Announcement

**Theo Gren** · 08-02-2012, 04:53 PM

Yay, a debate! You've got a lot of points there, and I'll try my best to counter them. I personally think the theory of evolution is good, but not perfect. At the very least, it's better than creationism. Here's my responses to your arguments.

1- The complexity of living organisms could never evolve by chance, they had to be planned. A system that is extremely complex has components working together to perform a function. If any part of that system was missing it would be unable to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and planned. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a maker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created. (Source: http://creationismunleashed.blogspot.com)

1. Irreducible Complexity appears to be a major flaw for the theory of evolution, but it's been mostly rejected by the scientific community. Studies and tests have proven systems that require all parts to function can evolve.
As well, you're ignoring the century old refutation, systems could have evolved from simpler systems that were functional but solved a different problem. As well, it's not random. Mutations are random, natural selection is not random.
The watch analogy is not valid because a watch is an inanimate object. Biological evolution occurs within systems that are self-reproducing and contain variation and differential survival and reproduction. Life can use energy to grow, reproduce, and therefore evolve. Watches do not.(Source:TheNess.com)

2- Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution. (Source: Sandwalk.blogspot.com)

2. The person writing that site hasn't taken a basic course in genetics. there's a kind of mutation call Gene Duplication where the gene copies itself, sometimes imperfectly to create a new gene. Even if this gene is an exact copy, it can undergo a mutation later on to change it to a new gene.

3- There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of missing links required for evolution to be true. Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been. (Source: http://creationismunleashed.blogspot.com)

3. The “there are no transitional forms” argument is a simple lie – and a lie that is getting more bold and desperate as more and more fossils are discovered. In reality – all species are transitional. Transitional does not mean some impossible monster or bizarre hybrid. Transitional just means that one species can be seen to bridge two other species (morphologically, genetically). All the transitional species can both be extant, or the transitional species can be ancestral to the other two, or three species may lie in a temporal sequence.

The notion that the categories of living things can be cleanly divided into “kinds” (without, by the way, every defining what a “kind” is) is patently wrong. The categories of life are frustratingly fuzzy – precisely because evolution is a chaotic process. Are duck-billed platypus mammals? What about fish with lungs, are they fish or terrestrial vertebrates. The notion that dogs are dogs is nonsensical, because there is no objective demarcation line. What about wolves, coyotes, hyenas, foxes, etc.? There is no objective place to draw a line and proclaim that you have a “kind.” There is rather a branching order of relatedness.

The fossil record has served to fill in the morphological gaps between extant species, as evolutionary theory predicts. We have discovered early mammals that are part reptile and part mammal, early birds that are still half theropod dinosaur, early terrestrial vertebrates that are still part fish (Tiktalik). We have discovered walking whales (Ambulocetus) that are only half-way adapted to aquatic life. We have even discovered numerous hominid species that are a mixture of modern human and ape ancestor features. Only the willfully blind can deny the transitional nature of these fossil species. (source: TheNess.com)

4- LIFE CAN NOT BE CREATED FROM NON-LIFE this is a simple scientific fact, the first thing that happened in the theory of evolution is bacteria being created by "lightening strikes" on the new-born atmosphere. This creating life is not only not probable, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. (Source: Me and my father D: )

4. This one is easily disproved. Ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment? They put water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen into sterile glass tubes and ran them through while firing sparks to simulate lightning. 10-15% of the carbon had turning into organic compounds, and 2% had turned into the 20 common amino acids that form proteins. The raw material is there and readily abundant.
As well, evolution isn't the creation of life or dependent on the naturalistic origin of life, it's the change of life over time.
As well, you're going to a basic fallacy, that the unknown is unknowable. Lack of knowledge doesn't rending something impossible.

5- The scientific method can only test existing data, it can not draw conclusions. Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. And even when it proves something is possible it does NOT mean it actually happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning science can only draw conclusions from present information. (Source: http://creationismunleashed.blogspot.com)

5. Science is not limited to direct observation! We can infer what happened, evidence is in our genes, in our anatomy, and our development, and in our physiology. It is recorded in the fossils that our ancestors left behind. The core of science is making testable predictions. Evolutionary theory makes predictions about what we should see if we look at the world, and so far the world's passed every test with flying colors.
Creationism predicts nothing, because any observation can be said to be the unfathomable and unlimited will of a creator. What can be said of a creator by looking at life is that, with all the patterns a creator could have chosen, they seem to have decided to make life look exactly like it had evolved.

**NakedCrook** · 08-02-2012, 06:11 PM

Lets face it guys...I could turn this thread into the Encyclopedia Britannia with all that I have to say on the subject matter...but...nobody will read it to the full extent, and then retain enough of it on the first run through to make a complete response. So I am gonna cut this down.

I will keep this short.

I am a spiritual man, I believe in God...but I have always been fascinated by the scientific method, but revolted by the mentality that "Science disproves God because our flawed methods say so". For people who claim to have "open minds" they are very quick to discount the existence of a higher being. I thought they were open minded. I guess they are lying. I wonder what else they are lying about.

Let's be honest...we observe evolution and adaptation all the time...even if it is small, such as people not being born with Wisdom Teeth, or major, such as over X amount of time, a species changing slightly to better live in certain conditions. But to say that any evidence we have found to support the notion of evolution to disprove a God, is seriously BOLD. There are still many flaws in some of the most important "tools" we use in support of an origin theory that discounts a God. Carbon-14 dating is a perfect example of this. Atheists love to say "Carbon-14 dating disproves the Bible..." but they leave out the part that says "...as long as you ignore the constant changes in the Earths electromagnetic field, the amount of carbon that is currently in the atmosphere, the fact that we have no baseline carbon amount, and any possible mistakes made during the dating process itself". The electromagnetic field of the Earth is constantly changing, it is never static. It is like trying to complete a mathematical formula where the value of variables X, Y, and Z are in constant flux. It cannot be done.

http://www.essortment.com/carbon-dat...ing-37183.html

Lets be honest...we have science constantly saying "Well...we have this 65 000 year old fossil...and our DNA testing reveals that this fossile was ___..."

That's cool...but what about the degradation of DNA or Ancient DNA over prolonged periods of time? Combine this with the fact that sometimes we only have slivers of DNAs to work with from ancient fossils that have been sitting under water, or in contaminated areas...and we have a very incomplete and heavily flawed portrait of life as it was.

So...what exactly is Science trying to tell us? Are they trying to tell us that our flawed methods and flawed and degraded evidence is enough to say with almost absolute certainty that we may possibly be within the ballpark of a reasonable guess? I guess...if all you have to work with is flawed methods and degraded test subjects...a flawed and degraded answer is as close to the facts as you are gonna get. I will admit...DNA testing and analysis on modern subjects and living tissue is pretty much perfect...almost perfect...99.9% there. But to claim that we can take a dead and degraded fossil from "thousands and thousands of years ago" and try and use it as proof of our origin and the way life formed...is...unscientific...because it is an abuse of what science stands for...the search for truth.

Now, this all ties in with the Theory that man evolved from some lesser form. We have evaluated this claim, and experimented on it using flawed methods. We support the notion of millions of years of evolution by using the flawed Carbon-14 test to date rocks and fossils to millions of years ago. We used Ancient DNA testing to test degraded fossils...and we end up saying "well...we have our evidence to support where man came from"

Now...to be fair...I am gonna throw stones at religion for a while.

Now, you have things like the Dinosaurs, for example. Where are they in the bible? We are finding massive bones like NON-STOP and not once do they get a mention in the good book. You would think God, the being who put his thoughts and experiences in the pages of the bible, would mention the fact that "Well...I had to toss an asteroid into this planet to wipe out the ugly monsters that were roaming around to make room for man..."

It is little things like that that make you wonder about where we really came from. Were we just a collection of amino acids and proteins in a pool that got ****ed on by a Trex? Or...were we designed?

Lets face it people...both sides of the argument have their holes...and their conundrums. Whether or not we came from Goo or God is irrelevant in the end. If we came from Goo...when we die, nothing happens. If we came from God...well...I guess it boils down to if you bet on the right horse. Where we came from does not matter...it is where we are going that matters. The point of progress is to look forward and better ourselves...not look back and try to find answers that are long gone. Unless we invent time travel...I doubt we ever have a full answer to anything.

But there is one final thing I want to say...

The core of science is making testable predictions. Evolutionary theory makes predictions about what we should see if we look at the world, and so far the world's passed every test with flying colors. Creationism predicts nothing, because any observation can be said to be the unfathomable and unlimited will of a creator. What can be said of a creator by looking at life is that, with all the patterns a creator could have chosen, they seem to have decided to make life look exactly like it had evolved.

I found this to be a rather bold statement.

You say Science makes testable predictions. It is true. Then again...Science is not above lying in order to give merit to a favored prediction. Science is not above lying. I would not say the world has passed EVERY test. It may of cheated on a few...or even failed.

http://www.therenewableplanet.com/bl...ails-leak.aspx

And you claim that "What can be said of a creator by looking at life is that, with all the patterns a creator could have chosen, they seem to have decided to make life look exactly like it had evolved." I say...the creator saw this form as the best one...and what we observe through our flawed science is simply a microscopic fraction of the paper trail of his handiwork.

**cubanpete24** · 08-02-2012, 07:26 PM

**Theo Gren** · 08-02-2012, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by NakedCrook

I guess they are lying. I wonder what else they are lying about.

Well thanks, buddy.

Originally posted by NakedCrook

But to say that any evidence we have found to support the notion of evolution to disprove a God, is seriously BOLD. There are still many flaws in some of the most important "tools" we use in support of an origin theory that discounts a God. Carbon-14 dating is a perfect example of this. Atheists love to say "Carbon-14 dating disproves the Bible..." but they leave out the part that says "...as long as you ignore the constant changes in the Earths electromagnetic field, the amount of carbon that is currently in the atmosphere, the fact that we have no baseline carbon amount, and any possible mistakes made during the dating process itself". The electromagnetic field of the Earth is constantly changing, it is never static. It is like trying to complete a mathematical formula where the value of variables X, Y, and Z are in constant flux. It cannot be done.

I don't think I said there is no god, I'm just saying there isn't much evidence for Him. I don't need to disprove your god exists, you need to prove he does.

Originally posted by NakedCrook

Lets be honest...we have science constantly saying "Well...we have this 65 000 year old fossil...and our DNA testing reveals that this fossile was ___..."

That's cool...but what about the degradation of DNA or Ancient DNA over prolonged periods of time? Combine this with the fact that sometimes we only have slivers of DNAs to work with from ancient fossils that have been sitting under water, or in contaminated areas...and we have a very incomplete and heavily flawed portrait of life as it was.

What are you saying we do, then? Give up and decide it's the infinite and unfathomable will of some being we can never understand, or form a probable hypothesis based on the best evidence we can gather? Science is trying to tell us that we think, based on what we can find, that genes mutate to change organisms and, through natural selection, some variations survive and some die out.

Originally posted by NakedCrook

Where we came from does not matter...it is where we are going that matters. The point of progress is to look forward and better ourselves...not look back and try to find answers that are long gone.

I'd say there's some people who'd argue the point of progress, and that it's subjective anyway. We might never know where we came from, but there's no point in not trying.

Originally posted by NakedCrook

You say Science makes testable predictions. It is true. Then again...Science is not above lying in order to give merit to a favored prediction. Science is not above lying. I would not say the world has passed EVERY test. It may of cheated on a few...or even failed.

The Renewable Planet | Environmentally friendly living

http://www.therenewableplanet.com/bl...ails-leak.aspx

the renewable planet,environmentally friendly,eco friendly,green building,environmentally friendly products,organic products,renewable energy

And you claim that "What can be said of a creator by looking at life is that, with all the patterns a creator could have chosen, they seem to have decided to make life look exactly like it had evolved." I say...the creator saw this form as the best one...and what we observe through our flawed science is simply a microscopic fraction of the paper trail of his handiwork.

You say science is the search for truth. If they're lying, it's not science. I don't know enough about the emails in that link to make a conclusion. You say the scientists modified tests about evolution. Evidence?

Originally posted by NakedCrook

I say...the creator saw this form as the best one...and what we observe through our flawed science is simply a microscopic fraction of the paper trail of his handiwork.

I'm not willing to blindly accept the creator deciding to make a world that looks like it was created through evolution, but isn't. We don't know everything, but flawed searches for the truth has to be better than saying it looks that way because God.

**Soundedlink** · 08-07-2012, 09:30 PM

I do agree with you adfalcon, about evoloution. But when you think about it, A tiny cell can grow into something much greater, in about 9 months. That is cell reprodution, so maybe a string of thoses genes change every time to adapt to something different, therefore evovling. Yet I too don't belive in evoloution (Christian.)

**mid_mids** · 08-08-2012, 03:02 AM

I don't know what I believe in, who knows, maybe god existed and made us evolve, personally though I find evolution more logical then a god, I mean, and I don't wanna offend anyone here, god is basically a magic man who can ***** with physics. that's how I see him anyway..... now I'm not saying I don't believe in god, I'm unsure, there could be a god there could not be. in the end though is it not plausible that both theories could be ture?

Announcement

5 reasons why I believe the theory of evolution is flawed- by adfalcon

5 reasons why I believe the theory of evolution is flawed- by adfalcon

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment