Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Please Explain Why Evolution is False

thedebatekid
Posts: 1,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 7:05:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Over the years as an agnostic I have found that some christians freak out at the very mention of the word evolution. Then, when I try to explain the theory, they demand that we did not evolve from monkeys! Now as I researched the theory I found that evolution means that there was a starting organism that branched into many types of things. Humans could have been one branch and monkeys another. Humans did not evolve directly from the chimp.

So why is evolution a false theory, what makes it wrong?

And please try to explain it yourself, I am not here to go to a link for a different website and look at 10 pages of "facts".
How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of the tootsie pop? 1, 2, 3, *crunch* SON OF A !@#%!@#$!@$%$^^$$#%!!!

Expanse: Trapped in Reality
- Looking for Criticism
http://www.debate.org...
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 11:34:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 7:05:20 AM, thedebatekid wrote:
Over the years as an agnostic I have found that some christians freak out at the very mention of the word evolution. Then, when I try to explain the theory, they demand that we did not evolve from monkeys! Now as I researched the theory I found that evolution means that there was a starting organism that branched into many types of things. Humans could have been one branch and monkeys another. Humans did not evolve directly from the chimp.

So why is evolution a false theory, what makes it wrong?
If evolution explains the concept and starting point of organisms and the process of formation that's all quite natural and scientific approach to find out the reality of "how nature works"- an irresistible approach to get understanding. But the idea that most people assert with evolution is something like "it just happened so". This draws a full stop here that has no logic. Am I wrong if I say that evolution doesn't need to get messed up with creationism, if suppose the creationism is just an extension given to evolution (say yet by religious people, although that's not the case, there are scientist of creationism too)? So the problem is with those who think creationism and evolution are opposite theories. Hence one demands the other as to be false. Eliminate this comparison, problem is resolved.


And please try to explain it yourself, I am not here to go to a link for a different website and look at 10 pages of "facts".
+1, yeah good idea.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 1:21:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Christians should fear evolution, as it is a cruel way to create life; nothing an omnibenevolent being would do. Besides that, it harms Theism none.
Chrissy06804
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 2:11:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Evolution and Creationism are both theories. I will tell you why I do not agree with evolution, but I can only work with observable science- just like everyone else- so I cannot- nor can anyone else- say that I know what happened. I wasn't there.
The reason I do not agree with evolution, is because it has holes. Where are the missing links? Explain why there are seashells found on mountains? And, did you know that no one has observed a process where matter has created new information in DNA? In other words, you can't "make" new traits (which is what evolutionists teach), you can only lose or use the ones you already have.
Creationists believe in natural selection 100% (a creationist named Edward Blythe actually discovered it years before Darwin did!), but no matter how long it takes, we have never observed new information being made by itself. Adaptation has been scientifically proven, obviously, because we see it happening through observable science; here and now. But adaptation ONLY uses or loses information that is already there, not made.
Some people mistakenly think that creationists believe that God created the world exactly how we see it today. That is wrong. We know that animals "after their kind" (you will see that a lot in the first book of the Bible: Genesis) can breed and have babies with different combinations of genes from the parents. Which can give them different looks and adaptations, but they don't make up their own genes... as I said, the genes come from their parents. Information can be passed on, but not made. So mutations cannot be good. Some people think that mutations are newly created information in genes, but in reality, mutations are the loss of genes. Things don't work right when some of the pieces are missing, and that is why I do not believe in the evolutionary "Molecules to Man" theory. I believe that an intelligence (God) made us with all the information, not bits and pieces that formed over time, because- as I've said- you can only use or lose information, so instead of getting better, we would be the same or less... in other words, if we started out as molecules, we would still be tiny molecules, floating around.
Creationists study to see if observable science and historical facts pair up with the Bible, and as far as I know, it has not been proven otherwise.
I know you probably do not believe a word of what I just said, but I commend you if have read everything I wrote. It is very hard for someone with a different viewpoint (God determines truth vs. Man decides truth) to really understand how someone else could believe what they do, but it always good to be informed of both sides, so you can make your decision without just following along with the rest of the crowd.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 2:37:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 2:11:32 PM, Chrissy06804 wrote:
Evolution and Creationism are both theories. I will tell you why I do not agree with evolution, but I can only work with observable science- just like everyone else- so I cannot- nor can anyone else- say that I know what happened. I wasn't there.
The reason I do not agree with evolution, is because it has holes.

No it doesn't.

Where are the missing links?

Fossilization is a rare happening. We should expect not to have all the fossils, this isn't shocking.

Explain why there are seashells found on mountains?

Uplift in the sand. [http://www.talkorigins.org...]

And, did you know that no one has observed a process where matter has created new information in DNA? In other words, you can't "make" new traits (which is what evolutionists teach), you can only lose or use the ones you already have.

False. For example, some plant species can actually arise through evolution, even in as little as one generation. An example of an observation of speciation involving plants, was a study done by Hugo de Vries. He was studying the genetics of Oenothera Lamarckiana, and discovered that a new variant evolved that could not breed with the Oenothera Lamarckiana, and had a different amount of chromosomes. This means, a brand new species evolved, that was observed in a laboratory over long periods of time (he named the new species O. gigas.)[de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation]. Speciation has actually been observed first hand in the insect world as well. One example is the findings of Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky that were made observing a culture of Drosophila paulistorum [Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila",Nature 23:289-292].

Creationists believe in natural selection 100% (a creationist named Edward Blythe actually discovered it years before Darwin did!), but no matter how long it takes, we have never observed new information being made by itself.

I just proved you wrong. We observe speciation (brand new species with different chromosomes) all the time, at the macrocopic scale!

Adaptation has been scientifically proven, obviously, because we see it happening through observable science; here and now. But adaptation ONLY uses or loses information that is already there, not made.

If you have the most simplest self-replicating molecule; you can get humans with enough time.

Some people mistakenly think that creationists believe that God created the world exactly how we see it today. That is wrong. We know that animals "after their kind" (you will see that a lot in the first book of the Bible: Genesis) can breed and have babies with different combinations of genes from the parents.

There are no objective "kinds", they have changed throughout history.

The genetic sequencing of birds and reptiles shows common ancestry in the animal kingdom as well (this it not just based on mere likely attributes. Also we have many transitional fossils , such as the Archaeopteryx fossil[https://en.wikipedia.org...], which is a creature with bird like features, like feathers, but also with reptile like features as well. These reptilian features include small teeth (which modern birds aren't known to have), and a boney tail. The odds that the Archaeopteryx coincides with the genetic sequencing prediction by chance is too low! The fact that this fits perfectly with evolution, is strong evidence for it. If evolution is false, you are left with this unreasonable coincidence.

So, "kinds" change all the time!

Which can give them different looks and adaptations, but they don't make up their own genes... as I said, the genes come from their parents. Information can be passed on, but not made. So mutations cannot be good.

Some aren't good. Evolution doesn't predict they will all be good.

Some people think that mutations are newly created information in genes, but in reality, mutations are the loss of genes. Things don't work right when some of the pieces are missing, and that is why I do not believe in the evolutionary "Molecules to Man" theory.

No pieces are missing. Only from the fossil record, which is to be expected.

I believe that an intelligence (God) made us with all the information, not bits and pieces that formed over time, because- as I've said- you can only use or lose information, so instead of getting better, we would be the same or less... in other words, if we started out as molecules, we would still be tiny molecules, floating around.

Nope. Everything started off as self-replicating molecules; now you have us. Genes are added all the time.

The reason you deny evolution, is because you don't understand evolution. You straw-man it.

Creationists study to see if observable science and historical facts pair up with the Bible, and as far as I know, it has not been proven otherwise.

Evolution disproves creations stories.

I know you probably do not believe a word of what I just said

Of course not. Its nonsense.

, but I commend you if have read everything I wrote. It is very hard for someone with a different viewpoint (God determines truth vs. Man decides truth) to really understand how someone else could believe what they do, but it always good to be informed of both sides, so you can make your decision without just following along with the rest of the crowd.

You are determining that God determines truth. Thus, your view is still man determines truth lol
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 3:19:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hugo de Vries was proven wrong..

http://www.dnalc.org...

http://www.researchgate.net...
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 3:27:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 7:05:20 AM, thedebatekid wrote:
Over the years as an agnostic I have found that some christians freak out at the very mention of the word evolution. Then, when I try to explain the theory, they demand that we did not evolve from monkeys! Now as I researched the theory I found that evolution means that there was a starting organism that branched into many types of things. Humans could have been one branch and monkeys another. Humans did not evolve directly from the chimp.

So why is evolution a false theory, what makes it wrong?

And please try to explain it yourself, I am not here to go to a link for a different website and look at 10 pages of "facts".

What we see are only illusions on the retina's of our eyes. This means that everything we experience in this world comes from processed invisible information in the form of wavelengths of energy which doesn't use up space, time or consists of matter.
Nzrsaa
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 5:06:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 1:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Christians should fear evolution, as it is a cruel way to create life; nothing an omnibenevolent being would do. Besides that, it harms Theism none.

But there is an argument that it is for the greater good. To select a few animals that on the Christian view, have no soul, in order to create perfect beings, is definitely for the greater good. If God did create life then it is probable that he did it in an All-Good way, with no pain or suffering to the unelected (assuming natural selection is correct).
As Michael Murray explained in his book Nature Red in Tooth and Claw, there are 3 levels of pain awareness:
Level 3: Awareness that one is oneself in pain
Level 2: Mental states of pain
Level 1: Aversive reaction to noxious stimuli
Animals only experience level 2 pain awareness and on that level, there is no suffering.
So if we are talking about natural selection, there isn't really suffering and so it isn't really a 'cruel' method of creation.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 5:28:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 5:06:20 PM, Nzrsaa wrote:
At 12/12/2013 1:21:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Christians should fear evolution, as it is a cruel way to create life; nothing an omnibenevolent being would do. Besides that, it harms Theism none.

But there is an argument that it is for the greater good. To select a few animals that on the Christian view, have no soul, in order to create perfect beings, is definitely for the greater good. If God did create life then it is probable that he did it in an All-Good way, with no pain or suffering to the unelected (assuming natural selection is correct).
As Michael Murray explained in his book Nature Red in Tooth and Claw, there are 3 levels of pain awareness:
Level 3: Awareness that one is oneself in pain
Level 2: Mental states of pain
Level 1: Aversive reaction to noxious stimuli
Animals only experience level 2 pain awareness and on that level, there is no suffering.
So if we are talking about natural selection, there isn't really suffering and so it isn't really a 'cruel' method of creation.

Please provide evidence to support the claim that animals are not aware that they are themselves in pain.
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 5:47:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just a few points to add to Rational thinker's critique

At 12/12/2013 2:11:32 PM, Chrissy06804 wrote:
Evolution and Creationism are both theories.

No, they are not "both theories", under the same definition of "theory". See, in science the word theory has a somewhat different meaning to what the layperson uses it for - it does not mean "a guess", or anything like that.
But the main difference between evolution and creationism as models of life's origins, without getting too technical on you, is this: Evolution is a conclusion reached by making observations and finding the best model that fits them. Creationism is a model that was already decided on by it's proponents, and then observations were cherry picked and made to fit into that model.
Simply put, a scientific theory is where you END with the conclusion - creationism begins with the conclusion and tries to prove it.

I will tell you why I do not agree with evolution, but I can only work with observable science- just like everyone else- so I cannot- nor can anyone else- say that I know what happened. I wasn't there.

Here's a question for you: Imagine you return home after work one day to find one of your windows smashed in, the lock on your door broken, and all your belongings strewn around the floors, with your most valuable possessions missing.
What would you think about this? Would you say, perhaps, that someone had broken in and robbed you? If you did say that, how would you back that up? You weren't there, you never saw it happen.

Creationists study to see if observable science and historical facts pair up with the Bible, and as far as I know, it has not been proven otherwise.

Well right off the top of my head, Genesis states light existed before a light source. And Leviticus says Bats are a type of bird.

Shall I continue?
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 12:36:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 11:28:40 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
This video explains why people doubt evolution https://www.youtube.com....

Most scientists don't doubt it. Would you like to debate evolution with me?
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 12:43:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 12:36:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/13/2013 11:28:40 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
This video explains why people doubt evolution https://www.youtube.com....

Most scientists don't doubt it. Would you like to debate evolution with me?

Sure.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 12:47:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 12:43:06 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/13/2013 12:36:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/13/2013 11:28:40 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
This video explains why people doubt evolution https://www.youtube.com....

Most scientists don't doubt it. Would you like to debate evolution with me?

Sure.

I'll send you the challenge sometime today.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 9:39:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 2:11:32 PM, Chrissy06804 wrote:
Evolution and Creationism are both theories.

Evolution is a theory. Creation is not an explanatory framework that explains the evidence and offers testable, falsifiable predictions, so is at best a hypothesis.

I will tell you why I do not agree with evolution, but I can only work with observable science- just like everyone else- so I cannot- nor can anyone else- say that I know what happened. I wasn't there.

Firstly, objective measurable evidence can be ascertained even though "we weren't there", and in fact most evidence of things that happened in the past, or things that cannot be directly observed fits into this category.

Secondly, with this in mind, just because we cannot tell for 100% certain does not mean either explanation is as good as each other. In the real world there are varying degrees of rightnes or wrongness. For science, it is normally the theory that best fits the evidence, offers the best explanation and provides the most testable predictions; and from this we can be pretty certain what happened, even though we do not know for certain: and such theories are certainly better than competitor theories that offer no real explanation, no testable predictions and do not match the evidence.

The reason I do not agree with evolution, is because it has holes. Where are the missing links?

There are hundreds of missing links; including evolutionary links for birds, mammals, amphibians, humans, cetacions, arhtropods, multi-cellularity, and many more. While we do not have a complete list of intermediates between every single set of species that we have thus far discovered; as mentioned due to the fossiliation process; to say that there are no links is simply false.

Explain why there are seashells found on mountains?

Plate techtonics, uplift and various other geological processes can quite happily explain this sort of evidence. It is worth noting that the distribution and constituent life found in such area's do not match any other theory such as flood geology,

And, did you know that no one has observed a process where matter has created new information in DNA? In other words, you can't "make" new traits (which is what evolutionists teach), you can only lose or use the ones you already have.

This is normally people "haggling" over the definition of information. For evolution, all that is required is for specices to be able to gain new traits without losing old. There is evidence for this, and the process by which it occurs is fairly well understood.

Essentially, genes can be duplicated with offspring having two copies of a gene; meaning that one copy can subsequently mutate without affecting the original. Duplication events can fixate over a species due to the known process of drift, with subsequent mutations allowing the gene copy to change purpose.

Creationists believe in natural selection 100% (a creationist named Edward Blythe actually discovered it years before Darwin did!), but no matter how long it takes, we have never observed new information being made by itself.

Except examples such as ice fish acquiring anti-freeze genes from duplication of digestion genes, novel snake venom genes and, 1 beta-hydroxytestosterone, to name but three of the many examples where it can be demonstrated this occuring,

Adaptation has been scientifically proven, obviously, because we see it happening through observable science; here and now. But adaptation ONLY uses or loses information that is already there, not made.

Adaptation is made up of my parts; including natural selection, genetic drift, genetic mutation, and gene flow. Using these core aspects, as mentioned, you can see that information can indeed be gained, with new novelties occuring without affecting the old ones.

Some people mistakenly think that creationists believe that God created the world exactly how we see it today. That is wrong.

If you are right, there should be vast swaythes of evidence, predictions you can make and whole disciplines of scientific investigation that should demonstrate you are right.

We know that animals "after their kind" (you will see that a lot in the first book of the Bible: Genesis) can breed and have babies with different combinations of genes from the parents.

All species with Creation or Evolution will breed "after their kind". They have to. Evolution does not imply instant or big changes, massive morphological differences, or massive changes in gene structure in a generation.

In fact, Evolution states pretty much the same as you are stating; that any animal will bring forth after it's kind; but that it will be a tiny, slight amount different from it's predescessor.

It is only a "kind" today will be different from the "kind" of it's ancestor millions of years ago; with no point in between showing any big differences.

So in reality, setting apart Evolution and the "kind" argument is actually a false dichotomy.

Which can give them different looks and adaptations, but they don't make up their own genes... as I said, the genes come from their parents. Information can be passed on, but not made.

New features can arise without affecting or changing the old ones; and can be demonstrated. If you classify this as information, then great, it can be demonstrated that your argument is wrong; if not, it simply demonstrates that "new information" as you describe it is not required for evolution to be true.

So mutations cannot be good.

There are innumerable instances of beneficial mutations. I would like you to provide some meangful scientific justification that leads you to conclude "Mutations cannot be good".

Some people think that mutations are newly created information in genes, but in reality, mutations are the loss of genes.

This is not true, if you look at the genetics and studies. I would like to see some meaningful scientific justification that leads you to conclude "Mutations are the loss of genes"

This is not to say ALL mutations are good; a lot are bad; but MOST are neutral, and some positive.

Things don't work right when some of the pieces are missing, and that is why I do not believe in the evolutionary "Molecules to Man" theory. I believe that an intelligence (God) made us with all the information, not bits and pieces that formed over time, because- as I've said- you can only use or lose information, so instead of getting better, we would be the same or less... in other words, if we started out as molecules, we would still be tiny molecules, floating around.

Without going into abiogenesis, it can be shown that your statements about information are simply untrue.

Creationists study to see if observable science and historical facts pair up with the Bible, and as far as I know, it has not been proven otherwise.

If you ignore the entirty of examples using the fossile record, geology, geo-chronology, cosmology, biology, molecular genetics, phylogeny, taxonomy, nuclear physics, tree rings, ice cores, evolutionary biology, developmental biology there is indeed no fundamental evidence that Creationism is wrong.

I know you probably do not believe a word of what I just said, but I commend you if have read everything I wrote. It is very hard for someone with a different viewpoint (God determines truth vs. Man decides truth) to really understand how someone else could believe what they do, but it always good to be informed of both sides, so you can make your decision without just following along with the rest of the crowd.

I can show dozens of instances of Creationists misrepresenting, lying, inventing things, and presenting their arguments dishonestly. From claiming that they have PhD's, and getting the basic fundamentals of biology wrong, to quote mining, to making false claims about evidence they know to be wrong.

"By their deeds you will know them."
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 12:35:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 2:11:32 PM, Chrissy06804 wrote:
Evolution and Creationism are both theories. I will tell you why I do not agree with evolution, but I can only work with observable science- just like everyone else- so I cannot- nor can anyone else- say that I know what happened. I wasn't there.
The reason I do not agree with evolution, is because it has holes. Where are the missing links? Explain why there are seashells found on mountains? And, did you know that no one has observed a process where matter has created new information in DNA? In other words, you can't "make" new traits (which is what evolutionists teach), you can only lose or use the ones you already have.
Creationists believe in natural selection 100% (a creationist named Edward Blythe actually discovered it years before Darwin did!), but no matter how long it takes, we have never observed new information being made by itself. Adaptation has been scientifically proven, obviously, because we see it happening through observable science; here and now. But adaptation ONLY uses or loses information that is already there, not made.
Some people mistakenly think that creationists believe that God created the world exactly how we see it today. That is wrong. We know that animals "after their kind" (you will see that a lot in the first book of the Bible: Genesis) can breed and have babies with different combinations of genes from the parents. Which can give them different looks and adaptations, but they don't make up their own genes... as I said, the genes come from their parents. Information can be passed on, but not made. So mutations cannot be good. Some people think that mutations are newly created information in genes, but in reality, mutations are the loss of genes. Things don't work right when some of the pieces are missing, and that is why I do not believe in the evolutionary "Molecules to Man" theory. I believe that an intelligence (God) made us with all the information, not bits and pieces that formed over time, because- as I've said- you can only use or lose information, so instead of getting better, we would be the same or less... in other words, if we started out as molecules, we would still be tiny molecules, floating around.
Creationists study to see if observable science and historical facts pair up with the Bible, and as far as I know, it has not been proven otherwise.
I know you probably do not believe a word of what I just said, but I commend you if have read everything I wrote. It is very hard for someone with a different viewpoint (God determines truth vs. Man decides truth) to really understand how someone else could believe what they do, but it always good to be informed of both sides, so you can make your decision without just following along with the rest of the crowd.

You argue that evolution has missing links. My question is whether that is due to evolution being wrong or whether that is because fossilization is a rare process and we have not even begun to fully explore the fossil record.
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 12:20:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 5:47:14 PM, Drayson wrote:
Just a few points to add to Rational thinker's critique

At 12/12/2013 2:11:32 PM, Chrissy06804 wrote:
Evolution and Creationism are both theories.

No, they are not "both theories", under the same definition of "theory". See, in science the word theory has a somewhat different meaning to what the layperson uses it for - it does not mean "a guess", or anything like that.
But the main difference between evolution and creationism as models of life's origins, without getting too technical on you, is this: Evolution is a conclusion reached by making observations and finding the best model that fits them.

This is patiently untrue, especially for biogenesis. No one has ever observed life from non-life. Not ever. What we do observe is that life always comes from life. I'm not weighning in on one side or the other right now, but no matter what side one is on, he should be be honest with the position of his worldview.

Creationism is a model that was already decided on by it's proponents, and then observations were cherry picked and made to fit into that model.
Simply put, a scientific theory is where you END with the conclusion - creationism begins with the conclusion and tries to prove it.

Again untrue. Evolution begins with the belief that everything has a natural cause. How is that different from beginning with the belief that everything was created? If you are going to pose as logical and scientific and technical, leave the partisan slant alone and just give the facts.

I will tell you why I do not agree with evolution, but I can only work with observable science- just like everyone else- so I cannot- nor can anyone else- say that I know what happened. I wasn't there.

Here's a question for you: Imagine you return home after work one day to find one of your windows smashed in, the lock on your door broken, and all your belongings strewn around the floors, with your most valuable possessions missing.
What would you think about this? Would you say, perhaps, that someone had broken in and robbed you? If you did say that, how would you back that up? You weren't there, you never saw it happen.

Poor analogy. One would have examples of others being robbed even if one did not observe their home being robbed. Tell me, what evidence does a darwinist use to conclude that life originated spontaenously?

Creationists study to see if observable science and historical facts pair up with the Bible, and as far as I know, it has not been proven otherwise.

Well right off the top of my head, Genesis states light existed before a light source.

Untrue. The Bible did not say there was no light source. Now observe. You insist on a light source. Why, because you have observed that light always comes from a source. But when it comes to life, you are willing to throw out what has been consistently observed throughout time.

And Leviticus says Bats are a type of bird.

You are aware that our classifications are simply groups made up by us aren't you? There are many ways to classify things. The Bible was not attempting to line up with Darwin. But this shows your bias. Even in evolution, plants and animals have been reclassified. You are being disingeneous.

Shall I continue?

Sure, but this time with a little more fact and a lot less spin.
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 2:46:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 12:20:14 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/12/2013 5:47:14 PM, Drayson wrote:
Just a few points to add to Rational thinker's critique

At 12/12/2013 2:11:32 PM, Chrissy06804 wrote:
Evolution and Creationism are both theories.

No, they are not "both theories", under the same definition of "theory". See, in science the word theory has a somewhat different meaning to what the layperson uses it for - it does not mean "a guess", or anything like that.
But the main difference between evolution and creationism as models of life's origins, without getting too technical on you, is this: Evolution is a conclusion reached by making observations and finding the best model that fits them.

This is patiently untrue, especially for biogenesis. No one has ever observed life from non-life. Not ever. What we do observe is that life always comes from life. I'm not weighning in on one side or the other right now, but no matter what side one is on, he should be be honest with the position of his worldview.


That IS a good point, except for the fact that evolution is nothing to do with biogenesis. Evolution is solely concerned with explaining the diversity of life, not where life originally came from(even if God existed and created the first organism, evolution would still be true). Biogenesis is an area of hypotheses, not theory.

Creationism is a model that was already decided on by it's proponents, and then observations were cherry picked and made to fit into that model.
Simply put, a scientific theory is where you END with the conclusion - creationism begins with the conclusion and tries to prove it.

Again untrue. Evolution begins with the belief that everything has a natural cause. How is that different from beginning with the belief that everything was created? If you are going to pose as logical and scientific and technical, leave the partisan slant alone and just give the facts.

No it doesn't, it begins with the assumption that everything has a "cause". They don't say "natural cause", because that implies there's even such a thing as an alternative to that, which has never been demonstrated. And since supernatural causes, if real, can't be demonstrated or tested, then anything involving supernatural causes cannot be considered a theory.


I will tell you why I do not agree with evolution, but I can only work with observable science- just like everyone else- so I cannot- nor can anyone else- say that I know what happened. I wasn't there.

Here's a question for you: Imagine you return home after work one day to find one of your windows smashed in, the lock on your door broken, and all your belongings strewn around the floors, with your most valuable possessions missing.
What would you think about this? Would you say, perhaps, that someone had broken in and robbed you? If you did say that, how would you back that up? You weren't there, you never saw it happen.

Poor analogy. One would have examples of others being robbed even if one did not observe their home being robbed. Tell me, what evidence does a darwinist use to conclude that life originated spontaenously?

Just like we have existing examples of DNA, fossilization, geological and chemical processes, etc. The analogy was used to point out that the "you weren't there" argument is invalid.
To re-iterate, how life originated is separate from the subject of evolution. Different area of study.

Creationists study to see if observable science and historical facts pair up with the Bible, and as far as I know, it has not been proven otherwise.

Well right off the top of my head, Genesis states light existed before a light source.

Untrue. The Bible did not say there was no light source. Now observe. You insist on a light source. Why, because you have observed that light always comes from a source. But when it comes to life, you are willing to throw out what has been consistently observed throughout time.

And Leviticus says Bats are a type of bird.

You are aware that our classifications are simply groups made up by us aren't you? There are many ways to classify things. The Bible was not attempting to line up with Darwin. But this shows your bias. Even in evolution, plants and animals have been reclassified. You are being disingeneous.

Shall I continue?

Sure, but this time with a little more fact and a lot less spin.

The rest is just an argument about semantics.
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
ethang5
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 1:59:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 2:46:32 PM, Drayson wrote:
At 1/14/2014 12:20:14 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 12/12/2013 5:47:14 PM, Drayson wrote:
Just a few points to add to Rational thinker's critique

At 12/12/2013 2:11:32 PM, Chrissy06804 wrote:
Evolution and Creationism are both theories.

No, they are not "both theories", under the same definition of "theory". See, in science the word theory has a somewhat different meaning to what the layperson uses it for - it does not mean "a guess", or anything like that.
But the main difference between evolution and creationism as models of life's origins, without getting too technical on you, is this: Evolution is a conclusion reached by making observations and finding the best model that fits them.

This is patiently untrue, especially for biogenesis. No one has ever observed life from non-life. Not ever. What we do observe is that life always comes from life. I'm not weighning in on one side or the other right now, but no matter what side one is on, he should be be honest with the position of his worldview.

That IS a good point, except for the fact that evolution is nothing to do with biogenesis.

I will agree for now, but I was not attacking evolution, but your comment, "...the main difference between evolution and creationism as models of life's origins...."

If evolution cannot be used as a model of biogenesis, you answer here is really poor word choice, bordering on the disingenuous.

Evolution is solely concerned with explaining the diversity of life, not where life originally came from

Yet when you compared evolution and creationism as models of life's origins, for you, evolution came out ahead! Curious.

(even if God existed and created the first organism, evolution would still be true).

This sir, is rank conjecture. And it is also a trick with words. Support points with fact, not opinion or semantics.

Biogenesis is an area of hypotheses, not theory.

Again, you show your bias. We have observed, from the beginning of time, that life always comes from life. Yet that means nothing to you. But you are able to observe other things, with less consistency in observation, and call them theory.

Creationism is a model that was already decided on by it's proponents, and then observations were cherry picked and made to fit into that model.
Simply put, a scientific theory is where you END with the conclusion - creationism begins with the conclusion and tries to prove it.

Again untrue. Evolution begins with the belief that everything has a natural cause. How is that different from beginning with the belief that everything was created? If you are going to pose as logical and scientific and technical, leave the partisan slant alone and just give the facts.

No it doesn't, it begins with the assumption that everything has a "cause". They don't say "natural cause", because that implies there's even such a thing as an alternative to that, which has never been demonstrated.

I rest my case. Thank you. But as a side note, do you believe life originated from non-life? If yes, has that ever been demonstrated? I am not trying to be difficult but the logical faults in your position are glaring.

I will tell you why I do not agree with evolution, but I can only work with observable science- just like everyone else- so I cannot- nor can anyone else- say that I know what happened. I wasn't there.

Here's a question for you: Imagine you return home after work one day to find one of your windows smashed in, the lock on your door broken, and all your belongings strewn around the floors, with your most valuable possessions missing.
What would you think about this? Would you say, perhaps, that someone had broken in and robbed you? If you did say that, how would you back that up? You weren't there, you never saw it happen.

Poor analogy. One would have examples of others being robbed even if one did not observe their home being robbed. Tell me, what evidence does a darwinist use to conclude that life originated spontaneously?

Just like we have existing examples of DNA, fossilization, geological and chemical processes, etc. The analogy was used to point out that the "you weren't there" argument is invalid.

Your analogy failed to do that. I demonstrated how in my earlier post. For now, the argument stands.

To re-iterate, how life originated is separate from the subject of evolution. Different area of study.
Creationists study to see if observable science and historical facts pair up with the Bible, and as far as I know, it has not been proven otherwise.

Again the spin. Most of the great scientists of old were creationists. That did not impede their study. This is your opinion of why Creationists study. Your opinions do not help the discourse. Evolutionists love the made-up-idea that belief in God impedes scientific study. History contradicts that.

Well right off the top of my head, Genesis states light existed before a light source.

Untrue. The Bible did not say there was no light source. Now observe. You insist on a light source. Why, because you have observed that light always comes from a source. But when it comes to life, you are willing to throw out what has been consistently observed throughout time.

And Leviticus says Bats are a type of bird.

You are aware that our classifications are simply groups made up by us aren't you? There are many ways to classify things. The Bible was not attempting to line up with Darwin. But this shows your bias. Even in evolution, plants and animals have been reclassified. You are being disingeneous.

Shall I continue?

Sure, but this time with a little more fact and a lot less spin.

The rest is just an argument about semantics.

No it is not, but evolutionists customarily avoid the topics. I won't repeat the questions cause I doubt you'd answer them. I will have to satisfy myself with the fact that every reader can see the questions you avoided, and wonder why you avoided them.
BChart2
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 2:55:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 2:11:32 PM, Chrissy06804 wrote:
Evolution and Creationism are both theories.

False.
Creationism is a theory, whilst evolution is a scientific theory.
Look up the difference.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 6:28:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 2:55:39 PM, BChart2 wrote:
At 12/12/2013 2:11:32 PM, Chrissy06804 wrote:
Evolution and Creationism are both theories.

False.
Creationism is a theory, whilst evolution is a scientific theory.
Look up the difference.

That statement isn't necessarily true. I've seen so many definitions of both that you can never assume which is being used, you have to ask.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
BChart2
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 6:51:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 6:28:29 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/15/2014 2:55:39 PM, BChart2 wrote:
At 12/12/2013 2:11:32 PM, Chrissy06804 wrote:
Evolution and Creationism are both theories.

False.
Creationism is a theory, whilst evolution is a scientific theory.
Look up the difference.

That statement isn't necessarily true. I've seen so many definitions of both that you can never assume which is being used, you have to ask.

A scientific theory is heavily tested and supported by facts, while a theory simply needs to explain something. (i.e. Doesn't necessarily have to be based upon fact)
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 6:54:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 6:51:10 PM, BChart2 wrote:
At 1/15/2014 6:28:29 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/15/2014 2:55:39 PM, BChart2 wrote:
At 12/12/2013 2:11:32 PM, Chrissy06804 wrote:
Evolution and Creationism are both theories.

False.
Creationism is a theory, whilst evolution is a scientific theory.
Look up the difference.

That statement isn't necessarily true. I've seen so many definitions of both that you can never assume which is being used, you have to ask.

A scientific theory is heavily tested and supported by facts, while a theory simply needs to explain something. (i.e. Doesn't necessarily have to be based upon fact)

I'm referring to the fact that the definition of "evolution" often used does not qualify as a scientific theory (e.g. "All life undergoes gradual change" or "the fittest individuals of a population have a higher chance of passing their genes on," etc.)

It would be nice if a definition of both creationism and evolution was provided in every such debate, but that won't happen.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 6:55:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 7:05:20 AM, thedebatekid wrote:
Over the years as an agnostic I have found that some christians freak out at the very mention of the word evolution. Then, when I try to explain the theory, they demand that we did not evolve from monkeys! Now as I researched the theory I found that evolution means that there was a starting organism that branched into many types of things. Humans could have been one branch and monkeys another. Humans did not evolve directly from the chimp.

So why is evolution a false theory, what makes it wrong?

And please try to explain it yourself, I am not here to go to a link for a different website and look at 10 pages of "facts".

Allow me to put on answers in genesis hat....

1) Because God created the earth no more than 10,000 years ago, ergo the claim that evolution has taken place over millions & billions of years on earth must be false.

2) Because the bible says that all human beings are the off spring of adam and eve, and adam and eve have no natural/biological cause as they are the result of a supernatural creation act, ergo any theory that states that human causation goes back billions of years.......must be wrong.

3) Kind begets kind, you don't get a monkey from a goat. Of course evolution states that it's all about changes, small changes accumulation over a very very long time.

But hey you can only get a horse from a horse.....ergo evolution is false.

4) Jesus was a young earth creationist............ergo evolution is false

5) Hitler/darwin/survival of the fittest........ergo evolution is false

6) My unlce is not a monkey..........ergo evolution if false

7) 911

8) Did I mention that you can only get a horse from a horse ? ergo evolution is false

9) God...............ergo evolution is false
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 6:57:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 6:54:50 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/15/2014 6:51:10 PM, BChart2 wrote:
At 1/15/2014 6:28:29 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/15/2014 2:55:39 PM, BChart2 wrote:
At 12/12/2013 2:11:32 PM, Chrissy06804 wrote:
Evolution and Creationism are both theories.

False.
Creationism is a theory, whilst evolution is a scientific theory.
Look up the difference.

That statement isn't necessarily true. I've seen so many definitions of both that you can never assume which is being used, you have to ask.

A scientific theory is heavily tested and supported by facts, while a theory simply needs to explain something. (i.e. Doesn't necessarily have to be based upon fact)

I'm referring to the fact that the definition of "evolution" often used does not qualify as a scientific theory (e.g. "All life undergoes gradual change" or "the fittest individuals of a population have a higher chance of passing their genes on," etc.)

It would be nice if a definition of both creationism and evolution was provided in every such debate, but that won't happen.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]"
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 7:04:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 6:55:33 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/12/2013 7:05:20 AM, thedebatekid wrote:
Over the years as an agnostic I have found that some christians freak out at the very mention of the word evolution. Then, when I try to explain the theory, they demand that we did not evolve from monkeys! Now as I researched the theory I found that evolution means that there was a starting organism that branched into many types of things. Humans could have been one branch and monkeys another. Humans did not evolve directly from the chimp.

So why is evolution a false theory, what makes it wrong?

And please try to explain it yourself, I am not here to go to a link for a different website and look at 10 pages of "facts".

Allow me to put on answers in genesis hat....

1) Because God created the earth no more than 10,000 years ago, ergo the claim that evolution has taken place over millions & billions of years on earth must be false.

2) Because the bible says that all human beings are the off spring of adam and eve, and adam and eve have no natural/biological cause as they are the result of a supernatural creation act, ergo any theory that states that human causation goes back billions of years.......must be wrong.

3) Kind begets kind, you don't get a monkey from a goat. Of course evolution states that it's all about changes, small changes accumulation over a very very long time.

But hey you can only get a horse from a horse.....ergo evolution is false.

4) Jesus was a young earth creationist............ergo evolution is false

5) Hitler/darwin/survival of the fittest........ergo evolution is false

6) My unlce is not a monkey..........ergo evolution if false

7) 911

8) Did I mention that you can only get a horse from a horse ? ergo evolution is false

9) God...............ergo evolution is false

Posting this stuff doesn't help intelligent discussion anymore than the nonsense you are making fun of.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 7:07:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 6:57:39 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]"

That does not qualify as a scientific theory.

The first sentence is too vague, and also an easily observable fact realized by looking at your kids and comparing them with how you look.

The "prediction" that "evolutionary processes" (which is undefined, which again brings up the problem of being too vague) result in diversity is also a practically useless one, as well as being far too vague.

Basically, it's way too vague and not useful in the slightest.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 7:07:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 7:04:14 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/15/2014 6:55:33 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/12/2013 7:05:20 AM, thedebatekid wrote:
Over the years as an agnostic I have found that some christians freak out at the very mention of the word evolution. Then, when I try to explain the theory, they demand that we did not evolve from monkeys! Now as I researched the theory I found that evolution means that there was a starting organism that branched into many types of things. Humans could have been one branch and monkeys another. Humans did not evolve directly from the chimp.

So why is evolution a false theory, what makes it wrong?

And please try to explain it yourself, I am not here to go to a link for a different website and look at 10 pages of "facts".

Allow me to put on answers in genesis hat....

1) Because God created the earth no more than 10,000 years ago, ergo the claim that evolution has taken place over millions & billions of years on earth must be false.

2) Because the bible says that all human beings are the off spring of adam and eve, and adam and eve have no natural/biological cause as they are the result of a supernatural creation act, ergo any theory that states that human causation goes back billions of years.......must be wrong.

3) Kind begets kind, you don't get a monkey from a goat. Of course evolution states that it's all about changes, small changes accumulation over a very very long time.

But hey you can only get a horse from a horse.....ergo evolution is false.

4) Jesus was a young earth creationist............ergo evolution is false

5) Hitler/darwin/survival of the fittest........ergo evolution is false

6) My unlce is not a monkey..........ergo evolution if false

7) 911

8) Did I mention that you can only get a horse from a horse ? ergo evolution is false

9) God...............ergo evolution is false

Posting this stuff doesn't help intelligent discussion anymore than the nonsense you are making fun of.

These are the arguments used against evolution..............
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 7:10:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 7:07:12 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/15/2014 6:57:39 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]"

That does not qualify as a scientific theory.

The first sentence is too vague, and also an easily observable fact realized by looking at your kids and comparing them with how you look.

The "prediction" that "evolutionary processes" (which is undefined, which again brings up the problem of being too vague) result in diversity is also a practically useless one, as well as being far too vague.

Basically, it's way too vague and not useful in the slightest.

You asked for a DEFINITION.

If you wanted what predictions are made based on evolution theory well you should of asked for that.

It's easy to refute some one when you move the goal posts............isn't it assho*e ?

)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12