Reply With Quote
There is no point in trying to reasonably talk to this guy. He's hopelessly convinced that his warped religious perspective is correct, and he doesn't care about facts.
.
There is no point in trying to reasonably talk to this guy. He's hopelessly convinced that his warped religious perspective is correct, and he doesn't care about facts.
As a general rule, I never get into these arguments, because it's pointless, but the above statement is simply wrong. We could get into a friendly scientific debate about the "holes" that exist in either theory (which I will not do... because it would be pointless) and evolution wins, hands down. No fossil find has ever not matched the transitional form that should occur in the rock strata in which it's found. The missing links have been found. DNA mapping shows common descent. The science is there if you care to enlighten yourself. The THEORY of evolution is as rock-solid as the theory of gravity or quantum physics. To quote one of the smartest men I know: "Science--it works, es."
Very heavy reading, imo, but if someone wanted to read a very interesting and educational book on the topic in layman's terms, I recommend "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne.
And that's all I'm adding to this topic.
As a general rule, I never get into these arguments, because it's pointless, but the above statement is simply wrong. We could get into a friendly scientific debate about the "holes" that exist in either theory (which I will not do... because it would be pointless) and evolution wins, hands down. No fossil find has ever not matched the transitional form that should occur in the rock strata in which it's found. The missing links have been found. DNA mapping shows common descent. The science is there if you care to enlighten yourself. The THEORY of evolution is as rock-solid as the theory of gravity or quantum physics. To quote one of the smartest men I know: "Science--it works, es."
Very heavy reading, imo, but if someone wanted to read a very interesting and educational book on the topic in layman's terms, I recommend "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne.
And that's all I'm adding to this topic.
PLUG these holes in the evolution theory..............
"Below is a summary of what convinced me that natural evolution cannot be the answer to the question of origins.
Natural law. Scientists investigate the laws of nature. The very existence of law and order in the universe points to a source or lawgiver.
Law of cause and effect. All current scientific evidence indicates that the universe had a beginning. Before this evidence was found, many scientists thought that the universe had existed eternally and had no beginning. According to the law of cause and effect, every effect must have a cause. Since we have an effect (the beginning of the universe and life), there must have been a cause. That cause would necessarily be outside the present realm of nature.
First law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. In the current order of nature, energy is transformed from one form to another, for example from nuclear energy (sun), to light, to chemical energy (in plants), to heat (when the food is eaten and the calories are used to warm the body), to motion (walking) or sound (speaking). Electricity is an additional form of energy. Energy can never be created or destroyed. This is not a theory, it's a law. Matter is related to energy (e=mc2), so energy can sometimes be transformed into matter and vice versa, but the energy itself cannot be created or destroyed. Since we have matter and energy, and since the universe has not always been in existence, energy had to have been created at some time in the past. Today's natural laws must not have always been in operation.
Second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics describes the natural tendency of things to progress from order to disorder. This law states that order does not arise spontaneously from chaos. In other words, the universe is "running down." In the past, there was more usable energy in the universe than there is now. The same amount of energy exists because energy cannot be created or destroyed, but on the whole it is in ever less usable form.
The theory of natural evolution proposes that over millions of years, the universe and life on earth naturally proceeded from chaos (disorder) to the amazing degree of order we observe today. Although scientists argue that the excess energy of the sun could have powered these improvements without violating the law, evolution would have required not one but hundreds of millions of small movements "uphill". Even a single incidence of this would be unusual! Note that the apparent uphill movement of a seed to a tree or a fertilized egg to an adult animal is not random. The seeds contain the design code and instructions for "building" the organism from available materials. The question is, can information come from nothing? Can information organize itself in an orderly way?
Law of biogenesis. People once believed that maggots were spontaneously generated from the flesh of dead animals. They thought life could come from non-life. Louis Pasteur proved beyond doubt that life cannot arise from non-life. This is not a scientific theory, but a law. Proponents of evolution contend that life did arise spontaneously from non-life at least once in the past, in other words, that this particular natural law was broken or nonexistent sometime in the past.
Complexity of living cell. A single cell is far more complicated than any machine intelligent man has invented. A typical cell contains ten million million atoms (quadrillion). To reconstruct a model of a cell, atom by atom, one atom per second, would take about ten million years to finish. To get a cell by chance would require at least 100 functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. Even if that happened, would it be alive? A dead body (or a dead cell) has all of the proper proteins, enzymes, the cell wall, and the DNA design in one place, yet it is not alive.
Complexity of DNA code. The capacity of DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of any known system created by intelligent man. If the information in an individual's DNA were in small type in books like the telephone book, it would take a stack of books 46 feet high to hold all the information. Yet there is a DNA molecule in every one of the ten trillion cells in a human body. The design information to specify every person who has ever lived and every species of animal and plant which has ever existed would fit into a cup, with room left over.
Sexual reproduction. Evolutionists often point out that humans and chimpanzees share 99% of genetic material. Yet humans have 23 sets of chromosomes and chimps have 24. For two animals to mate, their chromosomes must match or "zip together." The proposed divergence of chimps and humans from a common ancestor is said to have occurred after sexual reproduction began. If the theory of evolution is true, an animal must have been born at some time in the past with a different number of chromosomes than its parents. Unless that animal was able to mate, it would have no adaptive advantage. Therefore, if evolution as proposed is true, two animals must have experienced the same change in the number of chromosomes in the same geographic location during the same generation. Although "coincidences" such as this have not been observed in nature, they must have happened thousands of times in the course of history if natural evolution is to account for what exists today.
Interdependence of proteins and DNA. The proteins needed for life cannot be manufactured without the design specifications of DNA. DNA cannot replicate itself without enzymes (proteins). According to atheist Richard Dawkins, "DNA and protein are two pillars of a stable and elegant arch, which persists once all its parts simultaneously exist. It is hard to imagine it arising by any step-by-step process unless some earlier scaffolding has completely disappeared." Such scaffolding is completely speculative.
Complexity of the brain. Microelectronics, created by intelligent man, can pack more than a million circuits within a cubic foot. The brain has been estimated to pack a million million circuits per cubic foot. The human brain contains about ten billion nerve cells, each of which can put out between 10,000 and 100,000 connectors. The number of possible associations, hence the number of potential thoughts a person can think, may exceed the number of atoms in the universe. The brain is by far the most complex thing known to man.
Probability. There are about 1070 atoms in the observable universe. There are only 1090 seconds in the 15 billion years generally said to be the age of the universe. The probability of spontaneously forming the smallest replicating protein molecule by chance is 1 in 10450. The probability of spontaneously forming proteins and DNA for the smallest self-replicating en y is 1 in 10167,626. The probability of a simple living cell reassembling itself under ideal natural conditions if all components were present but chemical bonds were broken is 1 in 10100,000,000,000. Mathematicians consider events in nature with a probability of less than 1 in 1050 to have a zero probability, i.e. to be impossible regardless of how much time is available.
Mutations. Mutations are errors in DNA copying. They are very rare and 99.99% of them are harmful or fatal. DNA has a built-in "proofreading" system with such accuracy that a typist would each have to type 20 billion books with only one typographical error for it to be matched. The neo-Darwinian synthesis proposes that mutations are the primary source of improved genetic material.
Natural selection can select from an existing gene pool that which is "fittest" for a particular environment. It does not even attempt to explain the origin of the material in the gene pool from which selections are made. Where did the huge variety of genetic information come from in the first place? Information must come from somewhere. It does not arise spontaneously.
Adaptation or "fit" of organisms to their environment. In many cases, many interlocking parts would have to come about at once for any mutation to be functional enough to be naturally selected. An example is the bombardier beetle. When threatened by an enemy, it blasts boiling hot gases from two tail pipes into the face of an attacker. The explosive is made inside the beetle's body by mixing together two dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, the beetle manufactures another type of chemical known as an "inhibitor." The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store the chemicals indefinitely. When the beetle is approached by a predator, he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes and at precisely the right moment he adds another chemical (an anti-inhibitor). This knocks out the inhibitor and a violent explosion occurs right in the face of the attacker. How could such as system, utilizing such dangerous chemicals, have evolved randomly step by step? All parts are necessary for any of them to have an adaptive advantage. The probability of more than one advantageous mutation arising at once is incredibly slim."
.................just sayin its not as cut and dry as it seems
This dude doesn't even know what evolution is, and yet he thinks he found valid criticisms of it.
He doesn't even know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution--and neither does the writer of that article that he copied and pasted without reading.
This dude doesn't even know what evolution is, and yet he thinks he found valid criticisms of it.
He doesn't even know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution--and neither does the writer of that article that he copied and pasted without reading.
So you are saying..............he has no valid questions or criticisms?
Where did you get that from? If you got it from the place I think you got it from, I'll laugh at you even more.
Like I asked..........plug the holes above. Give an answer to the holes in the theory. Stop beating around the bush.
What holes? You don't even know what evolution is, and you don't know what the person you quoted was talking about.
Again, provide a link to the article you just copied and pasted.
Do you know what evolution is?
I obviously only know a little bit compared to your vast knowledge of evolution. Please enlighten me.
Provide the link to the article you copied and pasted, and stop trying to change the subject.
Briefly tell me what evolution is please. I dont know about it apparently.
No one wants to read your re ed ass copy n paste article of bull . You can't even summarize an argument for yourself.
What is evolution? Come on guys............dont be pussies. Explain, since I dont know at all. Help me out here.
He's too afraid to provide the link!
As if he hasn't made a fool of himself enough as is.
As I have explained many posts back, YOU ARE ON A COMPUTER.
Wikipedia is your friend
Yall cant even give me your definition of evolution. I admit I havent studied it in depth as much as you and your buddy. But, I know enough to know there are holes in the theory.
He's too afraid to provide the link!
As if he hasn't made a fool of himself enough as is.
So explain to me why evolution is true...........and plug the holes I found from ONE person online. There are many others, and that is why I dont believe evolution is true.
All yall can do is call someone a fool and idiot.
I asked you first: provide the link to the article that you copied and pasted. Cite your sources.Yall cant even give me your definition of evolution. I admit I havent studied it in depth as much as you and your buddy. But, I know enough to know there are holes in the theory.
So explain to me why evolution is true...........and plug the holes I found from ONE person online. There are many others, and that is why I dont believe evolution is true.
Doesnt matter.............you havent shown one source either or proven to me that evolution is real. You just say it is.
Assuming we cannot say for sure either of the two theories are completely fact, accepted universally, there are far more holes in creationism than evolution. At a re ed disparity as well, my guess is a 100:1 ratio.
I'm putting my money where it's almost guaranteed.
redzero: http://www.susancanthony.com/aboutsusan/evolution.html
You also could be more computer savy (lol, just copy n paste all that nonsense and you find the source....susancanthony.com lol whoever the that is).
Why do I have the burden of proof? Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution explains the fact that is evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://www.newscientist.com/topic/evolution
http://science.howstuffworks.com/env.../evolution.htm
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...hp?topic_id=41
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar..._evolution.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/
If you want to know what evolution is (which you clearly don't), just look at a one of these pages.
But I still want to know why you are so afraid of providing a link to the article you copied and pasted? Were you not told to cite your sources in high school?
Ya'll have a good evening. This is like politics.............
I just know I didn't call y'all idiots or try to put down your intelligence because you believe in evolution.
I know exactly where he got the article from because I googled a paragraph. I wanted him to link it himself because he referred to the writer--Susan Anthony--as a man.
lebomb probably googled "evolution" + "true" and copied and pasted the article without reading it.
haha I considered this possibility after I posted about copy n paste.I know exactly where he got the article from because I googled a paragraph. I wanted him to link it himself because he referred to the writer--Susan Anthony--as a man.
lebomb probably googled "evolution" + "true" and copied and pasted the article without reading it.
And I took about 30 seconds to read 2 parts of that bull , and to summarize, it basically says: "It's dominatingly more extensive than creationism, and thus cannot be true. Evolutionary theory is just too ing good."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
