Author Topic: Any good books, articles refuting evolution? (Read 2437 times)

lefebvre_fan · « **Reply #15 on:** August 31, 2012, 11:15:15 AM »

Quote from: Vandaler

LF, my view point is irrelevant, I'm only interested in this thread because you genuinely want to debate your point. I like debate, so I don't mind handing my help even if I don't side with you.
Quote

The only reason I bring this up is because I'm concerned about the well-being of your soul. Modern evolutionary theory is atheistic in essence, and can only lead to great harm to the faith of the individual who believes in it. Would you prefer that I not care about your eternal welfare?

Quote from: Vandaler
In essence, I would challenge your assertion that multi-cells are advantaged over single cells. The population of single cell organism is mind boggling high and there is no reasons to believe that they will be evolved-out.

Um, perhaps you need to read what I wrote again. What you've just written actually supports what I said, not detracts from it:

Quote from: lefebvre_fan
Again, what would be the benefit of becoming a multi-celled organism, since it seems that single-cell organisms are the best able to adapt to new environments and are best able to reproduce themselves? Why would nature, then, favour multi-cellular organisms, and in such abundance?

lefebvre_fan · « **Reply #16 on:** August 31, 2012, 11:16:57 AM »

Seriously, why is the MbCode not working for me today? I made sure it was checked. Grr...

Anyway, I'm going to be gone away this weekend, and I won't have internet access, so I won't be able to debate with you until I get back (although that wasn't really the reason I started this thread). I'll leave it to others for now, if they wish.

Vandaler · « **Reply #17 on:** August 31, 2012, 11:25:17 AM »

I'm saying: choose your battles... Who claims that "multi-cells are favored by evolution and in such abundance" besides you?

I appreciate your concern but don't want it to derail the discussion.

Graham · « **Reply #18 on:** August 31, 2012, 11:32:22 AM »

Quote from: Graham

The Transformist Illusion by Douglas Dewar is extremely good, if a bit old.

And here is the full text of another Dewar classic, Is Evolution Proved: a debate between Douglas Dewar and H.S. Shelton.

lefebvre_fan · « **Reply #19 on:** August 31, 2012, 11:57:55 AM »

Quote from: Vandaler

I'm saying: choose your battles...
Quote

And I'm saying that it's a battle worth choosing. I believe (and not without reason, I think) that the widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution in modern times has been one of the most devastating things to happen to the faith of humanity throughout our history. It's a cancer that has been allowed to spread and multiply, and pretty soon it will destroy whatever healthy tissue there is that remains. About the only thing that can heal the world now would be the direct intervention of God. When the sixth age of the Church--that period of peace promised by Our Lady after Russia is consecrated to her Immaculate Heart--comes, as the Ven. Holzhauser tells us (see this thread), the false evolutionary doctrines will be done away with and will no longer impede scientific progress. Instead:

Quote
The sciences will be multiplied and complete on the earth. The Holy Scriptures will be unanimously understood, without controversy and without the errors of heresies. Men will be enlightened, so much as in the natural sciences and in the celestial sciences…

Quote from: Vandaler
Who claims that "multi-cells are favored by evolution and in such abundance" besides you?

I think you've misunderstood me. What I am asking (if you read my question in full) is why would evolution favour multi-cell organisms, as opposed to single-cell organisms, since single-cell organisms are so much better than adapting, and hence surviving long enough to pass on their traits, than multi-cell organisms, and since single-cell organisms are able to reproduce so quickly and easily. My question boils down to this: why would natural selection favour multi-cellular organisms when multicellularity (is that a word?) would seem to inhibit the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce, and is therefore not a beneficial trait, but rather a disadvantageous one? And, even supposing that multi-cellularity was beneficial in one particular instance, why are there such an abundance of multi-cellular organisms, when a simple observation of nature would seem to indicate that the general rule is that simplicity, not complexity, makes one more adaptable and better able to reproduce and pass on one's traits to a new generation?

Do you understand what I'm saying now?

Vandaler · « **Reply #20 on:** August 31, 2012, 12:16:37 PM »

A little better yes....

I think your asking good questions, but still, questions that would be better asked into a biology class then on a religious forum where all are locked in by their faith into a contrarian position.

If you really want an informed opinion on the matter, why not ask in a scientifically inclined board? At least then, you'll be informed with the best information the other side has available. You don't want to construct a strawmen, Im sure, thus, you should get the best clarification you can get... Have a good weekend without Internet !

Belloc · « **Reply #21 on:** August 31, 2012, 12:23:05 PM »

Quote from: jen51

, such as the pointing out of evolutionary gaps, the flaws in Darwin's theories and also Darwin's own doubts/perplexities about evolution. .

you mean like the "missing link" yet to be found or proved.

Darwin had a personal loss, took it out on blaming God and hence, his mind and heart darkened. There are some videos, info from Dr. Robert Gentry

http://www.halos.com/

Belloc · « **Reply #22 on:** August 31, 2012, 12:24:39 PM »

Quote from: Vandaler

Quote from: lefebvre_fan
But this argument is self-refuting, for in the very first line, it states:

So, once again, what is the evolutionary advantage of becoming...

It's not self-refuting, since both can be true... It's not an either - or proposition.

Replace cell by individuals, and you will see that the same holds true. Individuals are extremely adaptable, yet, they benefit in forming clans and communities to exploit better ressources around them.

Also, you misunderstand evolutionary theory. It does not state that evolution occurs to profit from an advantage. Genetic alterations occur at random and only those random changes that are beneficial are rewarded with better chances to reproduce.

one has to at its heart, explain where the first atom came from that led to the universe.....at some point, that or ion, whatever, had to come into being from somewhere......so, where?

Belloc · « **Reply #23 on:** August 31, 2012, 01:14:35 PM »

Forgot to mention, get Sungenis' talk from this past Restoring Christendom weekend seminar......

notes that now scientists cannot explain were that first atom came from, now they are trying to blame it on parallel universes, somehow those materials came here for the Bang......same problem, were and how did those universes form and where was the first atom there, then........and on.......

Good talk on this topic......

Cuthbert · « **Reply #24 on:** August 31, 2012, 03:09:38 PM »

The Death of Evolution by Wallace Johnson, from TAN books is quite good. It demonstrates the fact that honest scientists admit that there is no real basis for their theories, & also explains how science itself refutes evolution. The potassium-argon method of dating rocks for instance has been proved to be utterly worthless. It was used to test volcanic rock in Hawaii, the age of which was known, it was formed during the early 19th century; the results of the test proclaimed the rock to be 22 million years old. Scores of similar things are written of in this book.

Think about that the next time some evolutionist is trying to tell us that such & such a rock is 4 billion years old, or whatever the case may be. He might as well say that it's 5,000,000 quadrillion years old, with as much basis in reality. They've been caught engaging in outright fraud countless times, Piltdown man, Peking man, the one in Nebraska which I can't remember the name of, but which in any event proved to be nothing more than the tooth of a wild pig.....it goes on & on.

Anyhow, regarding the book, The Death of Evolution, one of the best things about it is its explanation of terms used, & the use of regular English wherever possible, it doesn't bombard the reader with so much jargon, that if he hasn't spent the last 50 years intensively studying nothing else than the subject at hand, it might as well be written half in English, & half in Chinese, always a good thing, & unfortunately increasingly rare.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #25 on:** September 01, 2012, 12:10:03 AM »

Darwin on Trial

I found this quite compelling even back when I was still an atheist

JohnGrey · « **Reply #26 on:** September 03, 2012, 10:24:15 PM »

Quote from: momofmany

Darwins Black Box

You'll want to stay away from this book, as it's been debunked many times. The problem with Behe's regarding verterbrate coagulant mechanisms, and by extension the entire notion of irreducible complexity, is that the question was answered nearly a century ago by Mueller. The existence of a vital component does not preclude the idea that a functionally similar mechanism existed that was shed once the superior mechanism arose. From a scientific standpoint, it won't wash.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #27 on:** September 03, 2012, 10:35:50 PM »

Quote from: lefebvre_fan

I think you've misunderstood me. What I am asking (if you read my question in full) is why would evolution favour multi-cell organisms, as opposed to single-cell organisms, since single-cell organisms are so much better than adapting, and hence surviving long enough to pass on their traits, than multi-cell organisms, and since single-cell organisms are able to reproduce so quickly and easily. My question boils down to this: why would natural selection favour multi-cellular organisms when multicellularity (is that a word?) would seem to inhibit the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce, and is therefore not a beneficial trait, but rather a disadvantageous one? And, even supposing that multi-cellularity was beneficial in one particular instance, why are there such an abundance of multi-cellular organisms, when a simple observation of nature would seem to indicate that the general rule is that simplicity, not complexity, makes one more adaptable and better able to reproduce and pass on one's traits to a new generation?

Do you understand what I'm saying now?

You suggest that the evolutionary advantage would be held by the unicellular rather than the muticellular? You are incorrect in suggesting that unicellular organisms are better at adaptation that multicellular organisms. They adapt more rapidly, but that's a function of their lifespans being orders of magnitude smaller than ours. More than any other factor, the possibility for future adaptation is predicated on survival, and survival (in the sense of staving off biological entropy) requires the consumption of energy. A multicellular organism has much greater mobility, affording it greater opportunity to procure energy for growth and for reproduction, and is more resilient to a hostile environment. A unicellular organism is by its nature destroyed if it becomes fatally dysfunctional. A multicellular organism can survive a much greater portion of itself being damaged or killed.

clare · « **Reply #28 on:** September 04, 2012, 05:18:07 AM »

Also, The Kolbe Center has some good articles.