In response to:

Museum Visit Reveals a lot of Uncertainties Within Darwinism

GAM41 Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 10:15 AM
Oh my goodness! Please try to remember that the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. And, regardless of what Mr. Gore says, science is NEVER settled. Does evolution occur? Yes it does. How else do you explain drug resistant bacteria or pesticide resistant insects? That was evolution that occurred before our eyes. Do we have evidence that human beings evolved from other primates? Not if you insist on incontrovertible evidence. But that absence does not prove that it did not happen. So we are left with uncertainty as the museum exhibits clearly state. By the way, there is no physical evidence at all for creation. The argument for creation is laden with more uncertainty than the argument for evolution.
BuzWeston Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 10:32 AM
I like to read evolutionists' posts after articles like this. They always rely on the same fallacies. Right away we have "appeal to ingnorance." The evidence we don't have shows that evolution is true.. Huh?

The second fallacy is equivocation. His false claim is that micro evolution (adaptation) shows macro evolution. The mechanisms are completely different. One cannot lead to the other.

The third fallacy is the false claim that there is no evidence for creation. The evidence for creation and evolution is identical (fossil record, living organisms, etc.) It's how the evidence is explained that differs.
John5840 Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 10:43 AM
Ignorance abounds. The evidence we DO have, which is staggering in scope, shows that evolution is true. Your first claim is thus a fail. Your second claim is also a fail: micro and macro evolution are fantasies invented by creationists. They are, in fact, the same process. Your third claim is also an utter fail: tcreationist explanations for the speed of light, existence of ancient fossils, and the geologic record are pathetic. But do enlighten us: provide an example of two identical pieces of evidence explained adequately by creationism and evolution
BuzWeston Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 10:58 AM
Okay. Evidence abounds? Where is the evidence specifically refered to by Gam41? You must know something that he doesn't.

Micro-evolution results in a reduction of genetic information (directly observable). Macro-evolution (theory of common descent) claims that genetic information is added via mutations. If two mechanisms operate in opposite ways, how can one become the other over long periods of time? They can't. That's simple logic.

One example of the same evidence: fossils at the Grand Canyon. Evolutionists argue that they were laid down over millions of years. (Some) creationists argue that a catastrophic event caused most of it in one or two short events.
BuzWeston Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 11:03 AM
A post here is not adequate to judge each of these positions. The point is to show that the evidence is the same. ALL the evidence is the same. That you don't like the interpretations doesn't mean that the evidence is different. By the way, while I now convinced that evolution did not occur, it doesn't mean that I must agree with every creationist explanation.
John5840 Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 11:11 AM
A quick search for scholarly articles regardign teh evolution of the human brain, which one poster referenced, returned over 2 million hits. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I think you are misinterpreting GAM 41. Evolution occures when DNA CHANGES. SOmetimes its increased, sometimes it is lost. AS I said, micro evolution is just a smokescreen created entirely by fundamentalists to account for teh evolution we can see developing in real time. I know evolutionists claim the grand canyon was made over a short period of time: but there is no evidence to support that claim.
John5840 Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 11:19 AM
You appear to have abandoned a fundamental human trait : reason. You have concluded that any two explanation for a phenomenon must carry equal weight, and you grossly misunderstand the concept of evidence. The fact that some creationists interpret Grand Canyon evidence in a particualr way does not mean their interpretation has any validity.
The Obama Timeline author Wrote: Jun 27, 2012 1:36 PM
You are incorrect. Each year more and more scientists doubt "pure" evolution because of new findings. There are many holes in the theory of evolution. One of the problems is the almost complete lack of fossil evidence of "in between" animals. If a species evolves from A into Z and it takes tens of thousands of years, there should be fossil evidence of the B-Y variations. Yet there is an astounding lack of such evidence.

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."...