As heretic888 indicates, the most severly clueless part of these arguments is the belief in a conspiracy of scientists (to what end?). The scientist who disproves evolution and puts a new theory in its place will get a Nobel prize and half a million dollars, just for starters. Any scientist would love to do to evolution what Einstein did to Newtonian mechanics--it's a scientist's dream to make the next big theory and be remembered for it. Scientists make progress by questioning and challenging others' work.
People who make these arguments are ignorant of scientific methodology.
My sentiments exactly. :asian:
My comment was basically saying that there was some huge shark found around that time that was supposed to be long since extinct. That is why I said that least what you said was a mixture of a mistake and some strange stories.
Indeed. However, the existence of a member of a once-believed extinct species (assuming the above story is actually factual) does not somehow "disprove" evolution. It is a very interesting find, to say the very least, but there are any number of phenomena that could account for it.
The find is provocative, but not conclusive.
Creationism
Assumption: That Human beings were created by a greater power.
This is not Creationism as I've been explained it. Most Creationists I'm aware of don't believe the universe was created by a generic or non-descript "greater power" --- they're claiming that their tribal god created everything, and that their associated tribal religious literature records this faithfully and accurately in a literal-historical sense. "Creationism" is really just a grandiose attempt to prove how their particular culture's religion is right, and all other interpretations (including the scientific one) are wrong.
Others that lean towards a more "universal" take on Creationism typically are very symphathetic with the Evolutionist position, and for good reason.
No proof of this greater power exists, other than looking inside yourself and seeing if you have faith in one or more religions of belief systems.
Its not always a matter of "faith" per se, but that's another topic. :uhyeah:
So, if you create a primate do you not use the same basic concept and basics for other primates? As a builder or creator or a scientist one would hope to think that there would be some re-use. Yet, I have no proof of this concept other than to draw references to the similarities.
Yes, and such a position seems to confuse causation and correlation, in my opinion. Which is not big surprise, as most "Creationists" are not usually well-versed in scientific subtleties to begin with.
The aquatic ape explains the fatty layer of humans and the salt tears and the reason for no missing link evidence.
Uhhh... dunno about that aquatic ape theory (very interesting, if true), but the entire notion of the "missing link" is more mythical than anything else. It was a desperate argument devised by Creationists in a vain attempt to disprove the Theory of Evolution.
Ask most modern primatologists, and they will demonstrate incredulity at any "missing link". Far from an expert myself, I have surveyed the anatomical differences between Austrolopethicus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Cro-Magnon Man, and Modern Man --- and I can see absolutely no basis for any kind of "missing link" at all. Just my opinion, of course.
Several points to make:
1. Kent Hovind is a fraud. His "doctorate" was from a non-accredited christian degree mill. His "challenge" requires evidence to be sifted through his own hand-picked panel of "experts". See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind for more information. Using arguments from Hovind is beyond laughable.
2. The Aquatic Ape Hopothesis is cute, but has no real supporting evidence that would validate it as a working theory. See
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maquaticape.html
3. Be careful about the word "creationism". They like to give out a wishy-washy definition that seems inclusive, but just ask one if the ancient Egyptian creation story is viable and observe the reaction. Make no mistake, creationism means exactly this: That the biblical account of creation is literally true.
4. "Intelligent Design" is a pseudo-scientific sounding euphimism for creationism, and is just as scientific (meaning, not at all).
Well said, qizmoduis. :asian:
Laterz.
*)
