-Um. You talk really big, but I’ve seen lots of support for evolution, and nothing that comes even close to refuting it.
Well. I’ve never been accused of “talking big” before! The sentence above just shows how narrow your scope of education has been. There is quite a large body of material that makes evolution seem unlikely.
It’s interesting that you brought up Occam’s Razor. I’d never heard of it, but reading the Wikipedia definition, it seemed to me that it would lead one to support Creation rather than evolution. Creation is just so much simpler, and needs so much less explaining!
For anyone who’s interested, if you’ll take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection and just hop down to the diagram on the right side of the page, you’ll notice that what happens is that a certain type of the organism (the lighter-colored ones) dies out, leaving only the darker ones. That’s what happened with the peppered moths. This leaves the organism with less genetic information, a more limited DNA code, if you will.
Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the other hand, requires that a great deal of new genetic information be added with successive mutations. In order to move from fish to philosopher, we have to add an awful lot—legs, arms, a neck, hair, …you get the drift….and presumably some increase in brain capacity.
Scientists are careful to downplay that fact, and pretend that any change in an organism is evidence of goo-to-you evolution. Things do evolve, most definitely, but the changes produce a less complex organism than the original, rather than more complex! (If you’re aware of any instances where something evolved upward Confanity, please share them.)
-I can simulate the structure of an atom from such indirect evidence without needing to become very small and walk around on the surface of a proton. And similarly, I can simulate Antarctica
Much data has been collected and verified on the atom by many different scientists, (though whether it is all complete and correct can’t really be proven conclusively.) People have actually been to Antarctica. In contrast, no one was there billions of years ago to tell us what it was like, nor is there any data that was collected at that time. You avoided the issue here. I maintain that one cannot accurately simulate what one has not seen, has no eyewitness description of, and on which no data exists. It is a fantasy.
You ask how Creationists “explain” the tailbone, the appendix, etc. Tell me, how do evolutionists “explain” that man walks on two legs, doesn’t have wings, and has a far weaker sense of smell and sight than many other creatures? It seems that we, being supposedly the topmost rung on the ladder of evolution, would have certainly evolved in a more efficient way. Why can’t I run like a panther or smell like a hound or see like an eagle? Why are our young so very helpless at birth? It seems that fact alone would have wiped us out eons ago.
-I do not consider poorly written, sensationalist, unscientific columns, depending on the gross ignorance I mentioned above for their impact, and “published” by a clearly unobjective Christian group, as authoritative.
Just as I do not consider hypothetical, creative articles, depending on minimal evidence and on the lemming-like ignorance of the masses, combined with the religious biases of the creators, published by a clearly unobjective “scientific” group, to be authoritative.
We’re right back to that worldview thing. You have chosen your “facts,” and I have chosen mine. Now we will have to research (a very important homeschool skill ) rather than simply to regurgitate “facts” (the most highly rewarded public school skill) in order to choose which to believe. It’s a matter of thinking—evaluating the facts that are available in light of the truth that each of us has chosen.
I noticed a book yesterday called Refuting Evolution, by Jonathan Sarfati. It was in my public library right beside Darwin’s Origin of Species. Perhaps you’ll find something in there that “casts a reasonable doubt on evolution.” There was also another one called Creation: Facts of Life by Gary Parker, a biologist. Maybe those would be a place for you to start your research.
I checked out a nice little book on evolution–I thought Darwin looked a bit over my head—but I haven’t learned much from it yet. I’m looking for evidence that makes evolution a reasonable probability. Now I think I’ll go check out those pages that heir by adoption posted.
Oh, by the way, if you think schools in this country are not controlled by the government, you live in a dream world. Or perhaps they’re controlled more by the NEA… But certainly not by the people they serve!