Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Evidence for Creationism?

yesuke
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 12:42:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
One thing that strikes me on the whole Evolutionism vs. Creationism matter is that it is always the Evolutionists that have to defend their view by providing many forms of evidences, whereas I have never really come across any evidence for Creationism yet (apart from quotings from the Bible and such).

So I'd like to know what evidence there is for Creationism.

More accurately, I'd like to know what evidence there is for Creationism that doesn't rely on the assumption that there is a God (not as a start-point for an argument) and doesn't rely on the truthfulness of the Bible. So I'm looking for arguments based on objective observations / experiments.

I'm very eager to read what everyone has to say, and I encourage critical thinking for the evidences/opinions of both sides :)

I don't mean to offend anyone or attack Creationists, I'm merely trying to gain more information on this 'quarrel' and be well-informed so as to shape my own views on the matter.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 12:57:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 12:42:31 PM, yesuke wrote:
One thing that strikes me on the whole Evolutionism vs. Creationism matter is that it is always the Evolutionists that have to defend their view by providing many forms of evidences, whereas I have never really come across any evidence for Creationism yet (apart from quotings from the Bible and such).

So I'd like to know what evidence there is for Creationism.

More accurately, I'd like to know what evidence there is for Creationism that doesn't rely on the assumption that there is a God (not as a start-point for an argument) and doesn't rely on the truthfulness of the Bible. So I'm looking for arguments based on objective observations / experiments.

I'm very eager to read what everyone has to say, and I encourage critical thinking for the evidences/opinions of both sides :)

I don't mean to offend anyone or attack Creationists, I'm merely trying to gain more information on this 'quarrel' and be well-informed so as to shape my own views on the matter.

Rather than argue that the evidence supports Young Earth Creation (which it doesn't), Creationists tend to argue that the evidence does not support evolution and therefore both belief in evolution and belief in creation are matters of faith - not matters of science. Consequently a lack of empirical support for creation is irrelevant and evolution is a materialistic, atheistic belief which undermines the moral foundation of humanity and creationism and evolution should be taught alongside in schools and whatever else creationists argue.

This stance, of course, assumes that creationist criticisms of evolution are legitimate (and usually they are not), and in the cases where they are legitimate that they sufficiently undermine evolutionary theory to make it a matter of faith on the level of Biblical creationism and not a matter of science (which they don't).
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 1:19:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There isn't any.

Creationists tend to radio date rock samples and pick out all the outliers that show the earth is 6000 years old (either caused by a bad sample or machine malfunction) and put it up as evidence.
0x5f3759df
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 5:18:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is no scientific evidence for creationism, and there is no scientific evidence for the theory (hypothesis is more accurate) of evolution. Just like there is no scientific evidence for what is before the big bang.

Philosophically, if Christianity and by extension, the bible, is indeed true, and YEC is the correct interruption, then bibilical creationism would neccessarily be true. This is the basis of the belief.
However, this is not science. Unless there is a non-neutral evidence, it should not be addressed scientifically.

Evolutionism has similar philosophical grounds. Only instead, we have a zero IQ, random god we need to scientifically support. The mechanism is a failure when asked to explain anything.
Probably the most annoying thing about evolutionism is switching the meaning of evolution from "single-cellularity------------> multi-cellularity--> to us" to "There is change between generations". Duh! That is why we have genetics, we are not debating that.
It is simple, since they can't demonstrate the mechanisms producing the claims of the theory of evolution, then they have to show whatever mechanic can is capable of producing the claims.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 7:33:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To Creationists, when one asks "how do you know God made the Earth?", they assert that the existence of everything proves that God created it, while never making the connection between the existence of everything, and the specific deity that they believe in, while denying scientific fact by quoting the Bible.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 2:05:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Rationalwiki has an excellent article detailing all of the evidence for Creationism and its derivatives:

http://rationalwiki.org...
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
yesuke
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 4:51:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I must say, I expected a larger participation of creationists in this thread.

However, I found a list of all evolution-rebuttals that creationists tend to provide. Might be interesting to look at :)

http://www.talkorigins.org...
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 8:16:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 4:51:08 PM, yesuke wrote:
I must say, I expected a larger participation of creationists in this thread.

However, I found a list of all evolution-rebuttals that creationists tend to provide. Might be interesting to look at :)

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Here's another you might want to try. It's a site that is run by a research biologist from Cedar Sanai whose name is Rich Deem: http://www.godandscience.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 6:44:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 4:51:08 PM, yesuke wrote:
I must say, I expected a larger participation of creationists in this thread.

However, I found a list of all evolution-rebuttals that creationists tend to provide. Might be interesting to look at :)

http://www.talkorigins.org...

My particular favorite is that all the arguments that were made 15 years ago, and have been thouroughly rebutted are still being made today. As we speak.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 4:51:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 5:18:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
There is no scientific evidence for creationism, and there is no scientific evidence for the theory (hypothesis is more accurate) of evolution. Just like there is no scientific evidence for what is before the big bang.

The bold is wrong. Evolution is: "genetic variation in a given population of organisms over a span of time."_Skeptikitten - Microbiologist.

That has been observed and is not even up for debate. If you wanna start going into UCA and the like, good for you, but it is not evolution.

So, Dragonfang, please tell which part of that definition has no scientific evidence behind it.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 6:01:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 4:51:08 PM, yesuke wrote:
I must say, I expected a larger participation of creationists in this thread.

However, I found a list of all evolution-rebuttals that creationists tend to provide. Might be interesting to look at :)

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Let's say it doesn't matter if god is the one who created the earth, if we focus only to the fact that a living beings are born as it is and never evolved from one thing to another, I think it is suffice to say that if evolution is proven false then creation is true. As there is no other way to explain how living creatures are currently exist in the universe.

You are probably have to look on a empirical/observation evidence to prove that creature do not evolved/evolved. Clear scientific evidence from either side will automatically prove that the other is wrong.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 6:15:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Although, logically, I don't think it is even enough to prove that we have to come from something, thus the fact that we're here mean something created us.

It is entirely possible that we've came from nothing at all and the universe is without the beginning and the end. Most of creationist idea claimed that we must be created from something otherwise there will be nothing, I think it is also possible that we're nothing, and nothing is ever created.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 8:06:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 4:51:09 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/19/2013 5:18:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
There is no scientific evidence for creationism, and there is no scientific evidence for the theory (hypothesis is more accurate) of evolution. Just like there is no scientific evidence for what is before the big bang.



The bold is wrong. Evolution is: "genetic variation in a given population of organisms over a span of time."_Skeptikitten - Microbiologist.


That has been observed and is not even up for debate. If you wanna start going into UCA and the like, good for you, but it is not evolution.

So, Dragonfang, please tell which part of that definition has no scientific evidence behind it.

Believers of evolution always give me the dilemma between a face palm or laughing when they pull the fallacy of equivocation, this is becoming trite and cliche. Since the theory of evolution is not scientifically defendable, they switch the meaning to "There is genetic variation between species!", congratulations for noticing, genetics was established in the 19th century, we are not debating that.

The theory of evolution simply proposes a historical context, where some individuals connected the dots in a particular pattern that suited their purpose, rather than give any real scientific explanations.
If you believe it does, then please provide scientific evidence of a mechanism that is capable of allowing single-cells to gain multi-cellularity, or one that would form organs and biological systems like the heart and brain.

Evolution is simply not powerful or intelligent enough.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 1:05:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 8:06:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/30/2013 4:51:09 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/19/2013 5:18:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
There is no scientific evidence for creationism, and there is no scientific evidence for the theory (hypothesis is more accurate) of evolution. Just like there is no scientific evidence for what is before the big bang.



The bold is wrong. Evolution is: "genetic variation in a given population of organisms over a span of time."_Skeptikitten - Microbiologist.


That has been observed and is not even up for debate. If you wanna start going into UCA and the like, good for you, but it is not evolution.

So, Dragonfang, please tell which part of that definition has no scientific evidence behind it.


Believers of evolution always give me the dilemma between a face palm or laughing when they pull the fallacy of equivocation, this is becoming trite and cliche. Since the theory of evolution is not scientifically defendable, they switch the meaning to "There is genetic variation between species!", congratulations for noticing, genetics was established in the 19th century, we are not debating that.

The theory of evolution simply proposes a historical context, where some individuals connected the dots in a particular pattern that suited their purpose, rather than give any real scientific explanations.
If you believe it does, then please provide scientific evidence of a mechanism that is capable of allowing single-cells to gain multi-cellularity, or one that would form organs and biological systems like the heart and brain.

Evolution is simply not powerful or intelligent enough.

Either you've missed the point or straw manned. That was evolution, if you don't think it's correct, then say why. If you do, then I have no idea what you're attacking, but it's not evolution.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 2:58:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 1:05:36 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/30/2013 8:06:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/30/2013 4:51:09 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/19/2013 5:18:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
There is no scientific evidence for creationism, and there is no scientific evidence for the theory (hypothesis is more accurate) of evolution. Just like there is no scientific evidence for what is before the big bang.



The bold is wrong. Evolution is: "genetic variation in a given population of organisms over a span of time."_Skeptikitten - Microbiologist.


That has been observed and is not even up for debate. If you wanna start going into UCA and the like, good for you, but it is not evolution.

So, Dragonfang, please tell which part of that definition has no scientific evidence behind it.


Believers of evolution always give me the dilemma between a face palm or laughing when they pull the fallacy of equivocation, this is becoming trite and cliche. Since the theory of evolution is not scientifically defendable, they switch the meaning to "There is genetic variation between species!", congratulations for noticing, genetics was established in the 19th century, we are not debating that.

The theory of evolution simply proposes a historical context, where some individuals connected the dots in a particular pattern that suited their purpose, rather than give any real scientific explanations.
If you believe it does, then please provide scientific evidence of a mechanism that is capable of allowing single-cells to gain multi-cellularity, or one that would form organs and biological systems like the heart and brain.

Evolution is simply not powerful or intelligent enough.


Either you've missed the point or straw manned. That was evolution, if you don't think it's correct, then say why. If you do, then I have no idea what you're attacking, but it's not evolution.

I am attacking the theory of evolution, which makes the claim that all diversity of life forms arose from a single cell.
I don't dispute the existence of evolution, aka genetic variation, it takes place constantly. However, it is not even close to being capable to form all of nature with all it's amazing species with their biological systems.
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 4:07:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 12:42:31 PM, yesuke wrote:
One thing that strikes me on the whole Evolutionism vs. Creationism matter is that it is always the Evolutionists that have to defend their view by providing many forms of evidences, whereas I have never really come across any evidence for Creationism yet (apart from quotings from the Bible and such).

So I'd like to know what evidence there is for Creationism.

More accurately, I'd like to know what evidence there is for Creationism that doesn't rely on the assumption that there is a God (not as a start-point for an argument) and doesn't rely on the truthfulness of the Bible. So I'm looking for arguments based on objective observations / experiments.

I'm very eager to read what everyone has to say, and I encourage critical thinking for the evidences/opinions of both sides :)

I don't mean to offend anyone or attack Creationists, I'm merely trying to gain more information on this 'quarrel' and be well-informed so as to shape my own views on the matter.

That's because there is no evidence for creationism. For the rest of the world the argument for creationism ended in the 1970's and has not bee prevalent since (it's only really in America that the argument still goes on, since American society is so far behind the times that they're still waiting for the next Beatles album to come out). Creationists may retort that the argument is still very real and isn't over at all, but it just is.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 4:08:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 8:06:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/30/2013 4:51:09 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/19/2013 5:18:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
There is no scientific evidence for creationism, and there is no scientific evidence for the theory (hypothesis is more accurate) of evolution. Just like there is no scientific evidence for what is before the big bang.



The bold is wrong. Evolution is: "genetic variation in a given population of organisms over a span of time."_Skeptikitten - Microbiologist.


That has been observed and is not even up for debate. If you wanna start going into UCA and the like, good for you, but it is not evolution.

So, Dragonfang, please tell which part of that definition has no scientific evidence behind it.


Believers of evolution always give me the dilemma between a face palm or laughing when they pull the fallacy of equivocation, this is becoming trite and cliche. Since the theory of evolution is not scientifically defendable, they switch the meaning to "There is genetic variation between species!", congratulations for noticing, genetics was established in the 19th century, we are not debating that.

The theory of evolution simply proposes a historical context, where some individuals connected the dots in a particular pattern that suited their purpose, rather than give any real scientific explanations.
If you believe it does, then please provide scientific evidence of a mechanism that is capable of allowing single-cells to gain multi-cellularity, or one that would form organs and biological systems like the heart and brain.

Evolution is simply not powerful or intelligent enough.

While I would like to debate the science of evolution; it is clear that this is NOT what you are arguing.

You are discarding the generic framework of evolution including masses of evidence concerning mutation, natural selection, common ancestory, DNA similarities, and observed adaptation and speciation. This evidence shows that living organisms mutate over time, they can accumulate so many changes that they can no longer interbreed, and that there is no inbuilt genetic or chemical mechanism for preventing such mutations occuring (in fact, they simply keep building), which means not evolving is statistically and physically impossible.

You are simply ignoring it.

You are also simply ignoring the staggering and overwhelming correlation of the biological nested set (otherwise called the tree of life) when using DNA or morphology, or time.

Note: It is difficult to undersell the coorellation of the nested set is like taking a random sample of people around the world who have ever lived; and by looking at their various physical traits and the date they died, making an estimation of how closely related they all are: Then taking several types of DNA analysis of all of them and finding out you are pretty much correct.

Not only that, there is a staggering lack of violation of common descent, dolphins and whales still have legs rather than structures that appear in fish; bats have mamal features rather than bird wings; and there are simply no violations where two unrelated branches of the tree, share components (rather than simply seperately evolved but similar structures as described with bat vs bird wings). There are no spider pigs. No fish monkeys. All explained by Evolution.

You are also ignoring that there are no significant violations; you don't find modern mamallia species back when there shouldn't be; you don't find random mixes of fossiles.

The level of evidence is more than for most other theories; the sheer wait of actual and corroberating evidence simply staggers beleif. Not only that, Evolution provides an explanatory framework that seems to explain so much of the biological world around us, we can see it in action and almost every week some new aspect of life is explained using evolutionary theory.

And the reason you reject it?

Because we can't proove how a single event that occurred almost 1bn years ago, occuring in creatures that are incredibly difficult to preserve.

You are horribly, horribly mistaken about what the Theory of Evolution is, the sheer weight of evidence that supports it, the very little contradicts it, it's explanatory power, and the sheer weight of staggering coincidence that strains incredulity not to find compelling.

If this was a theory of electricity, or some law of economics, you would accept it without question.

Deal with the above, deal with the actual evidence rather than simply saying it doesn't exist.
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 4:10:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 2:58:06 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/30/2013 1:05:36 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/30/2013 8:06:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/30/2013 4:51:09 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/19/2013 5:18:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
There is no scientific evidence for creationism, and there is no scientific evidence for the theory (hypothesis is more accurate) of evolution. Just like there is no scientific evidence for what is before the big bang.



The bold is wrong. Evolution is: "genetic variation in a given population of organisms over a span of time."_Skeptikitten - Microbiologist.


That has been observed and is not even up for debate. If you wanna start going into UCA and the like, good for you, but it is not evolution.

So, Dragonfang, please tell which part of that definition has no scientific evidence behind it.


Believers of evolution always give me the dilemma between a face palm or laughing when they pull the fallacy of equivocation, this is becoming trite and cliche. Since the theory of evolution is not scientifically defendable, they switch the meaning to "There is genetic variation between species!", congratulations for noticing, genetics was established in the 19th century, we are not debating that.

The theory of evolution simply proposes a historical context, where some individuals connected the dots in a particular pattern that suited their purpose, rather than give any real scientific explanations.
If you believe it does, then please provide scientific evidence of a mechanism that is capable of allowing single-cells to gain multi-cellularity, or one that would form organs and biological systems like the heart and brain.

Evolution is simply not powerful or intelligent enough.


Either you've missed the point or straw manned. That was evolution, if you don't think it's correct, then say why. If you do, then I have no idea what you're attacking, but it's not evolution.

I am attacking the theory of evolution, which makes the claim that all diversity of life forms arose from a single cell.
I don't dispute the existence of evolution, aka genetic variation, it takes place constantly. However, it is not even close to being capable to form all of nature with all it's amazing species with their biological systems.

Why don't you also attack the theory of gravity. Jump out of a seventeenth story window and record your results for us. After all, it is only a theory. Right?
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 4:28:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 2:58:06 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/30/2013 1:05:36 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/30/2013 8:06:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/30/2013 4:51:09 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/19/2013 5:18:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
There is no scientific evidence for creationism, and there is no scientific evidence for the theory (hypothesis is more accurate) of evolution. Just like there is no scientific evidence for what is before the big bang.



The bold is wrong. Evolution is: "genetic variation in a given population of organisms over a span of time."_Skeptikitten - Microbiologist.


That has been observed and is not even up for debate. If you wanna start going into UCA and the like, good for you, but it is not evolution.

So, Dragonfang, please tell which part of that definition has no scientific evidence behind it.


Believers of evolution always give me the dilemma between a face palm or laughing when they pull the fallacy of equivocation, this is becoming trite and cliche. Since the theory of evolution is not scientifically defendable, they switch the meaning to "There is genetic variation between species!", congratulations for noticing, genetics was established in the 19th century, we are not debating that.

The theory of evolution simply proposes a historical context, where some individuals connected the dots in a particular pattern that suited their purpose, rather than give any real scientific explanations.
If you believe it does, then please provide scientific evidence of a mechanism that is capable of allowing single-cells to gain multi-cellularity, or one that would form organs and biological systems like the heart and brain.

Evolution is simply not powerful or intelligent enough.


Either you've missed the point or straw manned. That was evolution, if you don't think it's correct, then say why. If you do, then I have no idea what you're attacking, but it's not evolution.

I am attacking the theory of evolution, which makes the claim that all diversity of life forms arose from a single cell.
I don't dispute the existence of evolution, aka genetic variation, it takes place constantly. However, it is not even close to being capable to form all of nature with all it's amazing species with their biological systems.

If you can give me a source for that, then we can talk more on it. But the theory of evolution by means of natural selection, which I defined, you've conceded. Now, if you want to attack the theories of punctuated equilibrium, universal common ancestry, or abiogenesis instead, then OK, fine, you have that right. But the theory of evolution is solid.

To me it sounds like you're talking about UCA, which is another theory. While it's related to evolution, it isn't evolution itself. So, please call it what it is. Nevertheless, we are making good progress here! :D
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 3:04:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 4:08:28 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/30/2013 8:06:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/30/2013 4:51:09 AM, MysticEgg wrote:



The bold is wrong. Evolution is: "genetic variation in a given population of organisms over a span of time."_Skeptikitten - Microbiologist.


That has been observed and is not even up for debate. If you wanna start going into UCA and the like, good for you, but it is not evolution.

So, Dragonfang, please tell which part of that definition has no scientific evidence behind it.


Believers of evolution always give me the dilemma between a face palm or laughing when they pull the fallacy of equivocation, this is becoming trite and cliche. Since the theory of evolution is not scientifically defendable, they switch the meaning to "There is genetic variation between species!", congratulations for noticing, genetics was established in the 19th century, we are not debating that.

The theory of evolution simply proposes a historical context, where some individuals connected the dots in a particular pattern that suited their purpose, rather than give any real scientific explanations.
If you believe it does, then please provide scientific evidence of a mechanism that is capable of allowing single-cells to gain multi-cellularity, or one that would form organs and biological systems like the heart and brain.

Evolution is simply not powerful or intelligent enough.

While I would like to debate the science of evolution; it is clear that this is NOT what you are arguing.

Historical hypothesis, not science.

You are discarding the generic framework of evolution including masses of evidence concerning mutation, natural selection, common ancestory, DNA similarities, and observed adaptation and speciation. This evidence shows that living organisms mutate over time, they can accumulate so many changes that they can no longer interbreed, and that there is no inbuilt genetic or chemical mechanism for preventing such mutations occuring (in fact, they simply keep building), which means not evolving is statistically and physically impossible.

RM & NS can create organs and multi-cells? Evidence please.
What is the DNA similarity required to falsify evolution? Heard that chimpanzee similarity reached bellow 70%. http://www.nature.com...
No argument against adaptation or speciation.
You are begging the question, are you saying organ-inventing mutations occurs? How can that which does not exist accumulate or build up?

You are simply ignoring it.

You are also simply ignoring the staggering and overwhelming correlation of the biological nested set (otherwise called the tree of life) when using DNA or morphology, or time.

Note: It is difficult to undersell the coorellation of the nested set is like taking a random sample of people around the world who have ever lived; and by looking at their various physical traits and the date they died, making an estimation of how closely related they all are: Then taking several types of DNA analysis of all of them and finding out you are pretty much correct.

Not only that, there is a staggering lack of violation of common descent, dolphins and whales still have legs rather than structures that appear in fish; bats have mamal features rather than bird wings; and there are simply no violations where two unrelated branches of the tree, share components (rather than simply seperately evolved but similar structures as described with bat vs bird wings). There are no spider pigs. No fish monkeys. All explained by Evolution.

Oh, please tell me how can ANYTHING violate common descends, ad hoc are there to maintain and defend something equal in evidence to a fairytale at all costs.

How in the world is nested hierarchy considered an evidence? If you believe that dinosaurs became hummingbirds, there is absolutely nothing that prevents you from believing that hummingbirds became dinosaurs.
A phylogeny is simply a depiction of the order in which evolutionists believe taxa arose, not the order in which they were required to arise. In fact, I believe it would as easy to argue that a confusing and overlapping tree is evidence for evolution.

As Sherlock Holmes said in The Boscombe Valley Mystery:
"Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing," answered Holmes thoughtfully. "It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.

Dolphins and whales have legs? A boomerang shaped bone that is smaller than your hand? Right, anything can look anything for evolution. After wasting millions of years developing lungs and mammal stuff, they turned 180 since the sharks weren't so bad after all.

Bats and whales have the exact same bio-sonar system and protein? "Explained" by "contingent" evolution as you said, luck-did-it.
http://news.sciencemag.org...

You are also ignoring that there are no significant violations; you don't find modern mamallia species back when there shouldn't be; you don't find random mixes of fossiles.

It is circular definition, an old fossil is old because it is old, a modern fossil is modern because it is modern. There are living fossils that remained virtually the same for hundreds of millions of years, but as you said, everything can be explained by evolution and it's many ad hocs.
So do the fossils eventually grow limbs for example? Lets say we leave a T.Rex for a couple million years, will it grow it's arms or be different at all?

The level of evidence is more than for most other theories; the sheer wait of actual and corroberating evidence simply staggers beleif. Not only that, Evolution provides an explanatory framework that seems to explain so much of the biological world around us, we can see it in action and almost every week some new aspect of life is explained using evolutionary theory.

Hypothesis. Save "Theory" for what can be tested or observed, or at least logical.
A cheese moon or a flat earth also provides an explanatory framework during the lack of evidence, and they both are bad explanations.


And the reason you reject it?

Because we can't proove how a single event that occurred almost 1bn years ago, occuring in creatures that are incredibly difficult to preserve.

You are horribly, horribly mistaken about what the Theory of Evolution is, the sheer weight of evidence that supports it, the very little contradicts it, it's explanatory power, and the sheer weight of staggering coincidence that strains incredulity not to find compelling.

The tiny favorable evidence is nothing compared to it's huge flaws and lack of evidence for it's claims. You can't prove a single claimed event unique to ToE.

If this was a theory of electricity, or some law of economics, you would accept it without question.

Deal with the above, deal with the actual evidence rather than simply saying it doesn't exist.

Because they are based on the scientific method, which provides results and observations and reasonable cause-effect explanations.
The foundations of the theory of evolution is a fantasy.

At 10/30/2013 4:10:47 PM, Quatermass wrote:
Why don't you also attack the theory of gravity. Jump out of a seventeenth story window and record your results for us. After all, it is only a theory. Right?

Hey! Why'd you insult gravity?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 9:50:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 3:04:04 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
While I would like to debate the science of evolution; it is clear that this is NOT what you are arguing.

Historical hypothesis, not science.

Testable, falsifiable, supported by significant evidence, makes predictions, explains the biological diversity we see around us?

No, as much as you may want to tell yourself it is a hypothesis, it is science.


You are discarding the generic framework of evolution including masses of evidence concerning mutation, natural selection, common ancestory, DNA similarities, and observed adaptation and speciation. This evidence shows that living organisms mutate over time, they can accumulate so many changes that they can no longer interbreed, and that there is no inbuilt genetic or chemical mechanism for preventing such mutations occuring (in fact, they simply keep building), which means not evolving is statistically and physically impossible.

RM & NS can create organs and multi-cells? Evidence please.
What is the DNA similarity required to falsify evolution? Heard that chimpanzee similarity reached bellow 70%. http://www.nature.com...

You didn't read the article. This is talking about one chromosome. It is even critically clear the other 20 something chromosomes are less than 2% different. This is sort of understabmdable as the y chromosome is highly related to reproduction and is therefore subject to more selective pressure.

But kudos you took the article far out of context.

No argument against adaptation or speciation.

Of course there isn't any argument that can be made against them.

You are begging the question, are you saying organ-inventing mutations occurs? How can that which does not exist accumulate or build up?

You should know better. If what I am doing is begging the question, then this is certainly a straw man, as no scientists would propose that "an organ inventing mutation" occurs.

If you look at the animal kingdom, you will see massive diversity in organs, hearts for example. Ranging from worms, that have a single chambered contracting tube, to fully fledged, two, three and four chambered heart. I would suggest you google some of this, as it makes some quite interesting reading. It can be shown that fairly small regulartory mutations can bring about large morphological differences in this way.

Oh, please tell me how can ANYTHING violate common descends, ad hoc are there to maintain and defend something equal in evidence to a fairytale at all costs.

Common descent arranges animals like a tree according to their morphology. When some things are very close, or there is incomplete information, some branches move, slightly, but there are not anything along the lines of "random" or adhoc reclassification.

I will state some simple and reasonable examples of things that would violate common descent.

1.) fish with mammalian nipples.
2.) a dolphin with gills
3.) a bat with wings structured like birds.
4.) a mouse with a cloaca
5.) a reptile with a placenta.

All of the above are example of "mixing and matching" properties that are specific to certain major trunks of the tree of life which can't happen if common descent is true (actually, there is an argument that 2 and 4 could potentially be possible as an ancestor of mice have cloaca and of dolphins with gills, so there is potentially some weird one off mutation that could cause it to an individual).


How in the world is nested hierarchy considered an evidence? If you believe that dinosaurs became hummingbirds, there is absolutely nothing that prevents you from believing that hummingbirds became dinosaurs.

Time and dates prevent it. If you could show the dates of fossile showing hummingbirds evolving into dinosaurs in time as well as the other way around then yes, there would be a good case.

Evolution implies that you can generate a family tree of all living things, the nested hierarchy is a granular view of that family tree at the species level.

A phylogeny is simply a depiction of the order in which evolutionists believe taxa arose, not the order in which they were required to arise. In fact, I believe it would as easy to argue that a confusing and overlapping tree is evidence for evolution.

Phylogeny combined with time and dating. The time and dating is crucially important. Let's not forget it because it suits your argument. An overlapping tree wouldn't work for evolution: we would need to come up with something else, as the tree is a requirement for common descent in the same way that if you discovered you had three biological fathers, you would have to throw out your understanding of how you were born.

Dolphins and whales have legs? A boomerang shaped bone that is smaller than your hand? Right, anything can look anything for evolution. After wasting millions of years developing lungs and mammal stuff, they turned 180 since the sharks weren't so bad after all.

Exactly. This is the beauty of evolution, animals can evolve because of selective pressure in one direction then can go in another weird direction and evolve a similar form with very different structure. It certainly is not evidence for anything else but evolution.


Bats and whales have the exact same bio-sonar system and protein? "Explained" by "contingent" evolution as you said, luck-did-it.
http://news.sciencemag.org...

It is circular definition, an old fossil is old because it is old, a modern fossil is modern because it is modern. There are living fossils that remained virtually the same for hundreds of millions of years, but as you said, everything can be explained by evolution and it's many ad hocs.

Sorry, I'm not sure why this is a counter argument? It's either a tree or not. The tree shows gradual branching and divergence of species over time. There are some examples of species that haven't evolved much due to lack of selection pressure. You are using rhetoric to make it sound like the tree is arbitrary. It isn't: there are numerous ways it can be invalidated as I have listed.

So do the fossils eventually grow limbs for example? Lets say we leave a T.Rex for a couple million years, will it grow it's arms or be different at all.
No because it's dead.

Hypothesis. Save "Theory" for what can be tested or observed, or at least logical.
A cheese moon or a flat earth also provides an explanatory framework during the lack of evidence, and they both are bad explanations.

It has been tested, observed some of the many examples have been posted here. Nothing you have said here implies that it is illogical, I would like you to back this particular statement up with an argument.

The tiny favorable evidence is nothing compared to it's huge flaws and lack of evidence for it's claims. You can't prove a single claimed event unique to ToE.

What huge flaws have you pointed out, you have done nothing more than simply state that it's wrong and made some statements about organs. I'm sure there are a lot of things that have big flaws if all one has to do is say so and then ignore the counter argument.

Because they are based on the scientific method, which provides results and observations and reasonable cause-effect explanations.
The foundations of the theory of evolution is a fantasy.

As is evolution, just because you don't accept it, does not make it any less real.