HomeCalendarFAQSearchRegisterLog in
Buddha Chat

Share | 
 

 Evolution is not a Fact !

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
The Philosopher
Admin
avatar

Male Number of posts : 320
Age : 73
Job/hobbies : Engineer
Registration date : 2008-11-21

PostSubject: Evolution is not a Fact !   Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:25 pm

.

Evolution is not a Fact !


I can explain to you how evolution cannot account for abiogenesis and the Beginning of ancestry of our origins.

This blind force (abiogenesis - "first" single-celled organism) is the
evolutionists starting assumption of where we come from. Because
Evolution teaches that mankind has descended from an ape-like creature.
This ape-like creature would have descended from this undefined
single-celled organism. The single-celled organism could not have come
into existence without this enigmatic beginning. Trying to define this
blind force would be a a critical factor on understanding the origins
of life. This single-celled organism willed itself into existence at
the urging of the blind force.

If this was the first living organism,What did it feed on and where did the food come from? How long did it live before reproducing? How did it reproduce? What was its life span?
It can be considered difficult to live long and prosper when its
surroundings was void of all other life. What were the conditions that
allowed survival, and how did those conditions arise? Did the organism
need oxygen? If so, where did the oxygen come from?


You know we are told that research of scientists, and evidence that
claims evolution is a fact. This is not true. It is based on the belief
that a blind force started all life and the result was our original
ancestor. You know, I find it very amazing that a single-celled
organism that lived in an undefined environment -- which one can barely
rationalize -- eventually reproduced itself but we do not know how
because there is no evidence for this.

.

_________________
.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that in the process, he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzche
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest
avatar


PostSubject: Re: Evolution is not a Fact !   Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:02 am

You know we are told that research of scientists, and evidence that
claims evolution is a fact. This is not true. You know we are told that research of scientists, and evidence that
claims evolution is a fact. This is not true. It is based on the belief
that a blind force started all life and the result was our original
ancestor. You know, I find it very amazing that a single-celled
organism that lived in an undefined environment -- which one can barely
rationalize -- eventually reproduced itself but we do not know how
because there is no evidence for this.

You know, I find it very amazing that a single-celled
organism that lived in an undefined environment -- which one can barely
rationalize -- eventually reproduced itself but we do not know how
because there is no evidence for this."



Reading your post has clearly shown to me that you really lack understanding of what Evolution really is. You say it is the belief that "Blind forces started life"!? Evolution does not even explain or even need to explain the origin of life. Abiogensis is unknown territory at the moment for science. We know it is true because there was atime when no life was on the planet and now there is. We do not know the details the farther back we go with regard to abiogensis. Evolution explains the disveristy of life not the origin and yes there is tons, TONS, and I repeat TONS! of evidence for evolution. It is a theory that has become stronger not weaker over time.
Back to top Go down
The Philosopher
Admin
avatar

Male Number of posts : 320
Age : 73
Job/hobbies : Engineer
Registration date : 2008-11-21

PostSubject: Re: Evolution is not a Fact !   Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:31 am

.
Let sum up first at what were dealing with here.

Abiogenesis = "chemical evolution" = 'first' single-celled organism that produced all things ; all animals, all plants, etc.

This came from the Big Bang.

Big Bang - all energy and matter was compacted into a "singularity" and then expanded overtime over the course of billions of years.

Big Bang is for another time. were mainly talking about abiogenesis and evolution.

Ask your dad, How he knows "abiogenesis" is true?

This theory cannot be proven observable so how did it in fact become "truth?" The main problems with abiogenesis that need to be answered if one wants to be logically correct and rational for their worldview of presuppositions.

1. What were the inner and outer components of this single-celled organism? What did it look like?

2. How did this single-celled organism reproduce and when was it able to reproduce? What was reproduced in the process?

3. How did the organism survive? If all the life forms came through this organism, Where did it feed, and what did it feed on for these billions of years?

4. The species that were reproduced did it need oxygen and where did the oxygen come from if it needed it?

5. Nucleotides and proteins are entirely different molecules. How can evolution explain the concomitant production of one by the other i.e. the chicken-and-egg-relationship of DNA, RNA and protein in the "primordial soup." It is impossible to produce one without having produced the others first.

6. What were the chemicals of the organism made of, to produce such complex system like the blood that circulates throughout the bodies of all living things which contains blood cells that contains DNA that have base pairs consisting of Adenine, Cytosine, Thymine, and Guanine that is connected together by the sugar-phosphate backbone?

7. This organism had to be acted upon something, what is this "force?" The answer is "Blind force", why does it have to blind? And what is guiding this blind force?

(If his answer is "chemical reactions" ask him this. If all abiogenesis is, is made of chemical reactions that produced all living things that are composed of nothing but chemical reactions then what is your basis for saying killing someone is murder?)

(^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- The reason for the question above, about morality is because in the Bible, GOD created us as Human beings, therefore he made an Objective moral code for us to abide by since he created us and put himself known unto us. We know it is wrong to murder because of God's moral standard and he is our master because he created us. As for the evolutionary worldview, we have no master, because we are nothing but products of "chance" therefore we do not have to abide by any kind of moral code whatsoever because We are our own master. So, why does your father hold "killing someone" is murder and wrong if he has no basis for this?)

These are the only questions I know for abiogenesis. Now as you can see that Evolutionists cannot account, Rationally, for the origin of life because this organism lives in an undefined environment, and the theory itself is undefined because they do not know; What it is made of and what its environment was like, Where it came, When it came about, Why it is there, how it reproduced and the etc... All of this is not been rationalized therefore it is a fallacious argument and is to be dismissed as even a theory because this theory dates back to the 1800's and these questions have not been answered.

As for the Bible. It states; HOW we were made, Where we were made, What we were made of and the environment, How we reproduce, Why we were made, Who was made, and When we were made. The Bible is Rationalized, the Bible has "defined" our origin of life and the environment we live in, as for evolution (????????? And ??????????)

You know, in 2 Peter 3:3-9 it shows what evolutionists will do in the last days.

Verse 3 talks about scoffers - (to know what a 'scoffer' is relate to Isaiah 5:20)

Verse 4 talks about how they will say, life will go on for millions of earth like it has in the past in which they cannot give a rational basis for according to Hebrews 1:3 :

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

Because GOD upholds everything. Not mankind and evolution has no basis for this, if were nothing but random chance processes because if we are chemical reactions then that means were like Baking soda and vinegar. We have no choice but to chemically react, so what basis would we have for such a belief?

Verse 5 speaks about them being willingly ignorant of the word of God and they will deny the creation of the earth, (Big Bang). Evolution teaches that the earth of was a molten blob, not according to verse 4. This is the denial # 1.

Verse 6 - Denial # 2 by evolutionists. They do not believe in the flood. They teach that a flood could not have happened because of certain evidences that teach such things but it totally just undefined assertions. Like; Where did the water go? What about the fossil record? If they quit committing prejudicial conjectures they would know these things are true. but they still deny it.

Verse 7 - Denial # 3 by evolutionists. They do not believe in the coming judgment of Christ JESUS. Evolution teaches the Heat Freeze - Which is where everything expands so much that the earth is unable to attain heat therefore we all freeze. Also the Big Crunch where the universe de-explands and crunches us with the sun.

The Bible clearly shows evolution as a prophesy right before our very eyes.

Romans 1:18-20 - Shows us that evolutionists teaches truth in unrighteousness and GOD has shews all of things that can be clearly seen the need for a GOD! So they are without excuse.

Romans 1:21-22 - Shows the evolutionists ignorance and high conceited selves. Even though they know God they glorified HIM not as GOD, but professed to be "wise" according to their own knowledge which is fallacious. Relate to Isaiah 5:20-30, Proverbs 14:12.

Romans 1:23-25 - Shows what evolutionists have done and what they are doing. They have changed the way GOD is, by Verse 25 supporting the two before it. They serve the Creature more than the Creator. (Creature = Evolution of species over the course of billions of years.)

Romans 1:26-32 - Shows what the "fruits" of evolution are. Verse 28 explains why the fruits are those of that they are. Verse 28 and Verse 32 correspond to the vile afflictions that are stated. They did not retain God in their knowledge so they could have pleasure in doing the things they want to do, instead of being under the authority of God. I showed how evolution does this with them not having a basis for morality.

2 Peter 2:1-3 shows what they teach is destructive.

1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

Verse 1 shows that is damnable heresies. Which is described in the other verses.

Pernicious in verse two means "Wicked" according to the dictionary. Truth shall be spoken evil of (The Bible).

Verse 3 says - "feigned words" this means "told as truth" according to dictionary of the word feigned. This is exactly what evolution is foing today to millions around the world. (The book of JUDE also explains this.)

Why can't evolutionists see the truth? Relate to (Romans 1:28, John 3:19, Matthew 13:14-15)

How do we know objective moral code is by JESUS? (Romans 3:19-20)

19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

So, as we can see when your Dad says, Killing is murder he is referring to a Biblical principle in which he has no basis for which makes his worldview inconsistent and arbitrarily incorrect because for a worldview to be logically correct you have to be rational, internally consistent and non-arbitrary. He is being irrational when he says killing is murder. He knows it is murder by the implanted objective law GOD has set for mankind which shows we were created by JESUS CHRIST.

Arguing against Creation with evolution is like arguing over the existence for Air. For the critic to even make an argument he would have to be wrong because he would have to use air to make his argument because sound travels through air. Air has to exists. For evolutionists to argue against creation they have to take biblical creation principles to even argue against it therefore it has to be wrong to even make an argument against creation. This is how it goes;

CREATION = GOD DECIDES TRUTH = GOD MADE MAN KIND = OBJECTIVE MORALITY = PEACE, HAPPINESS, ETC.

EVOLUTION = MAN DECIDES TRUTH = RANDOM CHANCE MADE MAN = SUBJECTIVE MORALITY = ABORTION, HOMOSEXUALITY, ETC.

Evidence for evolution for abortion and the ETC? I have showed how evolution teaches Subjective morality, Where mankind determines what is right or wrong. Guess what we have today in America? HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS. We have legalized "Abortions"...Why?? HRA - Human rights activists say, people should have a FREEDOM OF CHOICE! Therefore killing a baby is not wrong. IT IS MURDER! Homosexuality -- HRA say, people should have a FREEDOM OF CHOICE! It exactly lines up with the teachings of evolution. And many more.

I can go on and on, about other stuff, but this is the main point I was talking about.
.

_________________
.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that in the process, he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzche
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest
avatar


PostSubject: Nuts   Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:34 am

"Abiogenesis = "chemical evolution" = 'first' single-celled organism that produced all things ; all animals, all plants, etc."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

"This came from the Big Bang."

Well everything came from the Big Bang and in a sense everything is the Big Bang.


"Big Bang - all energy and matter was compacted into a "singularity" and then expanded overtime over the course of billions of years."

Was matter compacted too or was energy converted? you know E=mc2


"Big Bang is for another time. were mainly talking about abiogenesis and evolution."

You brought it up.

"This theory cannot be proven observable so how did it in fact become "truth?" The main problems with abiogenesis that need to be answered if one wants to be logically correct and rational for their worldview of presuppositions".

Yes it happened billions of years ago and we can't directly observe it. It became truth because we know life was not here few billion years ago and then it was and here we are. The question on "How" it happen scientists are looking into it.

1. What were the inner and outer components of this single-celled organism? What did it look like?

You could be jumping ahead of yourself. May not even been a cell.

2. How did this single-celled organism reproduce and when was it able to reproduce? What was reproduced in the process?


Well sex was a later development so I would say some kind of cell division.

3. How did the organism survive? If all the life forms came through this organism, Where did it feed, and what did it feed on for these billions of years?


It may not been just one organism floating around be itself. It is one type floating in the oceans among millions of others. It was in the oceans so it must of feed in them. What did it eat I don't know.


4. The species that were reproduced did it need oxygen and where did the oxygen come from if it needed it?


It did not need oxygen because the Earth's atmosphere had very low amounts (if any) of oxygen. Life actually started without the need for oxygen and over time as oxygen did build up a mutation happened that caused an organism to be able to survive in a oxygen filled enviroment. We and the rest of the animals are the desendents of those mutations.

5. Nucleotides and proteins are entirely different molecules. How can evolution explain the concomitant production of one by the other i.e. the chicken-and-egg-relationship of DNA, RNA and protein in the "primordial soup." It is impossible to produce one without having produced the others first.


http://irreduciblecomplexity.org/



6. What were the chemicals of the organism made of, to produce such complex system like the blood that circulates throughout the bodies of all living things which contains blood cells that contains DNA that have base pairs consisting of Adenine, Cytosine, Thymine, and Guanine that is connected together by the sugar-phosphate backbone?


Do you think dirt is a better answer?


7. This organism had to be acted upon something, what is this "force?" The answer is "Blind force", why does it have to blind? And what is guiding this blind force?


Natural selection would have started after the enviroment was flooded with these creatures. It is "blind" because there is no special goal that needs to be reached and no "guiding" process.



(If his answer is "chemical reactions" ask him this. If all abiogenesis is, is made of chemical reactions that produced all living things that are composed of nothing but chemical reactions then what is your basis for saying killing someone is murder?)


Sometimes it is not murder to kill someone. Self-defense which result in a death is not murder. Even in war, soldiers killing each other is not considered murder. The war crimes are those killings on civilians or prisoners which is murder.

Calling a killing a murder is based on the fact that someone wrongfully took another person's life without rightful cause. The person was not a threat etc. That is the basis, because most people don't want to live in a world where you have to look over your shoulder all day long to see if you are going to be killed. I have no desire to kill anyone and I don't want to cause pain and suffering to the families either. "chemical reactions" are such a loving and thoughtful phenomenon.



The reason for the question above, about morality is because in the Bible, GOD created us as Human beings, therefore he made an Objective moral code for us to abide by since he created us and put himself known unto us. We know it is wrong to murder because of God's moral standard and he is our master because he created us. As for the evolutionary worldview, we have no master, because we are nothing but products of "chance" therefore we do not have to abide by any kind of moral code whatsoever because We are our own master. So, why does your father hold "killing someone" is murder and wrong if he has no basis for this?

Have you ever read the Jewish Scriptures? God is always murdering and commanding people to murder too.

I think abiding by any "moral code" is alway going to lead to immorality.

"When the people of the world all know beauty as beauty,
There arises the recognition of ugliness.
When they all know the good as good,
There arises the recognition of evil." - Lao Tzu



As for the Bible. It states; HOW we were made, Where we were made, What we were made of and the environment, How we reproduce, Why we were made, Who was made, and When we were made. The Bible is Rationalized, the Bible has "defined" our origin of life and the environment we live in, as for evolution (????????? And ??????????)


Just because it states how doesn't mean it is right. It is already proven that the bible has at least 80,000 errors in it so it would be foolish to use it for answers.

CREATION = GOD DECIDES TRUTH = GOD MADE MAN KIND = OBJECTIVE MORALITY = PEACE, HAPPINESS


EVOLUTION = MAN DECIDES TRUTH = RANDOM CHANCE MADE MAN = SUBJECTIVE MORALITY = ABORTION, HOMOSEXUALITY

ohhhh please!

first Evolution (science) does not decide what is truth. Nature, the universe decides that. Scientists simply record their findings from what they find in nautre.

So God "decides" what is true?

Is it true because God commands it or does God command it because it is true?

Can this God "decides" right now whether the Bible is true or false?




Evidence for evolution for abortion and the ETC? I have showed how evolution teaches Subjective morality,

No, you have not.

Where mankind determines what is right or wrong.

something is right and wrong in nature and doesnt change, Scientists simply find out what it is. Science (unlike religion) has a self correcting ability and when we discover a better theory we improve on the old.

Guess what we have today in America? HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS. We have legalized "Abortions"...Why?? HRA - Human rights activists say, people should have a FREEDOM OF CHOICE! Therefore killing a baby is not wrong. IT IS MURDER! Homosexuality -- HRA say, people should have a FREEDOM OF CHOICE! It exactly lines up with the teachings of evolution. And many more.
I can go on and on, about other stuff, but this is the main point I was talking about.


Your main point????? You just went into a rant into so many different things. I thought we were talking about Abiogenesis? You talked about the Bible, Murder, Homosexuality, Abortion????

.
Back to top Go down
The Philosopher
Admin
avatar

Male Number of posts : 320
Age : 73
Job/hobbies : Engineer
Registration date : 2008-11-21

PostSubject: Re: Evolution is not a Fact !   Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:38 pm

.
I forgot to add this in the message. If biblical creation were not "true" or "truth." Then we as humans would not know one thing.

1. Everyone has a "conscience" (Con = With, Science = Knowledge, Conscience = With Knowledge.) Where does this "conscience" come from?

2. Why do we as "humans" wear clothes? Give a rational explanation that is reasonable as to why you wear the clothes your wearing right now while being internally consistent.

(If he is wearing clothes at the moment you read this; he is being inconsistent because this is a Biblical Principle. Recall, when in the garden, GOD killed two lambs to make a covering for Adam and Eve because they were "NAKED.")

3. Can you give a logical explanation for the origin of communication (Language) within the human generation?

(If he gives you any kind of answer he is being irrational because he has no basis for talking to anyone. Because God created "Language" so we could communicate with GOD and with each other.)

4. Can you give a logical explanation as to why you are married and are in love with your 'wife" (your mom) ?

(If he gives any explanation for this, he is being irrational. JESUS created marriage between a male and female. He made Adam and Eve, male and female as stated in Matthew 19:4

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

If biblical creation were not true, how could there be a basis for marriage and love? According to evolution "love" would be just a chemical reaction, so how do you know your truly in love if it is just a random chance process? I can tell you why, "CONSCIENCE!" GOD GAVE IT TO YOU! And evolution since everyone is there own master, what is there basis for having marriage if it is a biblical principle? He is being inconsistent here. A lot of times. )

5. Can you give a logical explanation as to why you eat meat like; Hamburger, Steak?

(If he says anything it is arbitrary because this cannot be justified in any other way except the Biblical Account in Genesis. We all were vegetarian at one point in time before the fall, after the fall animals ate other animals. After Noah's flood JESUS said it was okay to eat meat. What basis does evolution have to explain this rationally?

If Biblical Creation we would know nothing because there would be no preconditions of intelligibility; Absolute morality, reliability of senses, Reliability of memory, uniformity of nature, and the etc...Why?

Because JESUS says, in Proverbs 1:7, Proverbs 1:29, Colassians 2:3 it shows us that ALL KNOWLEDGE IS GIVEN THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST AND BY HIM! Without JESUS no knowledge would be available. That is the ultimate proof for creation. Without the Biblical Creation we could know not one thing. For there to be laws of logic a precondition of intelligibility, they have to already exist so we can have reasonings with each other logically. And all knowledge starts with Christ so, God is the basis for it. All preconditions of intelligibility "HAVE TO BE ASSUMED" before anything can become knowledgeable because they have to already exist, So I ask your Father, If biblical creation were not true, HOW do these preconditions have effect in this Universe and WHERE did they come from? HOW do we have a basis for saying something is reliable by memory if there is no foundation for it to built upon and if there is no foundation how do we even know it is there? But the thing is "WE KNOW" it is there, there is a foundation. What is this foundation?
.

_________________
.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that in the process, he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzche
Back to top Go down
bhbecker
Beginner


Male Number of posts : 1
Age : 25
Location : Chile and West Virginia
Registration date : 2009-10-25

PostSubject: Re: Evolution is not a Fact !   Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:22 am

I am not going to back and answer questions one by one, nor am I going to nitpick through all of the statements.
Instead, I'd like to throw out a couple of concepts that make all of this a lot more palatable and a lot easier to comprehend.

1. That which exists today is that which is good at existing.
This is the underlying force of evolution, and it applies to everything around us. A really good example of this is viruses. Viruses are constructed so that they can propagate themselves by hosting off of living organisms. Viruses themselves are not alive. They have no goal. They have no will to live. They just happen to be constructed in a way that makes them good at propagating themselves and being good at existing. Think of this as just one link in the chain of "evolution" through time. When something happens to become assembled in some manner that lets it make more of itself, it continues to exist and in greater quantities than things that don't. As this process continues throughout time, it's not that inconceivable that eventually we end up with things as complex and proficient at continuing to exist as humans.

2. A 1 in a million lottery isn't such bad odds if you have 1 million tickets. You may be thinking, what is the probability that molecules would organize in such a way that leads to creating a cell? Yes, the probability is probably too small to conceive, but then again, the universe is too large for the human conception to comprehend it's vastness.
Back to top Go down
NiveusCella
Member


Female Number of posts : 3
Age : 21
Location : Somewhere
Registration date : 2009-12-02

PostSubject: A quote from Brian Dunning   Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:12 am

Debating with a creationist is actually really easy, because they
only have a few standard arguments, and haven't come up with any new
cogent ones for some time. These standard arguments have been published
time and time again, and a practiced creationist can handily draw them
like a six-gun at the drop of a hat. All of their arguments are silly
in their wrongness and easily debunked, and if you're prepared in
advance, it's easy to beat down any creationist with a quick verbal
body slam. You're not going to change their mind, since creationists do
not base their opinions upon rational study of the evidence; but you
might help clear things up for an innocent bystander who overhears.
So here are the standard arguments for creationism, and the standard
rebuttals from the scientific consensus, starting with my favorite:
Evolution is just a theory, not a fact.
This is an easily digestible sound bite intended to show that evolution
is just an unproven hypothesis, like any other, and thus should not be
taught in schools as if it were fact. Actually, evolution is both a
theory and a fact. A fact is something we observe in the world, and a
theory is our best explanation for it. Stephen Jay Gould famously
addressed this argument by pointing out that the fact of gravity is
that things fall, and our theory of gravity began with Isaac Newton and
was later replaced by Einstein's improved theory. The current state of
our theory to explain gravity does not affect the fact that things
fall. Similarly, Darwin's original theory of evolution was highly
incomplete and had plenty of errors. Today's theory is still incomplete
but it's a thousand times better than it was in Darwin's day. But the
state of our explanation does not affect the observed fact that species
evolve over time.
The next argument you're likely to encounter states that Evolution is controversial; scientists disagree on its validity.
Creationists have latched onto the fact that evolutionary biologists
still have competing theories to explain numerous minor aspects of
evolution. Throwing out evolution for this reason would be like
dismissing the use of tires on cars because there are competing tread
designs. Despite the claim of widespread controversy, no significant
number of scientists doubt either the fact of evolution or the validity
of the theory as a whole. Creationists often publish lists of
scientists whom they say reject evolution. These lists are probably
true. In the United States, the majority of the general public are
creationists of one flavor or another. But the scientific community has
a very different opinion: Most surveys of scientists find that 95 to 98
percent accept evolution just as they do other aspects of the natural
world.
Creationists also argue that Evolution is not falsifiable, therefore it's not science.
One of the fundamentals of any science is that it's falsifiable. If a
test can be derived that, if it were to fail, falsified a proposition,
then that proposition meets a basic test of being a science. Something
that cannot be tested and falsified, like the existence of gods, is
therefore not a science. Creationists accept this to the point that
they use it as an argument against evolution's status as a science.
In fact, evolution could be very easily falsified. Evolutionary
biologist JBS Haldane famously said that a fossilized rabbit from the
Precambrian era would do it. Another way to falsify evolution would be
to test any of the innumerable predictions it makes, and see if the
observation doesn't match what was predicted. Creationists are invited
to go through all the predictions made in the evolutionary literature,
and if they can genuinely find that not a single one is testable, then
they're right.
The next argument to be prepared for is that Evolution is itself a religion.
This argument has become increasingly popular in recent years as
creationists have tried to bolster their own position by decorating it
with scientific-sounding words like intelligent design. And as they try
to convince us that their own position is science based, they
correspondingly mock evolution by calling it a religion of those who
worship Darwin as a prophet and accept its tenets on faith since there
is no evidence supporting evolution. Clearly this is an argument that
could only be persuasive to people who know little or nothing about the
concept of evolution or Darwin's role in its development. This argument
is easily dismissed. A religion is the worship of a supernatural divine
superbeing, and there is nothing anywhere in the theory of evolution
that makes reference to such a being, and not a single living human
considers himself a member of any "evolution church."
Creationists also like to argue that Evolution cannot be observed.
Part of what you need to do to validate a theory is to test it and
observe the results. Although there are evolutionary phenomena that can
be directly observed like dog breeding and lab experiments with fruit
flies, most of what evolution explains has happened over millions of
years and so, quite obviously, nobody was around to observe most of it.
This is true, but it misstates what observation consists of. There's a
lot of observation in science where we have to use evidence of an
event: certain chemical reactions, subatomic particle physics,
theoretical physics; all of these disciplines involve experimentation
and observation where the actual events can't be witnessed. The theory
of evolution was originally developed to explain the evidence that was
observed from the fossil record. So in this respect, every significant
aspect of evolution has been exhaustively observed and documented, many
times over.
One of the most tiresome creationist arguments against evolution tries to claim that There is an absence of transitional fossils. If the ancestor of the modern horse Miohippus evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus,
then surely there must be examples of transitional fossils that would
show characteristics of both, or perhaps an intermediate stage. I use
the horse example because the fossil record of horses is exceptionally
well represented with many finds. If evolution is true, shouldn't there
be examples of transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus?
The creationists say that there are not. Well, there are, and in
abundance. You can tell people that there aren't, but you're either
intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a
subject you're claiming to be authoritative on. Kathleen Hunt of the
University of Washington writes:

A typical Miohippus was distinctly larger than a
typical Mesohippus, with a slightly longer skull. The facial fossa was
deeper and more expanded. In addition, the ankle joint had changed
subtly. Miohippus also began to show a variable extra crest on its
upper cheek teeth. In later horse species, this crest became a
characteristic feature of the teeth. This is an excellent example of
how new traits originate as variations in the ancestral population.

The layperson need look no deeper than Wikipedia to find a long list
of transitional fossils. But be aware that many species known only from
the fossil record may be known by only one skeleton, often incomplete.
The older fossil records are simply too sparse to expect any form of
completeness, especially if you're looking for complete transitions.
It's not going to happen. However, the theory of punctuated equilibrium
predicts that in many cases there will be no transitional fossils, so
in a lot of these cases, creationists are pointing to the absence of
fossils that evolutionary theory predicts probably never existed.
Here's another creationist argument, and when I first heard it I said "What the heck are they talking about??" It's that Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics states that there is no reverse
entropy in any isolated system. The available energy in a closed system
will stay the same or decrease over time, and the overall entropy of
such a system can only increase or stay the same. This is an immutable
physical law, and it's true. Creationists argue that this means a
complex system, like a living organism, cannot form on its own, as that
would be a decrease of entropy. Order from disorder, they argue, is
physically impossible without divine intervention. This argument is
easy to make if you oversimplify the law to the point of ignoring its
principal qualification: that it only applies to a closed, isolated
system. If you attempt to apply it to any system, such as a plant,
animal, or deck of cards, you've just proven that photosynthesis,
growth, and unshuffling are impossible too. Organisms are open systems
(as was the proverbial primordial goo), since they exchange material
and energy with their surroundings, and so the second law of
thermodynamics is not relevant to them. Innumerable natural and
artificial processes produce order from disorder in open systems using
external energy and material.
In a related vein, creationists also argue that Evolution cannot create complex structures with irreducible complexity. This argument was made famous by Michael Behe, an evangelical biochemist, who coined the term irreducible complexity.
Take a complex structure like an eyeball, and remove any part of it to
simulate evolution in reverse, and it will no longer function. Thus, an
eyeball cannot have evolved through natural selection, as a
non-functioning structure would not be a genetic advantage. It seems
like it makes sense at face value, but it's based on a tremendously
faulty concept. Evolution in reverse is not accurately simulated by
taking a cleaver and hacking an eyeball in half. The animal kingdom is
full of examples of simpler eye structures, all of which are
functional, all of which are irreducibly complex, and all of which are
susceptible to further refinement through evolution. For a dramatic
visual example of how irreducible complexity can and does evolve
through gradual refinement, and yet remain irreducibly complex, take a
look at Lee Graham's applet the Irreducible Complexity Evolver at http://www.stellaralchemy.com/ice/.
Another effort to fight science using logic states that It's too improbable for complex life forms to develop by chance.
This is the old "747 in a junkyard" argument. How likely is it that a
tornado would go through a junkyard, and by chance, happen to assemble
a perfect 747? The same argument was made centuries ago by William
Paley, except he referred to the exquisite design of a pocketwatch, and
pointed out that such a thing is so complex and delicate that it had to
have been designed from the top down by a creator. This argument is
simply reflective of ignorance of the extraordinary power of
evolution's bottom-up design mechanism. Once you have an understanding
of multigenerational mutation and natural selection, and also
understand how structures with irreducible complexity evolve, there's
nothing unlikely or implausible about evolution at all. In fact,
genetic algorithms (the computer software version of evolution), are
starting to take over the world of invention with innovative new
engineering advances that top-down designers like human beings might
have never come up with. Bottom-up design is not only probable, it's
inevitable and nearly always produces better designs than any
intelligent creator could have.
You should also be prepared to hear that Evolution cannot create new information.
Based on a misinterpretation of information theory, this argument
states that the new information required to create a new species cannot
suddenly spawn into existence spontaneously; new information can only
come from an outside source, namely, an intelligent creator. This
particular argument doesn't go very far, since any genetic mutation or
duplication can only be described as new information. Not all of that
information is good. Most of it's useless, but once in a blue moon you
get a piece that's beneficial to the organism. New genetic information
is observed in evolutionary processes every day.
For a final blow from the logic department, be ready for the argument that Evolution does not explain some aspects of life or culture.
This is an argument which is really just a logical fallacy: that since
evolution does not explain everything, it is therefore entirely false.
Evolutionary biologists are the first ones to stand up and say that
there are still plenty of aspects of life we're still learning about.
That doesn't make the things we've already learned wrong. It's also
increasingly common for creationists to point to things that have
nothing to do with the origin of life and speciation, like the Big Bang
and the age of the earth, and argue that since the theory of evolution
does not explain those things as well, it is therefore false. This is
an even greater logical fallacy. Theories explain only those observed
phenomena they are designed to explain. They are not intended to have
anything to do with stuff they have nothing to do with.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Evolution is not a Fact !   

Back to top Go down
 
Evolution is not a Fact !
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Orbital Evolution of a Saturn-Jupiter configuration within a disk
» Tidal evolution of habitable planets
» A Cosmetic Dentist in New York talks about the Evolution of Dentistry
» Trunews with Ray Comfort on "Evolution vs God"
» Bionics, Transhumanism, and the end of Evolution (Full Documentary)

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
The Philosophical Perfection Forum :: General Forum :: Philosophical Debates-
Jump to: