because I do not have the data in front of me to analyze.

Yes, but you still tried to didn't you? You relied on sketchy hearsay that you yourself had failed to critique as a true scientist would have done for its substance, and its veracity, before you chose to cite it as evidence for anything. That is a screaming example of how "evolution" has defined your world view.

You accepted everything in that narrative you related without any necessary scientific thought being put to it. You accepted it unquestioningly and you did it totally on faith.

Evolution is at the core of your world view. You just demonstrated it. I should wager more next time.

I was trying to convey the point that evolution does not occur due to some mysterious force under equilibrium conditions. It is unsteady, and it occurs when an organism’s enviroment is changing.

Using an assortment of measurements man has charted temperatures for millenia --- long global warming and long global cooling cycles. Clearly there is evidence of substantially changed environments. You gave me an example that one assumes you thought supported the evolutionary premise in the space of a mere 40 years. How did man evolve in direct response to this stimulus I just described? How would you measure it using the Darwinian evolutionary construct?

How do you know "evolution" does not occur in equilibrium? What is equilibrium anyway? How do you distinguish observed changes on the basis of causality? What kinds of changes happen which have been observed that one may concretely credit to an outworking of Darwinian evolution? What variables must an evolutionary model take into account?

The example is not even necessary, because there is more than enough evidence for evolution in other areas of biology.

You repeat platitudes without evidence -- characteristic of the individual who takes "evolution" on faith, and without question because it forms his world view. A productive study of Science requires far more.

I am sure you are aware of this evidence and do not believe it is valid.

Creationists and evolutionists both have the same set of facts. Evolutionists may have evidence of something, even as the Creationist does, but in the end no one has any evidence which credibly and scientifically supports the Darwinian evolutionary premise.

I find it quite strange that a highly educated scientist such as yourself can dismiss an entire theory based on many principles as a ‘world view.’

Name the "many principles" upon which you claim the "theory" is based. There is but one lone principle upon which the premise of Darwinian evolution is based and it is this: that man is his own creator.

That said, he has absolutely no idea how he did it, or why he did it, he can't recreate the formula, and he has no knowledge of the conditions under which it all supposedly happened in order to make it happen again. But yet by faith the evolutionist only sees himself as proof that it occurred.

The funny thing is in light of all that the evolutionist still thinks he knows so much. How perfectly self-delusional.

Evolutionism fails miserably in the face of what are obvious statistical impossibilites as viewed in the context of physical sciences; it is a decidely poor place to begin one's study of Science, or upon which to base one's world view.

Still there are those who choose to go through life and their careers with the blinders on. But they're just kidding themselves.

FReegards!

[camerakid400]

I never accept anything without evidence. The lizard example was studied in depth in an academic environment quite some time ago and was critiqued. It is not ‘heresay.’ If you believe the conclusion of the study to be invalid, that is your presumption based on faith, because I have not provided the primary source for you to analyze.

Since you do not know me personally, I find it unsettling that you can use a couple of blog posts to declare what my world view is. There is a logical fallacy in there somewhere.

Since you work in the field, I suppose you are aware of the scientific studies on the relationship between climate change and human evolution.

I do not take evolution on faith. You are again incorrectly assuming what my world view is. I stated that there is a great deal of evidence for evolution in other areas of biology because I have either studied the evidence or had discussions about the evidence with knowledgeable people.

You state that “no one has any evidence that which credibly and scientifically supports the Darwinian evolutionary premise.” Since you have worked in the field for many years, I find it surprising that you have not come across one piece of data, fossil, computational study, genetic analysis, etc, that you find at least somewhat valid. Also, to make such a blanket declaration of certainty, you would have to examine and reject every single relevant piece of research ever published on the subject. That is one giant leap of faith. My position in support for evolution can change at any time in the face of credible studies/evidence that cast doubt on the theory.

“That said, he has absolutely no idea how he did it, or why he did it, he can’t recreate the formula, and he has no knowledge of the conditions under which it all supposedly happened in order to make it happen again. But yet by faith the evolutionist only sees himself as proof that it occurred.”

That sounds like the same tired old creationist declaration rather than a reasonable argument from a scientist. There are plenty of ‘ideas’ on how evolution takes place, you just don’t like any of them.