"Exposing Evolution Proving Creation" -John Mackay

[Darwin_s_Finch]

*Originally posted by j_sum1 *
**Maybe. But then I have heard some shocking stuff from evolutionists too. I would hope that by the time I get to posing my argument there will be a few dopers who are prepared with me to sift through the dross and to treat my questions seriously. **

I, for one, would be more than happy to treat your questions seriously – so long as they do not consist of oft-repeated creationist nonsense. I can guarantee you that nothing creationists have proposed is a serious threat to anything within evolutionary biology; it’s all been seen before, and refuted. Any serious challenges must come from the field itself, and those will, at best, call into question specific theories, but can really do nothing to dismantle the basic fact that evolution happens, and that natural selection is the primary mechanism.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

*Originally posted by j_sum1 *
**Nice to see that you are confident of your position. I wouldn’t expect anything less from you. However I am not going to let you get away with that.

Firstly, current evidence is enough to cast a shadow on evolution. Nothing explosive or new is required. Of course you will no doubt say that about most creationist theories. (So would I.) It is a matter of examining the evidence and determining which of the proposed theories matches it best. Making up your mind beforehand is simply not fair play and you would be the first to jump on any creationist who did that if the shoe was on the other foot.**

Please cite any current evidence which would so much as “cast a shadow” on evolutionary theory. It’s not about making up my mind beforehand it’s about accepting fact as fact. Evolution has been proven and creationism is not a competing theory. No scientific theory of creationism has ever been formulated. If you said that you had seen photos that proved the earth was flat I would still say that I knew that the photos couldn’t possibly prove that because it would contradict known fact. Not opinion, not guesses, not hypotheses, not beliefs but fact.

Secondly, I hope you are not about to say that the popular media (or even the scientific literature) is unbiased. You would be climbing up a tree backwards to do that. It is the nature of this subject that it is emotive and there are very few who approach it without prejudice.

Science has no bias. If it a systematic and self-correcting method of discovery which would indeed change to fit newly discovered facts. MacKay has not submitted any of his conclusions for peer review because he knows he would be destroyed. He is simply running a racket, making money off of a gullible audience who wants to believe what he says. FWIW, here is a link explaining the alleged “vertical whale.”
If the media is biased it is biased towards the sensational and the religious, not away from it. If evolution could be disproven (or if “God” could be proven) the media would be all over it. “Evolution is still true” = ho hum. “Biblical creationism is literally true!” = boffo ratings and lots of $$$.

For myself, I acknowledge that there is a lot of evidence around to support evolution – and for good reason: it is not a dumb theory. But I have yet to have anyone actually demonstrate that it is mechanistically feasible. For that reason I am interested in anyone who presents any evidence which might promote alternative explanations. For that reason, our friend John is worth a visit
I have undoubtedly just stirred a hornets’ nest with that last paragraph and my expression of doubt on the feasibility of evolution. Please don’t respond just yet. I intend to start a thread in mid January where I will outline the specific problems I see and invite dopers to supply concrete evidence on the argument. I won’t do it now because I want to take the time to examine cites given and do the appropriate research.

You’re going to have an uphill battle explaining why evolution is not mechanistically feasible but please do try. I think you’ll find that if you really research thoroughly you’ll find that you can answer most of your own questions.

**And I value your knowledgeable opinion DTC, and would like you to participate. Which is why I am not prepared to let you get away with a casual fob-off. There is a truckload of bad science around when it comes to this debate and I am keen to avoid it. **

Thank you for the compliment and I’ll be happy to participate but there are posters who know a lot more about evolutionary science than I do. I just hope I’ll have something substantive to contribute.

[Apos]

But I have yet to have anyone actually demonstrate that it is mechanistically feasible.

I’ll bite anyway.

Evolution is mechanistically feasible. I can understand if people really think that it wasn’t historically, what happened, but denying that it’s not a plausible and feasible process by which virtually all the diversity of life we see can be explained down to the single-cell stage at the very least, is just plain silly at this point. The mechanisms have been described and modeled in great detail, and they work.

[j_sum1]

Ooooh bites already. Hold your horses. I’m not engaging in this debate for a few weeks. And we are now well off the OP.

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by j_sum1 *
**Maybe. But then I have heard some shocking stuff from evolutionists too. I would hope that by the time I get to posing my argument there will be a few dopers who are prepared with me to sift through the dross and to treat my questions seriously. **

I’m carrying quite a lot of baggage with regard to the creation debate, but I’ll do my absolute best to look impartially at anything you would like to present.