Reasons to Reject Evolutionism

06/24/02 | self

[medved]

The thing I'm not seeing here is any sort of a reaction at all to the evidence presented above concerning dinosaurs and the entire question of how much time there's been for evolution since the stegosaur died out a few thousand years ago. American Indians view the 70 million-year thing as a white-man's fairytale and, as far as I can tell, they're dead right.

How does that leave time for evolution? Inquiring minds want to know.

[RonF]

"The thing I'm not seeing here is any sort of a reaction at all to the evidence presented above concerning dinosaurs and the entire question of how much time there's been for evolution since the stegosaur died out a few thousand years ago. American Indians view the 70 million-year thing as a white-man's fairytale and, as far as I can tell, they're dead right."

What evidence? I see where American indians drew some pictures that could be interpreted as looking like dinosaurs. Or could look like a half-eaten carcass with an exposed backbone, which I saw up in the woods last week on a camping trip. People have been drawing pictures of non-existent creatures for years, telling fantasies about them. Why would American Indians be any different? How does anything of this nature constitute proof?

If you accept Native American explanations about this, are you accepting their explanations about the rest of the natural world, none of which to my knowledge include the Christian God or Jesus?

[Phaedrus]

Bumping . . .

[medved]

What evidence?

Right...

[medved]

FYI

[AndrewC]

Referencing my post 17, the talk origins folks must not consider the differential use of flapping appendages to escape predators as selection pressure. They must consider the ground up theory of flight "blowhardism". Don't chickens tend to flap things when chased?

[RightWingNilla]

Referencing my post 17, the talk origins folks must not consider the differential use of flapping appendages to escape predators as selection pressure.

Hi Andrew. Here is a web site which shows some theories on how flight evolved in birds. It may have nothing to do with predators:

The selective pressure on the pre-birds to evolve the ability of flight in the sense of elevation, most likely was the reduction of the damaging impact of a jump or a fall from a level, supposely from the side of a tree-trunk.

(I surmise they use the term "Pre-bird", since "ProtoBird" TM has already been patented.)

[AndrewC]

It may have nothing to do with predators:

Obviously, but we are playing Darwinians. That means that any just so story qualifies, as long as it "cudda happened".

[medved]

You've got to come up with a reason why an arm 10% of the way to being a wing was advantageous over a normal arm, and then a reason why an arm 20% of the way to being a wing was advantageous over the arm which was 10%... The whole thing is just ludicrous.

[medved]

I am apparently not the only person on Earth who views the talk.origins FAQ system online as an online propaganda mill.

[Psalm 73]

Thanks for the PING, medved.
Although (GASP!) I believe in the Biblical version of creation, I find the theory you put forth very interesting, as I do parts of Macro-Evolution theory.
After being involved in a few nasty flame wars recently, I vowed not to get involved in any discussion where posters are not being civil, as I have a tendency to respond in kind.
Keep pinging me on this, though - I love to read your posts.

[ThinkPlease]

You are apparently the the only two people who believe it though.

[AndrewC]

You are apparently the the only two people who believe it though.

I think you are wrong. From your link this is what the Talk Origins writer has to say about the purpose of Talk Origins

The Talk.Origins Archive exists to provide mainstream scientific responses to the frequently asked questions and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins.

and

To summarize, if Mr. Fernandez is accusing the Talk.Origins Archive of pretending to represent both sides in the debate, he is clearly mistaken. The Archive does not now claim, nor has it ever claimed, to present anything other than the mainstream scientific perspective.

This is what propaganda means.

prop·a·gan·da   Pronunciation Key  (prp-gnd)
n.

1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

They can reasonably be called a propaganda mill.

[ThinkPlease]

They can reasonably be called a propaganda mill.

Now, you've shown that you have reason to believe that t.o disseminates propoganda. What makes you believe that it is a propoganda mill. There is no dictionary definition of propoganda mill, but the term is reminiscent of releasing information favorable to said unit willy-nilly--without pausing to check if that infomation is true or not. Do you have information that this is indeed the case?

Certainly Medved thinks so, but he has emotional reasons to think so, along with his joy with fringe theories. What's your take?

[medved]

With a pseudonym like "thinkplease" I'd have figured you'd have at least tried to comprehend the arguments (above) involving dinosaurs in Indian oral traditions, gravity, and paranormal phenomena.

What's the matter, "thinkplease"? Too many big words??

[medved]

FYI

[conserv122]

Its hard to convice people that don't want to be convinced that their religion(evilution) is wrong. They can be shown over and over and over that you can refute there idea and few leave it do to there pride(I think). The mammoth amount of information required for every species on earth and the fact that each system is dependent on the others to exist is enough to realize that 'evilution' is IMPOSSIBLE. However, the 'evilutionists' are so confounded in there religion, they do not understand the word "impossible". When that happens it seems to me that there is nothing more that can help them.

[ThinkPlease]

The fact that your arguments are incomprehensible by most people is not a fault of mine, I assure you. I suggest you look at the source of your writings. There aren't many more sites on this wide web with more suppositions and uninformed hypotheses than the Demorcratic Underground, but yours seems to do it. Congratulations, I guess, if that's what you are looking for.

[medved]

Like I say, your pseudonym appears to be a challenge to others to spend more time thinking while in actual fact, you yourself appear to be the one who is cognatively challenged or whatever. The logic of most of the main arguments on my www site is pretty straightforward and simple and, in particular, the thing about gravity requires no more than highschool algebra to comprehend. If you're having trouble with that then you shouldn't ever go near a real physics book.

[LiteKeeper]

Read later