Creation vs Darwinian Evolution
Creation
Side Score: 4
|
 |
Darwinian Evolution
Side Score: 28
|
|
|
|
|
Before I get started with my argument that evolution is scientifically impossible, we first need to deal with the issue of the word "proof", what exactly it means to "prove" something. Sometimes people say "well prove to me that God really created all of life instead of the evolutionary process" and we have to be honest with ourselves and say that 'None of us were there'. We weren't there when everything was created so technically the evolutionists can't prove evolution, the creationists can't prove creation. All we can do is this: look at all the evidence that is available and determine the most plausible, the most scientific, the most logical, and the most intellectually reasoned thing to believe, and that's what I'm gonna do as I go through this. We also need to understand the definition of science. Science is nothing more than determining the best possible explanation or hypothesis based upon observation, testing and making predictions. That's what you really do in science, trying to determine what happened, but you have some criteria for that. You use testing, you use observation, you use the ability to make predictions. Now some of the things that need to be addressed is the scientific community itself. Many people will ask "Why are so many scientists in favor of evolution and opposed to creation" And I think that is a fair question. The truth is most scientists around the world do believe in evolution, although there are thousands of scientists who believe in creation according to the evidence but they are outnumbered in a big way by the evolutionary scientists. Why is that? You need to know that most of the scientists in the evolutionary realm out there aren't getting all the information. That might seem hard to believe. Dr. Grady S. McMurtry is one example who used to be an evolutionary scientist. When he went through all of his training and getting his degrees and schooling, he was given certain information and it was presented to him in a certain way, but when he started examining all of the evidence and all the information, he started seeing things he was never taught in school. He said that when he saw these things he said "I never saw this, never heard that, never saw half the things that I heard in school". There is alot of information that shows evolution is impossible, but it is censored from Academia today. So let me get started with my actual argument: 1) The Laws of Thermodynamics, specifically the first and second law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law has more to do with disproving evolution than the 1st. But I want to explain the 1st. The first law of thermodynamics is this: it's a conservation of energy law. In the universe, everything is made up of matter and energy. The Matter can convert into energy and the energy can convert into matter. We have all of this in the universe. However much matter and energy there is, there can never be MORE and there can never be LESS. You cannot increase or decrease the amount of matter/energy. You cannot create matter or energy, and you cannot cause it to cease to exist. This is a scientific law, just as the law of gravity is a scientific law. So how do evolutionists prove where everything came from? Where did all this stuff come from? How do we have a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics by the creation of matter and energy in the closed system of the universe? (big bang, etc.) There is no scientific explanation for how matter and energy can be created from nothingness. Now I argue that there is a being, we call him God, operating outside of physical law, and he has the ability to violate the laws of physics and create something out of nothing. This is a scientific conclusion..that there must be a God who created everything, cause remember, there is no scientific model that allows for matter and energy to be created from nothing. If you remove God from the equation, than science doesn't allow for everything we have in the universe. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is that everything in a closes system will tend toward a state of equilibrium. A close system doesn't have any outside influence. An open system does. With equilibrium, Let's say you take a cup of hot coffee and a cup of ice water in a room together. Eventually those 2 cups will become the same temperature. That is the 2nd law at work, they will become the same temperature. Another key principle of the law is Entropy. Things will tend to decay, to degrade, move from order to chaos. If you look at a neat stack of papers on your desk, as people walk by, wind passes, those papers will gradually get sloppier and sloppier. What will not happen is those papers will not get organized and stacked neatly on it's own from people bumping into it and wind passing by, etc. That's a violation of the 2nd law. Another key principle of this is that things will not increase in complexity and design, it will decrease; they will breakdown. That is the way it works, it is a physical law. The problem with evolution is that it says there was this big bang explosion 15 billion years ago and what happened over that 15 billion years is that complexity and design started to build, started develop on it's own, and than life developed on it's own and that it developed complexity and design. That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Now some people will say "But the 2nd law doesn't apply to the earth cause the earth is an open system". In other words, it receives influence from outside sources (radiation, meteors, various things in space). The problem with this is that it's random energy from the sun, radiation, random impacts from space debris. Random energy will cause Entropy to INCREASE and will cause the degradation process to increase. So we should be going from order to chaos at a faster rate. So the idea that complexity and life developed on it's own it's illogical. 2) Science and Logic show that design doesn't randomly develop. If you take a rubiks cube and it's unsolved and you roll it down a mountain, it will not solve itself. If you give it to a blind person, he can twist it around all over the place, he is twisting it randomly. It's not going to solve itself. Imagine if you will an alarm clock. Disassemble the alarm clock to its smallest compenents. Scoop them all up, put it in a coffee can, put a lid on it, and shake the coffee can. Do you think the alarm clock is gonna ever put itself together and become a working alarm clock again? It's never gonna happen right? The evolutionists tell us the universe is 15 billion years old and they will say "if there's enough time combined with chance anything is possible" But with the alarm clock you could shake it for 15 billion years and it's not gonna come together. Even though we have all the components necessary to make it, all cut to fit each other. Not gonna happen. Let alone the evolutionary argument which says all of the components for life weren't there in the first place, that everything had to become created out of nothing and than gradually all fit together. To me that is highly illogical. How about a portrait on a wall? If I show you a portrait on a wall and none of us know how that portrait was painted. Neither one of us saw how it came to be. None of us can prove how it came into existence. So two options: Option A) an intelligence created it or option B) it just coincidentally created itself through various iron ores, sands, wind, etc. until it eventually created that image of the portrait. I can't prove an intelligence painted that and you can't prove it developed spontaneously so what we have to do is determine what is the most plausible and logical thing to believe. Are you open to the possibility that the portrait came together on it's own with no guided intelligence? My guess is No. If your not open to the possibility, why? you'll say "it's too detailed it's too designed, there is no way that mere random energy and action could produce that type of complexity and design" That is a fair answer. My next question is than, what is more complex? the 2 dimensional portrait on the wall, or the dimensional portrait of your face that you see in the mirror everyday? What's more complex? You have to be honest and say "you are, you are more complex". So if you're not open to the idea that a portrait could come together on it's own, why are you willing to believe a more complex 3 dimensional portrait could come together on it's own? It's a contradiction in logic. Think about the complexity of the human body. Think about the level of design that evolution says came together on it's own randomly and accidentally. A Human body that has 10 fingers, 10 toes, a nose, a mouth, 2 eyes each one with 120 million photoreceptors, 2 ears each one with 24,000 hair cells that convert sound vibrations into electrical impulses, a body with over 30 trillion cells and 2 million sweat glands that automatically regulate temperature into a fraction of a degree, a 100 billion brain cells each one with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells, a central nervous system, blood flow, organs, consciousness, a standard of morality, self-awareness, a vocabulary, and the necessary vocal chords to say "I don't think I evolved into this". I don't think people realize how complex the human body really is. Remember design is something that would have to gradually happen as well, not just in the total human being, but all of the organs and parts within the human being. Here's an interesting question: How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal in small minute steps, and than the animal survive while these changes were occuring. Did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, than 20%, than eventually 100%? Than how did the heart slowly develop and get attached in the right spot at the right time? How did the blood enter the system in the first place. The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it will spill out? Where did it come from? Did the blood have red core corpuscles white core corpuscles, platelets and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating? Did the animal develop a partial stomach and than a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the Hydrochloric acid come from as part of the digestive juices? What about kidneys and bladder? The animal can't eat anything prior to this so how did the animal survive during these changes? Of course at the same time the animals eyes have to be fully developed to see the food and it's brain developed so it can control it's body to get to the food. So like the heart, brain, veins, stomach, and all of the organs and systems in it's body, they all had to be fully functional from the first moments of life. How could that have taken place through an evolutionary process? To me that is illogical. 3) The mathematical probability of life developing over time. "Time plus chance means anything is possible" Evolutionists will say this and say life developed about 3-5 billion years ago on this planet. So is that possible? Is that enough time for life to develop. I would argue No, mathematically that is impossible. I'm gonna multiply 3x10 and give evolutionists 30 billion years and say 30 billion isn't enough time for life to develop. The simplest protein molecule has over 400 linked amino acids in a very distinct order. That is the simplest protein molecule. Is 30 billion years enough time to solve the puzzle of the simplest protein molecule (compared to human life itself)? i'm gonna simplify it and give a 100 piece puzzle that needs to be arranged in a specific sequence to determine how many combination options there are to get the magical sequence. You have alot of shuffling and re-arranging to land on the sequence. This 100 piece puzzle we'll use numbers instead of amino acids. So the sequence could be 35, 1, 83, 22, 74, etc. It wouldn't be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.....that's too easy. So to solve this we need to know how many combination options there are. To do this we use a factorial. So you go 100x99x98x97x96x95 all the way down to 1 and you get a really big number. That number is the total number of different combination options available in this simple 100 piece sequential puzzle. The number of options are 10 to the 158th power. That's a 1 with a 158 zero's behind. That is a massive, massive number. To give you an idea of how big that number is, there is not that many ATOMS on the planet earth. 30 billion years will not be enough to solve, cause there is only 10 to the 18th power number of SECONDS in 30 billion years. So if we divide 10 to the 158th power to the 10 to the 18th power number of seconds, you're left with 10 to the 140th power. That's how many combination CHANGES need to happen every second on the second for 30 billion years to solve this simple 100 piece puzzle, and yet remember the simplest protein molecule has over 400 linked amino acids in a very specific order. Simply put, I don't see how 30 billion years is enough time mathematically for life to develop, let alone 3 billion years. To make it even worse, the evolutionists have to explain how life comes from non-life. I could take a glass of water and sit there and stare at it for 30 billion years and life is never gonna develop. I could put sand in there and swirl it around but still life will not develop. 4) Irreducible Complexity is basically an organism in life that cannot have it's complexity reduce and still function. Evolution teaches that life gradually increases in complexity and design, but if it could be shown that there were complex organisms that had multiple parts all working together that you could not remove those parts and still have it function, that is something considered irreducibly complex. Think about the mouse trap for a moment. You have 5 basic components: wooden base, snap bar, spring, stabilizing bar, triggering mechanism. These 5 pieces are all necessary for it to function. Which one of these pieces could you remove and still have it function. None of them. Evolution teaches that it gradually worked up to those 5 parts. The spring evolves, than the stabilizing bar evolves, than the trigger, than the wooden base, etc. The problem is it wouldn't be a mouse trap, it wouldn't function till you got all components working together at the same time. To give you an idea, Charles Darwin himself understood the problem of irreducable complexity, and even though the term wasn't around in darwin's life, the concept was. He talked about it himself and even admitted , this is a quote from Charles Darwin"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". That's a quote from Charles Darwin. Well, Dr. Michael Bihee, PhD in biochemistry has shown, as well as many other scientists have shown, irreducible complexity existing in all kinds of organisms today: The flagellum blood clotting, countless biological systems have been found. There is countless more evidences i will provide later but I currently do not have the time presently to write them all out, but will at a later time. Thanks for reading. Side: Creation
Before I get started with my argument that evolution is scientifically impossible, we first need to deal with the issue of the word "proof", what exactly it means to "prove" something. Sometimes people say "well prove to me that God really created all of life instead of the evolutionary process" Still waiting for the demonstration of what proof is. and we have to be honest with ourselves and say that 'None of us were there' We don't have to say this. We use forensics to determine who the murderer was. We weren't there and we can still prove who did it. Dr. Grady S. McMurtry This passage was just a strange appeal to authority. So how do evolutionists prove where everything came from? Where did all this stuff come from? This is not an argument against evolution. This is an argument against the Big Bang Theory. There is no scientific explanation for how matter and energy can be created from nothingness. We know for sure that matter and energy exist. That is required for evolution, so not knowing where the energy and matter came from does not cause a problem for evolution. Now I argue that there is a being, we call him God, operating outside of physical law, and he has the ability to violate the laws of physics and create something out of nothing. You have no evidence to back this up. This is a God of the gaps argument. You don't know what caused it so you invent something that violates the rules of physics. This is a scientific conclusion..that there must be a God who created everything, cause remember, there is no scientific model that allows for matter and energy to be created from nothing. You have only demonstrated that you don't know what the mechanism is. The problem with evolution is that it says there was this big bang explosion Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope. The theory of evolution does not discuss the Big Bang theory, just like it doesn't discuss gravity. and than life developed on it's own and that it developed complexity and design. Life developed in an open system. Life developed on Earth. Earth provided influence on life causing it to develop complexity. The problem with this is that it's random energy from the sun, radiation, random impacts from space debris. Energy is energy. What does random have to do with it? Random energy will cause Entropy to INCREASE and will cause the degradation process to increase. False. Entropy can decrease with the introduction of energy. Science and Logic show that design doesn't randomly develop. Fortunately, evolution doesn't say it is random. Do you think the alarm clock is gonna ever put itself together and become a working alarm clock again? Which part of evolution says that humans existed, then we broken down to the smallest component, then reassembled? The evolutionists tell us the universe is 15 billion years old and they will say "if there's enough time combined with chance anything is possible" They don't say this. This is a strawman. Let alone the evolutionary argument which says all of the components for life weren't there in the first place, that everything had to become created out of nothing and than gradually all fit together. To me that is highly illogical. It is highly illogical to consider the alarm clock in a jar as equivalent to life. So two options: Option A) an intelligence created it or option B) it just coincidentally created itself through various iron ores, sands, wind, etc. until it eventually created that image of the portrait. Option B seems to be describing how mountains may have formed. Interesting. Are you open to the possibility that the portrait came together on it's own with no guided intelligence? My guess is No. The answer is obviously yes. That was option B. you'll say "it's too detailed it's too designed, there is no way that mere random energy and action could produce that type of complexity and design" Only creationists say this. This is yet another strawman. So if you're not open to the idea that a portrait could come together on it's own, why are you willing to believe a more complex 3 dimensional portrait could come together on it's own? It's a contradiction in logic. So, your assumption was wrong, then you based your whole conclusion on your assumption. Think about the level of design that evolution says came together on it's own randomly and accidentally. Another strawman. Evolution says that environmental factors cause the design to come together. The design is not random or accidental. Remember design is something that would have to gradually happen as well, not just in the total human being, but all of the organs and parts within the human being. And, your point is what? We see underdeveloped organs in other animals. Poorly working organs outperform no organs. Did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, than 20%, than eventually 100%? No, the veins handle 10% of what is optimal, then 20%, then 100%. The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it will spill out? Your assumptions are all off. If an animal goes from 10% complete veins to 20% to 100% that doesn't mean there are open veins. It means the veins work 20% as efficient. The internal parts of the animal get better and better. Did the blood have red core corpuscles white core corpuscles, platelets and plasma? Not at first. Each of those things developed from a weaker blood cell. So like the heart, brain, veins, stomach, and all of the organs and systems in it's body, they all had to be fully functional from the first moments of life. This is definitely false. We see animals alive today that don't have fully functioning organs and they survive. Is 30 billion years enough time to solve the puzzle of the simplest protein molecule (compared to human life itself)? Life doesn't care what that 400 amino acid protein is. Your question is based on life trying to get to the specific sequence. Life is trying to get any protein that will work. When you are making a puzzle you keep sections that are built together. Your calculation relies on reshuffling made pieces until they all fall into place. That's not how evolution claims to work. To make it even worse, the evolutionists have to explain how life comes from non-life. They don't actually. That's abiogenesis. I could take a glass of water and sit there and stare at it for 30 billion years and life is never gonna develop. Why not? Irreducible Complexity is basically an organism in life that cannot have it's complexity reduce and still function. You should just google arguments against irreducible complexity. It is not true. The flagellum blood clotting, countless biological systems have been found. These examples fall incredibly short of what Darwin was talking about. He was talking about complex organs, not simple flagellum. DNA is needed too, but it doesn't disprove evolution. AND, you provided 0 evidence FOR creationism. Your whole argument was for not evolution. Side: Darwinian Evolution
5
points
As I do not have time presently to dispute your response I'll sum it up. For the most part you have not really refuted any of my claims with evidence. All that you have presented is a opinionated response to some parts of my argument which is lacking the context to make my argument seem weak. Please provide intellectual and scientific evidence as to why my argument is wrong. If you can not present any evidence or sources than I will remove you from the debate. I do welcome all opposing arguments but they must have sources and not just opinions. They must have context and explanation. Thank you for your cooperation! Side: Creation
There are two problems with the thermodynamic argument; one, the law of energy conservation does not apply at the beginning of the universe because spacetime does not possess the symmetries required in order to obtain a conservation law for energy [1]. The First Law of thermodynamics simply does not apply, and cannot be used as a basis for arguing that the beginning of the universe violates the known laws of physics. While the precise mechanism for the origin of the universe (and the matter with in it) is not known, there are many proposals for such mechanisms that are consistent with our current knowledge of the laws of physics (for instance, the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal [2]), though I should stress that they usually require additional principles that are not yet supported by observational/experimental evidence, and we do not yet have the technology needed for the precise measurements required to test these principles. The problem with the 2nd law argument is that it's based on a misunderstanding of what entropy is. While Entropy can be used as a measure of disorder, it is not exactly synonymous with disorder; Entropy in statistical physics (the theory underlying thermodynamics [3]) is simply a measure of the number of states in a system for a given value of a measurable quantity (Energy, for instance) [4]. Entropy increase comes from an assumption about the states of a physical system, namely that the probability for each state is equally weighted ([3] again). If the probability for each state of the system is weighted equally, then one is more likely to find the system in a more highly disordered state over time (for a given energy), since there exist far more disordered states than ordered states for the system [3,5]. With regard to evolutionary theory, this argument breaks down because the mechanism for natural selection changes the weights for the states of biological systems [6]. If there is a sufficient increase in the weight for a highly ordered state, it can make up for the fact that there are far more disordered states, so that it becomes more likely to find the system in a highly ordered state than a disordered state. I believe the paragraph above addresses points 2 and 3. I'll leave point 4 for someone else to address. Note: Sorry for the many edits; there were a few things I had forgotten to add in, such as the precise definition for entropy. [1] You can find this in many books on General Relativity, but you have to work a bit to demonstrate this (also, some books say that energy is conserved, but it only works in a patch of spacetime where the symmetries hold). If you don't want to sift through the technical details, a simple argument is given in: http://www.preposterousuniverse. [2] For this, see: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409195 [3] This is well-known; you can find it in any textbook on statistical physics (a good one is the book by Frederick Reif); it's even stated on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [4] More precisely, Entropy is defined as the logarithm of the number of states in the system (multiplied by the Boltzmann constant), and is often interpreted as the number of states corresponding to a particular value of measurable quantity for the system (such as energy or pressure). See the aforementioned book by Reif, or any other statistical physics book. [5] For a good explanation of this concept, see the section in Roger Penrose's Road to Reality where he talks about entropy. [6] This may not be immediately apparent, however, this has been demonstrated to be the case in an explicit example with the Weasel program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weaselprogram Side: Darwinian Evolution
1
point
If design doesn't randomly develop, then how do incredibly complex compounds like polysaccharides form? It's because of the basic chemical characteristics of the carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen that make them up. Carbon, which has four valence electrons, and oxygen, which has 6, both bond easily with hydrogen. How did those atoms that used to be completely separate end up as starch inside a potato? They were moving around in the random manner that atoms tend to do, until they crashed into each other to form one of many glucose molecules that then combined to form starch. With extreme heat and pressure, carbon crystallizes to form diamond. It goes from an unstructured mess of carbon atoms to a nice pattern. Random occurrences do produce order. In addition, life has the ability to grow and develop. In response to your argument about the complexity of the human body, I offer this: before an embryo is formed, it is two single-celled organisms: a sperm cell and an egg cell. They combine to make an embryo. In about 18-25 years, that embryo will most likely be a fully developed human being. Now isn't that funny? It went from two simple cells to an organism with billions of cells. If organisms can grow at the individual level, couldn't they develop as a population as well? Now let's go back to that huge chemical mixture of billions of cells called a human. Let's say something in its environment changes undesirably. These billions of cells, which are actually pretty amazing things, will start to change their DNA to adapt to it. If one cell doesn't change and is killed, then it will be replaced by a duplicate of another cell that has adapted. This change in the environment isn't sudden, like being thrown into a fire. It's more gradual, like an increase of smog in the air or a decrease in the nutritional content of food. Now, maybe the said human won't be able to completely adapt in time. But it reproduces, and the genetic information held in its own sperm or egg contains the adaptation that its cells had to make to survive. This new generation of human will have that adaptation, and will build on it to better survive in its environment. The genetic code will be passed down between multiple generations of the organism, and in thousands or even millions of years there could be a completely different organism descended from that original human. That is all evolution is - the expansion of an adaptation over multiple generations. Imagine that first cell (most likely Archaea, a prokaryotic bacteria). Now imagine that its environment changes. Just like the human, its single cell will begin to change its DNA to survive in the environment. Around 3.5 billion years later, I'm sitting at my table typing this. Evolution is very explainable and supportable, and not at all scientifically impossible. If you take a barrel of a human body that has been cut to pieces (pretty morbid, I know, but in response to your analogy about the clock) and shake it around, you won't get a human, even though the parts all came from the same organism. That's because the human was formed by conscious beings (cells) with the intent of making it, just like the factory worker who assembled the clock. There is nothing that is random about life. Side: Darwinian Evolution
|
There are too many pieces of evidence found on Earth that point to evolution. Nothing about Creation is seen on Earth. We find bones in the ground that show evolution in action. We have bones of the creatures we used to be and we have the bones of the creatures in between common ancestors and living creatures. The Earth has many fossil layers. When the Earth goes through changes different layers form on top. Each layer gets buried under a new layer. When animals go extinct they never appear in a layer that appears after they went extinct. The layers of fossils provide a timeline and nothing has violated this timeline. 3) DNA We have an understanding of how RNA could have transformed into DNA over time. RNA is less stable and would have been easier for early life, but DNA is required for long term stability. 4) Mutations We know how DNA can change over time to produce the changes required for evolution. For Creation, all creatures were created at the same time, right? If this is the case we wouldn't see 1) and 2). Side: Darwinian Evolution
1) Transitional Fossils: How do you explain the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record? Stephen J Gold even said HIMSELF (Whom is the man, the biggest name in evolutionary science) that there are a lack of transitional fossils. If evolution were true, we should have thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils right? Well we certainly don't find that in the ground. You say we have bones of the creatures we used to be and have bones of the creatures in between common ancestors and living creatures. With animals there has to have been so many different transitions detailing how for example a chicken became a cat (for the sake of argument we'll say that happened). That chicken would have had to eventually over thousands of years turned into a cat. So we should be finding some bones of chickens, which we do, and some bones of cats, which we do, and thousands of transitions in between...but we simply don't. The "transitional fossils" scientists find are usually of animals long extinct. Some scientists find there to be actual living creatures that they had once thought were transitional fossils claiming proof of evolution but some were found alive, so they call them "living fossils" which is an oxymoron. Charles Darwin even talked about this. He knew that unless the transitions between the kinds were found, his theory would fall apart. Today, more than 150 years later, what do we find? An extreme lack of transitional fossils. Evolutionists will claim that fossilization is rare because of the conditions necessary to create fossils. But there are museums that I have personally walked through that has fossilized objects like a Cowboy boot with a foot inside, a bowlers hat, a bag of flour, etc. So you can't say fossilization takes very long. Fossilization can happen fairly quickly. So what do the lack of transition fossils, and the relatively low number of fossils actually tell us? First, the fossils found are only a fraction of what was alive. This is something that both sides of the debate can agree upon. However, if evolution were true, we would expect a much greater number of fossils than what we have simply due to the time factor. Also, we would find a significantly greater number of total life forms that ever lived. The numbers we have, though, are no problem with the creation model. Noah's Flood would have buried most of what was alive at that time quickly and generated a good percentage of the fossils found today. But Darwin's theory doesn't just need fossils. It needs the transitions. If there are no transitions, there is no common ancestry. If we count all the fossils that have been claimed to be transitions from apes to humans, we would still have VERY few. Many of these claimed transitions have been proven to be either 100% ape, 100% human, or fraud. But if apes did evolve into humans, we would not expect to find fossil numbers in the single- or double-digit range. We'd expect to find them in the hundreds-of-thousands range. Millions of years is a lot of time and should be long enough to generate enough fossils to demonstrate this. But we do not have thousands of "transitional" fossils. 2) The Fossil Layers. You are referring to the geologic column. Well let me say that the geological column on paper does not line up to what you see on the ground. The layers are mish mashed all over the place in the actual ground. Do you know how they date the fossils like dinosaur bones and other species in the ground? They take that fossil or bone, line it up to the geological column/chart and estimate where it was buried based off of where they found it, and they date it that way without using any type of dating method (Radiometric, Carbon (which is somewhat unreliable), etc.) Do you know how they date the layers of the ground in the geologic column? By the fossils that are found in them. Yes indeed, it is circular reasoning, they date the bones/fossils by the age of the layers in the ground, and they date the layers by the bones/fossils found in them. You say nothing has "violated" this timeline. Well I present Polystrate fossils that are punching through many "fossil layers". So that right there invalidates that argument. 3)DNA and Mutations. DNA is the genetic makeup of living things right? And Mutations are changes to something that can alter the function and appearance of those living things? Well until you have a cow turn into a horse completely, I'm gonna go ahead and say those mutations are merely affecting appearance and messing with some biological and physiological functions of the body of that animal and not physically changing the animal's organs that are passed down to offspring. Somatic Mutations are mutations not passed down in reproduction and there are lots of mutations that happen that are somatic. Like the girl once born/found in India with a 6 inch stub/tail on her backside. This is nothing more than a genetic mutation. She isn't turning into some kind of Feline animal is she? She won't reproduce and produce another human being with a longer tail, and eventually down the line develop whiskers? See that's just common sense. If humans reproduce we know we will always always always produce another human being. Just because there are different breeds of dogs doesn't necessarily make those different breeds 'not dogs'. They are still dogs/canines. Until they become a cow or a horse or a fish or whatever than you come and talk to me and present me with those transitional fossils. Side: Creation
If you had used sources to provide evidence against me like your description says it wouldn't have taken any time to realize you spelled Gould wrong. How do you explain the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record? A lack of transitional fossils would only have to be explained if there weren't enough for evolution, but even Gould doesn't claim there aren't enough fossils for evolution. Stephen J Gold even said HIMSELF (Whom is the man, the biggest name in evolutionary science) First, he isn't the biggest name in evolutionary science. Second, if he was all you did was a horrible appeal to authority since he supports evolution. Third, Gould says something completely different. He says that we should see fossils at more consistent levels if evolution works at a constant rate. If evolution were true, we should have thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils right? First, not necessarily. Second, we do. Well we certainly don't find that in the ground. Wrong. We have found them in the ground. That chicken would have had to eventually over thousands of years turned into a cat. Millions of years. Over the millions of years we have the fossils that show those transformations. So we should be finding some bones of chickens, which we do, and some bones of cats, which we do, and thousands of transitions in between...but we simply don't. There does not have to be thousands of transitional fossils for each and every branch in the evolutionary tree. How does creation explain any transitional fossils? The "transitional fossils" scientists find are usually of animals long extinct. Yes, they are long extinct because they became the animals we see today. Some scientists find there to be actual living creatures that they had once thought were transitional fossils claiming proof of evolution but some were found alive, so they call them "living fossils" which is an oxymoron. This would be an excellent area for one of those sources. An extreme lack of transitional fossils. False. This is completely false. This is 100% false. This has 0% truth. Evolutionists will claim that fossilization is rare because of the conditions necessary to create fossils. But there are museums that I have personally walked through that has fossilized objects like a Cowboy boot with a foot inside, a bowlers hat, a bag of flour, etc. So you can't say fossilization takes very long. Fossilization can happen fairly quickly. Aww, you don't understand that rare and quick are 2 completely different words. So what do the lack of transition fossils, and the relatively low number of fossils actually tell us? They don't tell us anything because we have a whole lot of fossils. However, if evolution were true, we would expect a much greater number of fossils than what we have simply due to the time factor. Need proof for this claim. Also, we would find a significantly greater number of total life forms that ever lived. We have, so you agree with evolution. The numbers we have, though, are no problem with the creation model. Noah's Flood would have buried most of what was alive at that time quickly and generated a good percentage of the fossils found today. Why did God create all the animals transitioning to the other animals He created? It needs the transitions. If there are no transitions, there is no common ancestry. Good, so you believe in evolution because we have transitions. Many of these claimed transitions have been proven to be either 100% ape, 100% human, or fraud. The only frauds with fossils have ever been creationists. But if apes did evolve into humans, we would not expect to find fossil numbers in the single- or double-digit range. We'd expect to find them in the hundreds-of-thousands range. That claim has no basis in fact. You can't throw out evidence just because you don't like it. First you ask for transitions. Then you ask for multiple transitions, now you need 100,000 transitions. Do you know what would happen if we had 100,000 transitions? You would ask for 1 million. Millions of years is a lot of time and should be long enough to generate enough fossils to demonstrate this. But we do not have thousands of "transitional" fossils. For 100,000 fossils in 1 million years, that would require a fossil every 10 years. Do we see that at all today. The fossilized boot and flour happened over how many years? Did you try to do the math at all? 1) In conclusion, I provided evidence and you have 0 explanation for it, and you denied it. Well let me say that the geological column on paper does not line up to what you see on the ground. Is that why you can't provide a source for your claims? The layers are mish mashed all over the place in the actual ground. False. Do you know how they date the fossils like dinosaur bones and other species in the ground? They used radioactive dating to figure out the age of the layers. When a new dig is discovered they see what bones are in the layers to determine which layer they are in. While they are working on the fossils in the current dig, someone confirms the age of the layers with radioactive dating again. They do not use the fossils to prove they are a certain age. Only creationists believe what you are claiming. Well I present Polystrate fossils that are punching through many "fossil layers". So that right there invalidates that argument. Nope I find it hilarious that you claim to present something without using any sources. This hasn't been unexplained for almost 150 years. 2) In conclusion, you have no idea what the argument is. The fossils in the fossil layer appear in the same order throughout the world. A global flood during Noah's time should have jumbled everything up and there should be differences found around the world. Well until you have a cow turn into a horse completely You don't get to decide what evolution can accomplish. Show which part of evolution says that a DNA mutation can change a cow into a horse. I'm gonna go ahead and say those mutations are merely affecting appearance and messing with some biological and physiological functions of the body of that animal and not physically changing the animal's organs that are passed down to offspring. You think that mutations can change physiological functions, but not change organs. Do you not have any idea what organs do? See that's just common sense. Excellent. You have no evidence. You can only beg the question. If humans reproduce we know we will always always always produce another human being. I can't tell if you committed more fallacies or if you have missed siting sources more. I lost count. Until they become a cow or a horse or a fish or whatever than you come and talk to me and present me with those transitional fossils. Wow, the argument for DNA was so strong it knocked you back into fossils. My DNA game is strong son. What what. 3/4) In conclusion. Just complete failure. You literally made 0 arguments. Congratulations. Side: Darwinian Evolution
1
point
If I felt motivated enough to provide as much evidence supporting evolution that I could find right here, I would be typing for over a year. There are honestly too many of these types of debates, evolution has been proven time and time again and if it did not conflict with religion most people would believe it without much need for hard proof. Granted, that is a sad factor in our society (our tendency to believe anything coughreligiouspeoplecough) but it is the truth. Stop supporting bullshit bronze age hypotheses and pull your head out of your ass so that we may move on to the 21 century. Side: Darwinian Evolution
1
point
1
point
|
