Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution

In a recent thread, after all the errors in his OP were pointed out he said:

The fact that you found descrepancies in the article does not negate the premise.

Which I take to be an admission that discrepancies were correctly pointed out.

Originally posted by Penguin
I have just wasted significant time that I can't afford going about this the wrong way. I found about 50 threads that RJ started and was going through them each, looking at the thread, whether it was an attack on Evolution or science in general, whether it contained logical fallacies, whether his points were refuted, whether he had acknowledged the refutatio ...[text shortened]... any evidence to support my evaluation of RJ's (or anyone else's) behaviour.

--- Penguin

Can't we just stereotype him and be done with it? I too have other things I prefer to waste time on. 😛

Originally posted by twhitehead
He more or less has been doing so recently. He ends up saying something along the lines of:
"OK so I know what I posted is all nonsense, but the Bible is still true, and evolution is still false! Hallelujah!".

I never said something like that. I do not post things tha are all nonsense. There may be some mistakes made by some in the post, but that is true of evolutionist, too. Nobody is perfect and can post completely accurate information all the time. This is a way of us coming to the knowledge of the Truth. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord.!

By the way I haven't noticed any errors in the video I posted on this thread. If you find any, maybe that is what we should discuss.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Can't we just stereotype him and be done with it? I too have other things I prefer to waste time on. 😛

That is fine. I am not forcing anyone to discuss this matter. I am just bringing it up as something that might be worth discussing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is fine. I am not forcing anyone to discuss this matter. I am just bringing it up as something that might be worth discussing.

perhaps. so what problems with darwin's evolution theory did you discover that have not already been answered or replaced by modern evolutionary theory?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
perhaps. so what problems with darwin's evolution theory did you discover that have not already been answered or replaced by modern evolutionary theory?

Is there two or more evolutionary theories? Why was it necessary to change or replace them with a modern version? Was it due to any of the problems mentioned on this video.

Frog to a Prince 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=dEyJ9g-Op4A

Frog to a Prince 2/2
YouTube&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I remember when you first came to this forum (this was before before you started 'pumpkin eating'😉 you through your toys out the pram and promptly left declaring you would never come back because all people did here was talk about evolution. You wanted to talk about the Bible and scripture with people, now just over a year later you start more threads about evolution than the rest of us put together. Rather odd don't you think?!

Not odd if you are a troll.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I never said something like that. I do not post things tha are [b]all nonsense. There may be some mistakes made by some in the post, but that is true of evolutionist, too. Nobody is perfect and can post completely accurate information all the time. [/b]

I believe in the other thread I mentioned there were more than 20 errors pointed out in your OP. You did not deny that they were errors. Since all those errors were important parts of the argument being made, the arguments conclusions were clearly not supported.

By the way I haven't noticed any errors in the video I posted on this thread. If you find any, maybe that is what we should discuss.
But whats the point? You will simply admit the errors and start a new thread.

Originally posted by divegeester
Not odd if you are a troll.

No. I realized we can talk about evolution and the Holy Bible at the same time and it made for an interesting discussion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. I realized we can talk about evolution and the Holy Bible at the same time and it made for an interesting discussion.

To you maybe. To those who believe in actual reality, your fairy tales have all the validity of the Nazi claim that Jews are not really human.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Is there two or more evolutionary theories? Why was it necessary to change or replace them with a modern version? Was it due to any of the problems mentioned on this video.

Frog to a Prince 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=dEyJ9g-Op4A

Frog to a Prince 2/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TJOx0U6nHQ&feature=endscreen&NR=1

your question reveals that you have either not watched the videos you linked to or researched the speakers in any degree of depth. one of the speakers does have an alternate evolutionary theory involving intelligence directed evolution. dawkins himself is the proponent of the selfish gene theory which has gained wide acceptance in the scientific community.

scientific theories are constantly modified with the discovery new evidence. that is the nature of science and why it works so well. but you haven't answered my question.

what problems with darwin's evolution theory did you discover that have not already been answered or replaced by modern evolutionary theory?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I never said something like that. I do not post things tha are [b]all nonsense. There may be some mistakes made by some in the post, but that is true of evolutionist, too. Nobody is perfect and can post completely accurate information all the time. This is a way of us coming to the knowledge of the Truth. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord.!

By th s in the video I posted on this thread. If you find any, maybe that is what we should discuss.[/b]

By the way I haven't noticed any errors in the video I posted on this thread. If you find any, maybe that is what we should discuss.

I can't blame anyone for not bothering with this and I have not watched the entire video but the first 10 minutes contain the following:

Argument from Incredulity - Micheal Denton says he just can't see it. He doesn't explain which parts of the theory he disagrees with or, most importantly, why they are invalid so it is just "I can't understand it so it can't be true"

Argument from Authority - Around 03:30, a Dr Micheal Denton is brought about saying he does not believe it. He gives no reasons justifying this belief so we can only assume we are supposed to accept what he says based on his academic status.

Discredited argument: At around 7 minutes, Dr Denton brings out the irreducible complexity argument as a problem, including the Bacterial Flagellum, which has been thoroughly destroyed: not a single example bought out by ID proponents have actually been shown to be irreducibly complex. In fact they all be shown categorically not to be so.

[edit]I did have 'strawman' here but have removed it since I didn't spot an obvious one in the first 10 minutes.[/edit]

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Well I have not watched the entire video but the first 10 minutes contain the following:

Argument from Incredulity - Micheal Denton says he just can't see it. He doesn't explain which parts of the theory he disagrees with or, most importantly, why they are invalid so it is just "I can't understand it so it can't be true"

Argument from Authority - Aroun ...[text shortened]... educibly complex. In fact they all be shown categorically [b]not to be so.

Strawman[/b]

Then there is the "no reptiles with feathers". We now know dinosaurs had feathers, they are obvious in the fossil record.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Then there is the "no reptiles with feathers". We now know dinosaurs had feathers, they are obvious in the fossil record.

There is only speculation as to what the fossil record tells us. It depends on the worldview of those speculation as to what the conclusion will be. Only birds have feathers. So if feathers are found, it obviously came from a bird. I have thought dinosaurs were classified as only reptiles, but perhaps they are any large creature, such as hugh sea monsters, dragons, the woolly mammoth, and hugh birds.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is only speculation as to what the fossil record tells us. It depends on the worldview of those speculation as to what the conclusion will be. Only birds have feathers. So if feathers are found, it obviously came from a bird. I have thought dinosaurs were classified as only reptiles, but perhaps they are any large creature, such as hugh sea monsters, dragons, the wolly mammoth, and hugh birds.

Only birds have feathers. So if feathers are found, it obviously came from a bird.

FALSE!

http://www.mapoflife.org/topics/topic_345_Gliding-in-feathered-reptiles/

“...A number of reptile species have been discovered in the Mesozoic fossil record, bearing feathers …
…
….Within the last decade, a number of astonishingly preserved Mesozoic reptiles bearing bird-like traits have been unearthed in China. Two important examples among these are the small dromeosaur Microraptor gui (Early Cretaceous, 130-125 Ma) and the earlier archosaur Longisquama insignis (Late Triassic, 220 Ma). Both of these reptiles evolved heavily feathered bodies as a convergent adaptation to gliding between trees. As a dromeosaur, Microraptor is a member of the 'Deinonychosauria', adjacent to the Avialae (group containing true birds), and it possesses feathers with asymmetric vanes (as in birds) arranged to form paired forewings and hindwings, with a terminal diamond-shaped fan on the tail. ….”

-there is a fossil shown there in the link clearly showing the fossilised feathers on the fossil of the lizard. So this CLEARLY isn't “only speculation” as you said.

So you are talking crap as usual. Not surprisingly given your complete ignorance of science, you repeatedly demonstrate that simply don't know what you are talking about when you are talking about biology and palaeontology.