CreateDebate


Debate Info

12
25
Hey good arguments! WTF that's ridiculous
Debate Score:37
Arguments:17
Total Votes:46
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Hey good arguments! (7)
 
 WTF that's ridiculous (10)

Debate Creator

Peekaboo(704) pic



Arguments for creationism!

Arguments found in an anti-evolution and anti-big bang article, Evolution: Facts, Fallacies and Implications:

1. The theory of the survival of the fittest is merely a tautology: "natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction"

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things become more disorderly over time, while evolution requires for things to become more orderly (for simple life forms to evolve into more complex life forms)

3. The observed mutation of bacteria and viruses prove that a species can lose genetic information over time, but has never proven that it can gain new genetic information, which is what evolution requires

4. Fossils of advanced invertebrates appeared out of the blue in the Cambrian Age, as though they were placed there (created!) rather than evolved from simpler life forms

5. There is no fossil evidence showing the gradual evolution of one species to another; the currently discovered fossils used to support evolution are only tiny fragments that give almost no useful information

6. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet the big bang theory requires that something (the universe) came out of nothing (pre-big-bang state)

7. The Law of Biogenesis states that only living matter produces living matter, hence life cannot have evolved from non-organic matter, as a theory of the origin of life based on evolution would require

8. Scientific dating methods are inaccurate. Radiocarbon dating requires knowledge of the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, but that changes over time, hence scientists do not have this knowledge

Don't bash me, I'm not a creationist >.< I just want to hear what people - especially people more knowledgeable in science than me, which would be a lot of people - have to say about these arguments.

Hey good arguments!

Side Score: 12
VS.

WTF that's ridiculous

Side Score: 25
2 points

I'm just posting here because the other side is pretty long.

People get confused with science and shit, and that leads to them having stupid beliefs (like Creationism).

Now, arguments in the debate description can be taken in many ways. But for the average folk, instead of seeing little misconceptions like this as a reason to believe in Creationism, we should just see that as human beings, we don't have all the answers just yet.

Evolution isn't perfect, but it sure as hell is more likely than creationism. While Evolution can have some holes, Creationism has nothing. Seriously, there is no evidence to support Creationism.

In the science world, theories are always being edited in the attempt to make them perfect. Maybe one day we will finally figure out everything we need to know about Evolution. It seems like everyday there's always a new little earmark that a scientist decides to add to the theory of Evolution. And it's good to question aspects of it that don't make sense to you. But to say "well, Evolution isn't an indestructible theory, so this means that Creationism is right" is just plain retarded.

Side: Hey good arguments!
Genesis1vs1(31) Disputed
1 point

You do realize that throughout your entire post you failed to cite one instance of information that supports your conjecture. And the evolutionary 'misconceptions' are those that are built on complete assumptions. Evolution has no evidence at all. They lack transitions completely. It's more artwork then actual science.

Side: WTF that's ridiculous
ThePyg(6736) Disputed
1 point

My main point is that creationism has no scientific backing. It is practically made up.

If you want to debate the validity of evolution, than go after actual scientists who all say it's true (99%, at least). I am merely taking their word for it.

Evolution.

Side: Hey good arguments!
2 points

If you disagree with the laws. You disagree with Science! Therefore Evolution is not science, but religion.

Side: Hey good arguments!
Peekaboo(704) Disputed
2 points

I... didn't get that at all. What are you trying to argue? Who's saying what about laws and science, and what has that to do with your conclusion that science is religion? o_O

Side: WTF that's ridiculous
imrigone(761) Disputed
2 points

You'll have to be more specific, but I can assure you that evolution does not disagree with any scientific laws. That is why after over 150 years of heavily scrutinized research nobody has successfully falsified it. And evolution is not a religion because all religions a) rely on faith, b) deal with some kind of afterlife concept. Evolution does neither.

Side: WTF that's ridiculous
2 points

"7. The Law of Biogenesis states that only living matter produces living matter, hence life cannot have evolved from non-organic matter, as a theory of the origin of life based on evolution would require"

Except for this argument, I completely agree. Excluding the religious explanation of the creation of life, where did life come from? Look, I'm Christian and I believe that God created life, but let's say that God didn't exist, how would life be created?

Side: Hey good arguments!
Peekaboo(704) Disputed
2 points

This'll give you an overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Side: WTF that's ridiculous
Nautilus(628) Disputed
1 point

Miller-Urey experiments prove that organic molecules and organic precursors can be synthesized from common molecules like water, ammonia, hydrogen, etc with the proper conditions, such as those thought to exist in the early stages of earth's formation billions of years ago. Organic molecules react with each other and soon enough prokaryotic cells are formed. I do not know an immense amount about this and I don't want to embarrass myself by speaking on the specifics of the transition from organic molecules to prokaryotic cells but I do know from scientific findings and acceptance by reputable scientists and organizations around the world that life can form from inorganic material, it is a slow and chancy process though, which is why the first few billion years of life on earth was so slow but once life was established evolution took off like a rocket. It's an exponential function of biodiversity vs. time.

Side: WTF that's ridiculous
5 points

1. The theory of the survival of the fittest is merely a tautology: "natural selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction"

Natural selection posits that genetic variations lead to different levels of success in survival and reproduction, and that organisms with genes that better help them survive and reproduce are more likely to do so, and therefor pass those genes on. This is not tautological. It is also observably true.

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things become more disorderly over time, while evolution requires for things to become more orderly (for simple life forms to evolve into more complex life forms)

This applies only to closed systems, such as the universe, in which no new matter is entering or exiting. Biological organisms are not closed systems, thus this does not apply to them.

3. The observed mutation of bacteria and viruses prove that a species can lose genetic information over time, but has never proven that it can gain new genetic information, which is what evolution requires

There have indeed been observed instances of organisms gaining novel traits through mutation. A well known one is the experment of Richard Lenski, in which bacteria evolved the ability to metabolize citrate.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

4. Fossils of advanced invertebrates appeared out of the blue in the Cambrian Age, as though they were placed there (created!) rather than evolved from simpler life forms

There is a precambrian fossil record, and although it is less complete, it is not nonexistant. Conditions of precambrian earth were not conducive to the creation of fossils or the evolution of larger complex animals. Additionally, most precambrian life was not composed of many 'hard parts' like shells and bones, and soft tissue does not fossilize well.

5. There is no fossil evidence showing the gradual evolution of one species to another; the currently discovered fossils used to support evolution are only tiny fragments that give almost no useful information

This is not true. The human fossil record, for instance, is composed of fossils showing a smooth transition from small brained hominids with prognathic faces, large supraorbital toruses, and the retention of arboreal adaptations, to large brained homionids with orthagnathic faces, flat supraorbital toruses, and adaptations for obligate bipedalism. The record includes many specimens that are amazingly complete.

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/hominids2_big.jpg

Similarly thorough records exist for other species.

6. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet the big bang theory requires that something (the universe) came out of nothing (pre-big-bang state)

The origin of the universe is not part of evolution.

7. The Law of Biogenesis states that only living matter produces living matter, hence life cannot have evolved from non-organic matter, as a theory of the origin of life based on evolution would require

The origin of life is also not a part of evolution. Evolution is not concerned with where the first life forms came from, only with what happened after that.

8. Scientific dating methods are inaccurate. Radiocarbon dating requires knowledge of the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, but that changes over time, hence scientists do not have this knowledge

Radiocarbon dating has been tested repeatedly to ensure consistency and accuracy by testing items of known age, and by testing the same item multiple times. When used correctly (on items between 50k and 150 years old) its results are corroborated by other methods of independent radiometric and non-radiometric dating.

As you can see, these claims are based on a lack of understanding, of blatant misinformation. If you are still interested in learning more, here is my favorite site for the deconstruction of creationist claims.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Side: WTF that's ridiculous
1 point

Real nice. And thanks for the link - that was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for!

Side: WTF that's ridiculous
1 point

Zombee! I could not provide better answers, except mabe theorems of incompleteness.

Side: Hey good arguments!
Genesis1vs1(31) Disputed
1 point

Natural selection posits that genetic variations lead to different levels of success in survival and reproduction, and that organisms with genes that better help them survive and reproduce are more likely to do so, and therefor pass those genes on.

Natural Selection is not evolution. The elimination of unfit species does not translate to gaining new genetic information.

It is also observably true.

The extinction of species is observable, but not the gaining of new genetic material that was never there.

This applies only to closed systems, such as the universe, in which no new matter is entering or exiting. Biological organisms are not closed systems, thus this does not apply to them.

Biological processes all apply under Thermodynamics. This is on an atomic level in most cases sub-atomic as well i.e. photons and magnetic energy. Astronomy deals with all elements in the universe, which is where we reside. Most of the elements we see on our planet we have observed in other stars through spectroscopy. Therefore the similiar laws apply. The atoms in biological processes are the same in components of other matter in the universe. Same components then it must abide by the same laws.

There have indeed been observed instances of organisms gaining novel traits through mutation. A well known one is the experment of Richard Lenski, in which bacteria evolved the ability to metabolize citrate.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

The ability to metabolize citrate doesn't mean new genetic material has been created. In fact it can more likely due to a mutation. Especially with all the replication within the own group of original bacteria. That much replication in a controlled group would indicate mistakes would happen from damaged DNA in the bacteria.

While Darwinists are quick to claim this experiment as support for “evolution” (in reference to full-blown, molecules-to-man evolution), let’s first take a step back and review what “evolution” is, along with the different narratives evolutionists and creationists tell.

“Evolution” (in a biological sense), strictly defined, is simply a change in a population’s gene frequencies over time (as generations come and go). Thus, even mutations that remove genetic information can spread if they confer some reproductive and survival advantage.

Thus, any time a biological population is observed undergoing any sort of heritable change—even a change that keeps genetic information constant or that reduces genetic information—it is “evolution” in action. This evolution “before our very eyes” is usually then touted as proof for molecules-to-man evolution, even though the latter would require a massive increase in genetic information. It’s the old “bait and switch” tactic, as “evolution” shifts meaning from experimentally shown change to unobservable molecules-to-man change.

So what’s really going on in Lenski’s experiment? Actually, nobody really knows! Lenski’s team is still working to understand “just what that earlier change was, and how it made the . . . mutation possible.” They will likely be analyzing the genome of the original E. coli parent and the genomes of its “evolved” offspring. The citrate-processing ability may be due to the activation of a latent function or a beneficial (but not information-gaining) mutation that allows citrate processing.

It’s important for us all to remember that when we read science news that seems to “confirm” evolution, it’s never a true threat to the biblical worldview and the creation account because God’s Word never changes but man’s fallible ideas do.

Furthermore, creationists are just as interested in figuring out how the citrate-processing ability came about in this batch of E. coli. AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008

Radiocarbon dating has been tested repeatedly to ensure consistency and accuracy...

This is not the case at all. View it like this a Natural Selection of preferred dates survive the dating method.

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates."

Robert E. Lee, Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9

"Throughout the conference emphasis was placed on the fact that laboratories do not measure ages, they measure sample activities. The connection between activity and age is made through a set of assumptions... one of the main assumptions of C14 dating is that the atmospheric radiocarbon level has held steady over the age range to which the method applies."

Report on 14th Conference, 145 International Scientists, Science, Vol. 150, p. 1490.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html#Problems

Side: Hey good arguments!
Genesis1vs1(31) Disputed
1 point

There is a precambrian fossil record, and although it is less complete, it is not nonexistant. Conditions of precambrian earth were not conducive to the creation of fossils or the evolution of larger complex animals. Additionally, most precambrian life was not composed of many 'hard parts' like shells and bones, and soft tissue does not fossilize well.

According to evolutionists, the oldest fossils ever found are a blue-green algae that lived along the coast of Australia and South Africa. These fossils have been dated by them to be 3.5 billion years old. But when they examined these fossils under the microscope, they found that they were identical to the blue-green algae that are still living today.

Dr. William Schopf, a leading evolutionist, says that this presents a tremendous problem for evolution. You see, evolution is based upon change, and yet these algae don’t appear to have changed at all in their supposed 3.5 billion years.

If evolution is based on everything changing, why do we find these oldest fossils to be identical to the living algae today? And it’s not just the blue-green algae—scientists continue to find many living animals that appear to have hardly changed at all compared to their fossils that are allegedly millions of years old.

The answer is in Genesis. God made all living things—including blue-green algae—only thousands of years ago. They’ve always reproduced after their own kind, as commanded by the Creator.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/e-mail/archive/AnswersWeekly/2004/1204.asp

This is interesting for evolutionists because we find such old fossils, and yet they have not changed at all. Just because their supposed age is so far back in history yet they are the same today. So having "hard parts" isn't necessary for fossilization.

This is not true. The human fossil record, for instance, is composed of fossils showing a smooth transition from small brained hominids with prognathic faces, large supraorbital toruses, and the retention of arboreal adaptations, to large brained homionids with orthagnathic faces, flat supraorbital toruses, and adaptations for obligate bipedalism. The record includes many specimens that are amazingly complete.

This is one of my favorite topics to debate. The supposed evolution of man, there are too many assumptions to count. I will reference a site that you have used before.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Let's look at what these experts really know.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/toumai.html

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

No bones below the skull have been discovered yet, so it is not known whether Toumai was bipedal or not. Brunet et al. say that it would be a not unreasonable inference that it was a habitual biped because it shares characteristics with other hominids known to be bipedal. Other scientists have pointed out the foramen magnum (the hole through which the spinal cord exits the skull) of Toumai is positioned towards the back of the skull as in apes, indicating that the skull was held forward and not balanced on top of an erect body.

...has suggested that it may be an early gorilla. It is, I think, impossible to know how Toumai is related to us until other fossils can be found from the same time period.

Finally some honesty from evolutionists.

So there is no bones below the skull. So we can't infer the rest of its skeletal structure (we can through assumptions). Its skull size is more comparable to a chimp. Then its evident that its skull was projected forward indicating a quadreped. So what we have here is an ape in every sense of its biology.

Orrorin tugenensis

This species was named in July 2001 from fossils discovered in western Kenya (Senut et al. 2001). The fossils include fragmentary arm and thigh bones, lower jaws, and teeth and were discovered in deposits that are about 6 million years old. The limb bones are about 1.5 times larger than those of Lucy, and suggest that it was about the size of a female chimpanzee. Its finders have claimed that Orrorin was a human ancestor adapted to both bipedality and tree climbing, and that the australopithecines are an extinct offshoot. Given the fragmentary nature of the remains, other scientists have been skeptical of these claims so far (Aiello and Collard 2001). A later paper (Galik et al. 2004) has found further evidence of bipedality in the fossil femur.

We have here bone fragments of a chimp here. The limb bones are the same size as a female chimp. They infer (or assume) bipedal from what again... that's right fragments of thigh, lower jaw, and teeth bones. How is this observable science? Maybe we should call it based on pure assumptions... perhaps Darwinian evolution.

I could go on to the rest of the hominid classes, but they are all written the same. Partial or fragments then followed by "we believe". So how is evolution not a religious ideal? This evidence is pathetic at best.

If you would like to argue a specific chimp (I mean hominid) we can do that as well.

Side: Hey good arguments!
4 points

zombee already brought up most of the best points but here's a few more.

1. Tautology applies to formal logic, not natural processes. Besides, any objective notion of "fittest" cannot be thought to be a static thing, because the world is in a constant state of change. One species may well be the fittest in its forest right now, but what if a new species moves in or evolves to be more competitive? The parameters have changed, so "fittest" may have a new definition. And what if the forest burns down, and the species has to move to a new environment? And then there's genetic drift, which is like re-rolling the dice...

2. If evolution defies the 2nd law, then so does maturing from a small and fairly simple baby to a larger, more complex adult. Plus the second law refers to total energy amount. As long as there is some energy in the system, it can be transferred from one object to another. That is how we prolong our life by consuming other life, and as long as that is an option for a species, it has the time it needs to evolve.

3. This whole "new information" concept is silly. If rearrangement of nucleic acids in a given sequence is what it takes to create "new information" than yes, that happens. This is why you don't look exactly like either of your parents but probably resemble both of them to some extent. If no "new information" was created we would all be identical clones.

4. The Cambrian explosion wasn't really out of the blue. It happened within a span of 6 million years. And recent evidence has suggested that it had a "fuse" of over 50 million years. Granted, this is relatively quick in evolutionary time, but hardly out of the blue. The sudden increase in oxygen, the development of predator-prey relationships and the relatively wide-open plain of body plan possibilities in early multicellular development all explain not only why the Cambrian explosion happened, but also why things slowed down after it.

5. No we aren't going to find every-single tiny little step in the process. We would need full genetic data for that, and once all the organic matter has broken down, we just don't get that. Also, very few things fossilize, and we haven't found all the fossils that exist. And fossil skeletons only show us changes in skeleton plan, they don't tell us everything about changes in development, skin color, organ functions etc. But they do show a sweeping and elegant transformation in numerous species. The really good evidence of evolution is found in molecular analysis of more recent or currently living things, and that evidence is in abundance.

6. And if you dig into certain theories for quantum physics, you can find answers that either deal with this assessment, or show that it isn't necessarily true. Besides, the concept of God is the most obvious refutation of the First Law, so it seems strange that a person who believes in God would put so much weight on the first law anyway.

7. Actually, organic matter does form naturally, all over the universe. After that, you just need heat and a flat surface to create macromolecules. After that you just need the macromolecules to hang out in the right amounts to get self-replicating protobionts. Once you have those, natural selection, guided by the laws of chemistry and physics, keeps the chain going almost indefinitely, with new generations having new features. How, exactly, non-living, virus-like protobionts became the earliest true living cells is a bit of a mystery, but well within the bounds of probability provided you have a place that has the right conditions to create protobionts. And deep-sea volcanoes and steam vents are great candidates.

8. Radiocarbon dating is only one of dozens of dating methods used. These methods agree with each other constantly, so if they were wrong they would all be almost exactly as wrong. Also, this doesn't account for very simple and logical relative dating principles such as the law of superposition, which clearly indicates a progression of forms from simplest to more complex.

Side: WTF that's ridiculous
Genesis1vs1(31) Disputed
1 point

Well you are as full of assumptions as any other non-scientist (evolutionist). I will break down your argument and show you how lacking of evidence you really possess.

1. Tautology applies to formal logic, not natural processes.

This is not true. The hypothetical formulation of evolutionary process is defined directly under a logical argument. Since it is not directly observable.

Definition of TAUTOLOGY

1a : needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word b : an instance of tautology

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tautology

One species may well be the fittest in its forest right now, but what if a new species moves in or evolves to be more competitive? The parameters have changed, so "fittest" may have a new definition

The evolution does not occur here. Natural Selection kills off those species that aren't equipped to survive their environment. If a species relocates to another environment and are not fit to survive then they die out. Unless certain mutations take place. This is still not new information. Reorganizing base pairs in the genome doesn't translate to completely new amino acids being created.

If evolution defies the 2nd law, then so does maturing from a small and fairly simple baby to a larger, more complex adult. Plus the second law refers to total energy amount. As long as there is some energy in the system, it can be transferred from one object to another. That is how we prolong our life by consuming other life, and as long as that is an option for a species, it has the time it needs to evolve.

Evolution defies and contradicts itself. Natural Selection directly relates to the second law of Thermodynamics. That and the law of conservation of mass and energy. Recycling material does not create new genetic information. This has never been observed.

This whole "new information" concept is silly.

But that is what evolution depends on. So the evolutionary concept is silly we actually agree on something.

If rearrangement of nucleic acids in a given sequence is what it takes to create "new information" than yes, that happens.

That is mutation not evolution. The amino acids in a given genome don't add a new type of acid. They can't create what isn't there. To assume they can is to impose premonition to the genome. That is extremely absurd. Those rearranged base pairs are already existed information. The genome can't create a completely new and unfamiliar acid.

This is why you don't look exactly like either of your parents but probably resemble both of them to some extent. If no "new information" was created we would all be identical clones.

You are way off with your logic here. We don't look exactly alike because we have a mixture of both sets of genes. This would be the 'gene pool' that you hear about. The DNA wouldn't replicate the same every time. The mixing of parents DNA could introduce base pairs that weren't their before. But this wouldn't give a person the ability to fly!! It's still going to be a full human genome.

The Cambrian explosion wasn't really out of the blue.

This is a completely separate debate here. I have no problem getting into supposed ages in another topic.

No we aren't going to find every-single tiny little step in the process. We would need full genetic data for that, and once all the organic matter has broken down, we just don't get that. Also, very few things fossilize, and we haven't found all the fossils that exist. And fossil skeletons only show us changes in skeleton plan, they don't tell us everything about changes in development, skin color, organ functions etc.

Now you sound like a real scientist. Admitting the severe lack of knowledge that evolutionists base their assumptions on.

But they do show a sweeping and elegant transformation in numerous species.

No, they show enormous gaps in the transition process. So enormous in fact that in most cases they are not even talking about the same creature i.e. land animals to whales. What you see is a land animal that eats plants, and then the next transition is a whale that eats fish. How did they get this information? They got it just from a skull nothing more. You see then how this is highly assumptuous.

And if you dig into certain theories for quantum physics...

I would suggest you abide by the Laws of Thermodynamics. Especially before you tote a theory in Quantum Physics. Remember theories aren't scientifically proven. The assumption for spontaneous energy production is in no way testable. At least in the natural sciences.

Actually, organic matter does form naturally, all over the universe. After that, you just need heat and a flat surface to create macromolecules. After that you just need the macromolecules to hang out in the right amounts to get self-replicating protobionts.

You actually don't need a flat surface at all. But remember you are in the gray area of science here.

Radiocarbon dating is only one of dozens of dating methods used. These methods agree with each other constantly, so if they were wrong they would all be almost exactly as wrong.

And they are just as wrong and rarely coincide with each other. Radiocarbon dating is one the biggest farces in science.

Side: Hey good arguments!
imrigone(761) Disputed
2 points

“The hypothetical formulation of evolutionary process is defined directly under a logical argument. Since it is not directly observable.”

First the Biologic Definition of Evolution:

“(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.”

There are several ways to observe the process. The most direct and accurate is measuring the change in frequencies of specific alleles.

This has become so well-observed that different formulas have been created to represent different kinds of evolutionary pressure. All can be tested using experimentation and crosschecked against several generations of information gathered about populations and specific ecosystems.

http://www.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt/community/population_genetics/403/variability/574

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl23.htm

Also, contrary to the creationist literature, we have indeed observed speciation several times:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Meanwhile, most of what we have observed fits nicely with “the sequences of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or a group of related organisms”:

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/evol_cich_pt1.php

Evolution has been observed. Repeatedly. The theory of evolution is an attempt to describe how evolution happens. It does so using the wide body of evidence gathered about it. Therefore it is a description of a natural process, not a logical argument. Not a tautology.

“The evolution does not occur here. Natural Selection kills off those species that aren't equipped to survive their environment.”

The planet is a vastly different place than it used to be. The chemical composition of both the hydrosphere and the atmosphere has changed considerably (partially this includes the tell-tale rise in atmospheric oxygen, something which wouldn’t be very common without photosynthesis, that preceded the Cambrian explosion and the radiation of forms onto land), as well as a wide range of geographic and climate conditions. No one species could survive in all of these environments. Today’s creatures could never handle the old Earth and vice versa. More than 98% of species are extinct now, yet we have about the same amount of organism diversity as was present in several other epochs and periods. This wouldn’t be possible if we were only losing species and not gaining new ones.

“Reorganizing base pairs in the genome doesn't translate to completely new amino acids being created.”

Organisms only use 21 amino acids, even though up to 64 can be conceivably made, and some of the others are now known to be viable as well. Amino acid variations haven’t crept up in a very long time, but what we have is more than enough to provide for the wide variety of proteins employed by the various life forms on Earth. The most basic amino acids are quite prone to abiogenitic formation in certain circumstances.

“Natural Selection directly relates to the second law of Thermodynamics”

Does the growth from child to adult also violate the second law?

And when did energy stop coming into our system? The only point when entropy becomes an issue is when you don’t have new energy coming in, which is why it only works perfectly with completely closed systems.

“That and the law of conservation of mass and energy.”

No mass or energy is being created or destroyed. It is being reconstituted through such processes as digestion and respiration. The same matter and energy that help a body expand also participate in the expression of new traits, but still would have been put to use in the absence of such traits.

What, exactly do you mean when you refer to “new information”? Are you referring to the changes in the genetic material observed? Because this isn’t really information per se, this is simply the end result of an intricate spree of complex chemical reactions that have vastly different effects in different circumstances. The information occurs when humans investigate the phenomenon, start putting names to molecules and reaction sequences, start disseminating the knowledge to others and start seeking out practical applications for the new knowledge. The systematic organization of these concepts by humans is the information, the chemical reactions they describe happen naturally in accordance with the laws of chemistry and physics. This is why I say the “new information” concept is silly. It doesn’t actually say anything about the process but claims to be intrinsic to the process.

“It's still going to be a full human genome.”

What do you think separates one species from the next, phenotypically?

“This is a completely separate debate here”

Well, in the description of the debate, point #4 states “Fossils of advanced invertebrates appeared out of the blue in the Cambrian Age...”

Then I started my response with “The Cambrian explosion wasn't really out of the blue.”

How is this a completely separate debate then?

“Now you sound like a real scientist. Admitting the severe lack of knowledge that evolutionists base their assumptions on.”

Welcome the 21st century. This is a magical wonder-world where fossil evidence is no longer considered the strongest supporting evidence the Theory of Evolution has, and it hasn’t been for decades. Now that we know how to sequence DNA, that is how the really good and specific knowledge of evolution gets found. Fossils are dramatic and most people really like talking about dinosaurs, so the fossil record becomes the public face of evolution. But it’s the genetics subfields that are the real workhorses these days. Growing fields like evo-devo are where the future discoveries related to the process will probably come from.

To continue thinking like a real scientist, I therefore move away from the fossil record and look at the fields where the really specific research is coming from. Creationists are unwilling to do this. This is not a very scientific attitude.

“No, they show enormous gaps in the transition process. So enormous in fact that in most cases they are not even talking about the same creature i.e. land animals to whales. What you see is a land animal that eats plants, and then the next transition is a whale that eats fish. How did they get this information? They got it just from a skull nothing more. You see then how this is highly assumptuous.”

The “enormous gaps” are pretty few and far between these days. But again, the fossil record isn’t the best place to look. It gives us benchmarks to compare our understandings to, but there is only so far we can with that. But where it does exist, it lines up perfectly with phylogeny.

“I would suggest you abide by the Laws of Thermodynamics.”

I will only take your suggestions about the Laws of Thermodynamics once you have proven to me that you understand them. So far, you have only demonstrated that you do not.

You are right that Quantum Physics tends to be more speculative than the other sciences and some of the “theories” involved aren’t really scientific theories. This is one reason I usually only mention them in passing. The point is these theories are at least as viable and testable as most religious assertions. If you wish to give credence to God and Creation Accounts, you have to realize that anything you do to deflate the Quantum Physics theories discredits your own.

More importantly, theories aren’t meant to be proven. This isn’t some weakness in them, this is a response to the truly detailed nature of scientific inquiry. If a hypothesis clearly fails experimentation or defies observed quantification, then it has indeed been disproved. But scientists are aware that there may be certain unknown factors affecting the results, or they realize that some of the aspects are not well understood yet. So none of the theories we have can be proved until the highly unlikely day when we know everything about everything. In the meantime, the theories can essentially get infinitely strong without ever being proven. There are three major contributing factors that can indicate how strong a theory is:

Age- The longer a theory goes without being falsified, especially in the face of advancing technology and discoveries coming out every field of science, the more likely it is that the theory is true.

Amount of research- this tends to come part-and-parcel with the other two. But basically speaking, the more people you have looking into a subject, the better the chances are that it will be proved wrong, if it is.

Controversy- People actively seeking to falsify the results because some bias makes them want to not believe. This would be a good place for falsification to happen, if falsification is possible.

Evolution sits in the top three of all of those categories. It is more complete and stronger of a theory than Atomic Theory. In order for it be falsified now, one would have to do one of two things:

1) Conclusively discredit every single piece of evidence evolution has. There are thousands of pieces of such evidence, most of which have been very heavily scrutinized.

2) Somehow find a stronger theory that is supported by all of the same evidence as evolution, but is not actually evolution. “Creation science” has miserably failed this test.

“But remember you are in the gray area of science here.”

All of science appears to be a gray area to you. It’s probably because you can’t understand it, so you assume nobody else can either.

“And they are just as wrong and rarely coincide with each other. Radiocarbon dating is one the biggest farces in science.”

Simply put, you don’t know what you are talking about. It is rare for different radiometric methods to disagree with each other. They also get compared to any other dating method applicable. When they do disagree, it is usually due to really unusual geologic conditions in the region, and as time has gone on, the scientists involved have gotten much better at spotting these scenarios. Since each method requires a different operation and different tested materials, it would be impossible for different methods to line up with each other if all methods weren’t accurate.

Also, carbon dating is just one of many methods used in radiometric dating, and is not generally used on anything that is truly old because of a very short half-life.

Side: WTF that's ridiculous