In response to:

Museum Visit Reveals a lot of Uncertainties Within Darwinism

BuzWeston Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 12:13 PM
It's interesting how theses articles always draw out the evolutionists who must desperately justify their worldview. The ad hominem attacks are always there. The claim that only evolution is science, justifying the automatic dismissal of other views. Endless fallacies abound. Evidence is offered that those of us who have studied the problems with evolution can easily refute. But the most important common thread is that none of this is about science (as they claim). There is no openmindedness, no desire to seek truth. No attempt to seek out the best research that opposes them. It is rooted in a deep need to avoid the thought that they might be accountable to a creator. Please don't ask me to prove creation here. Do some honest research.
John5840 Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 12:34 PM
Buzzy, all you have to do is cite that excellent research with which you are familiar.

Your request will be ignored. If you have scientific evidence supporting creationism, out with iut. There are literally millions of scientists who woudl love to see what you have in mind.
BuzWeston Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 12:50 PM
Why should I have to do your work for you? I was once a hard core evolutionist. I changed my mind over a number of years by reading books and journals on both sides if the issue. I did the research, and you can too. But only if you are willing. I know perfectly well that if I offer a source, you will do a quick Google search in order to find some biased evolution site that has something nasty to say about it. Then you'll repost it here, claiming that no real scholars are creationists. I will not be drawn into a conversation with those who do not seek truth, but only fight to uphold their preconceptions. Such discussions are futile. My only hope is that I can convince you of your need for openmindedness.
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 12:51 PM
I don't think so John5840. Those millions of scientists you refer too like to throw out evidence that doesn't fit the theory. That's why the impossibility of life from non-life is no problem for an evolutionist. It's not part of the theory, so it isn't a problem for them.
John5840 Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 1:20 PM
The reason you have to provide the evidence you say exists is that the burden of proof rests with the one who makes the affirmative assertion. You said it exists, now prove it.
John5840 Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 1:21 PM
CAn you provide an example of evidence that has been thrown out? I'd like to see that.
BuzWeston Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 2:05 PM
The assertion I made is that evolutionists post on these sites in a desperate attempt to justify their worldview. I offer as evidence for that claim all your posts.
BuzWeston Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 2:10 PM
I suppose you are talking about evidence for evolution/creation, rather than my assertion about worlviews. Okay. Here's one: Ambulocetus. The claim is that this is a transitional fossil preceding a whale, but with legs. The fossil bits are from different strata and are too few to draw any such conclusion. Very creative people have filled in the missing bones and then went on to imaginately draw pictures of their imaginary transitional creature.
BuzWeston Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 2:16 PM
But there's more. Even if the fossil was complete, the fossil didn't leave any ancestors to examine. Lots of imagination is required tourists that story. And it goes on with the silly story about whales having the vestigial legs. These bones support the reproductive organs and are not connected to the spinal column. And yet this is commonly used as an example that proves evolution. I could literally go on for pages with this stuff. You can find it for yourself if you want to. But I'm pretty sure you have a psychological barrier that keeps you from wanting to know about problems with evolution.
BuzWeston Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 2:18 PM
Stupid spell corrector. It's supposed to read "to write that story," not "tourists."
John5840 Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 2:23 PM
SOrry, but that is NOT what you asserted. You asserted that "Endless fallacies abound. Evidence is offered that those of us who have studied the problems with evolution can easily refute." My response is teh obvious and appropriate response. WHat fallacies abound and what evidence can you refute?
John5840 Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 2:36 PM
This is simply false. Ambulocetus fossils were found together. Pakicetus was found at another level. A full cranium and a substantial portion of an entire skeleton were found: not just a few bones as you claim.
John5840 Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 2:48 PM
CAN you name a respected scientist who claims that the vestigial bones in whales are there to support reproductive organs and were not initially part of a leg structure. ANd can you explain the other vestigial factors, such as a diaphragm (useless in whales) muscles to move the ear (but there is no ear) and body hair on embryos, but essentially none on whales after birth.
BuzWeston Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 2:48 PM
You see? I got suckered into playing your game, and now it's down to gain saying. This is a comment forum, and is not suited for proving or disproving complex scientific theories. It is unreasonable to expect it, which is why you demand it as a rhetorical device. On the other hand, it is not unreasonable for me to attempt to inspire further open minded research.
BuzWeston Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 3:07 PM
One last comment. I have an advantage over you, and it is this. I have already been where you are. I used to be a dogmatci evolutionist jerk. I know all the evolution arguments. Moreover, I know all the psychological strategies used to effectively isolate oneself from facing serious scientific arguments against evolution. Only listen to evolutionists. Only engage amateur creationists, like the ones found on this site. Call them names. Declare that only evolution is science. But then I stumbled upon some real PhD research scientists who woke me from my dogmatic slumber. I could no longer pretend intellectual superiority. My silly arguments didn't measure up to their science. And after years of listening, and doing the, "Yeah, but..."
BuzWeston Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 3:11 PM
(continued) I've accepted that they are almost certainly right, and I was almost certainly wrong. It helped to see my fathe, a PhD geologist, make a similar transition in his thinking over his career. It is always good to be open minded. Veracity is a moral character trait, that in the short run may be uncomfortable, but in the long run is always for the best. Let's continue the pursuit of truth.
John5840 Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 3:26 PM
Again. Of whom do you speak? WHat real PhD research scientists? WHat are their names? If they have such great arguments, let me check them out.

I went to two New York City churches on the last Sunday morning of May: First a Christian one, then the American Museum of Natural History, a towering steeple within the Church of Darwin.

My first stopping point: The Spitzer Hall of Human Origins on the lower level, a dark and crowded chapel with hairy figures created to show man's purported hominid ancestry over several million years. Some parents were catechizing their young children: "Look, those are our relatives." (As I listened, one unbelieving girl, staring at the private parts of the hirsute mannequins, laughed, "We didn't come from them."...