CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Evolution is a lie
This is the first short video for the "Lies in the text book" series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebZTdBIYUuA
Please watch 1 through 24! Its not that long in reality but you will learn some interesting things about evolution or about how to lie more effectively! ;)
"Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population."
Macro evolution has been observed though. The definition that theists use is not the same as the one that biologists use. In general, the definition can be put as:
Any change above the level of species.
This basically just asks for speciation, which has been observed on numerous occasions.
It hasn't been observed because this is fact. I used links to back this up and the only thing that all you atheists used to say otherwise is wishful thinking.
An argument is only good when it is true. I didn't coin the terminology, science did.
Macro has still never occurred, speciation is form of micro-evolution. A new species hasn't been developed through speciation, just a mutated one of the original species.
To came something as bold as macro, one better prove that a fish turned into a mammal, not that a fish grew different scales. Micro is within and micro is that you have shown.
Unless atheists use something other than dictionaries and terms used by scientist, than we both use the same sources. I posted mine. I suggest you do the same.
Not only is evolution a lie, but it appears it's followers are as well.
Peer-reviewed, so I get some one else to agree with me than I'm right? Christianity, I win.
There is no verifiable evidence that macro-evolution occurred. Evolution theory is based on micro-evolution. This means that if one happened; it is possible that the other happened, not that it did. Evolution is a theory, not fact.
1) You did not. Perhaps your delusions are getting to you...
2) Way to be a smartass. No, when I say "peer-reviewed," I mean the most objective person you can possibly get.
3) There's sure as hell a whole lot of damn evidence than there is for God. Of course you reject every significant scientific theory we currently have, being the idiotic buffon you are.
Okay, so therefore we would require some kind of change in species, right? Therefore, let's go and look and see...
Well, I've found the following examples:
1. Titaalik: a strange little critter found in an ancient swamp, it shows clear transitions between fish and amphibian
2. Microraptor: less famous than Archaeopteryx, it is a small, feathered dinosaur living in trees and eating insects. Sounds eerily familiar to another kind of animal today...
3. Protohippus: well, this is pretty easy to see just from the name
Macro evolution and Micro evoultion is not the same thing.
I read other people saying that macro evolution is just lots of micro evolution. What a bunch of bollocks. This is not pokemon or digimon. Nor is this Harry Potter
''Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish.'' You clearly can see that the beliefs of evolution has been disproven by real life circumstances. To continue believing in evolution which is disproven, is to be a total air-headed, hair-brained idiot.
''Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. ''
Bacteria do not evolve. And when a scientists forcefully and artificially injects new DNA into animals, like the case a person called Nichole mentioned on another debate mentioned, it was still a fly. If you want a more complex being:
''There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.'' Like us you can say that fruit flies have races. But they can still reproduce with each other, because they are one and the same species.
A white man can procreate with any other female HUMAN ''race'' no matter her genetic mutation. But he or she was never proven to be an Ape,chimpanzee or any other primate. Science DISPROVES evolution. Scientists like those who are here winning this debate with up votes of ignorance accept for a reason I do not know..
Erm the mechanics in micro- and macro-evolution are exactly the same. Macro evolution is just that - lots of micro evolution.
It's patently absurd to say that micro-evolution is possible and macro-evolution isn't. It's like saying that it's possible to walk to my neighbours house but impossible to walk from Chicago to New York.
The distinction between micro and macro was invented by creationists as an explanation as to why we have observed animals evolve. The only real difference is time.
This is a term coined by those that said there would never be any observable evolution, in order to make it sound like they were still right when biologists proved them wrong.
If the earth is billions of years old as you all say. Explain how can their be petrified trees standing straight up through multiple layers of strata? Aren't each of these layers supposed to represent millions of years? How can a tree stand up for millions of years to be petrified?
I think the global flood about 4000 years ago laid all the layers of strata as you see today. That would explain perfectly these trees standing up through multiple layers.
Uniformitarianism simply means that scientists look at what goes on in the present to see what went on in the past, or said in another way the "present is the keys to the past". Scientists see examples of slow deposition in the present, as well as examples of quick deposition caused by volcanoes, flash floods and other similar events. They believe that the current occurrence of both types of deposition shows that both types of deposition occured in the past. Therefore, "polystrate" fossils(what you described) do not contradict uniformitarianism, but simply show that similar things that happen now happened in the past as well. The exact same definition for Uniformitarianism. Creationists only believe that fast deposition occurred in the past, while they disagree that very large sediment layers were created by slow deposition, because this process would have taken millions of years.
Many polystrate tree fossils form when a tree is subjected to rapid sedimentation, that is, when a tree is buried due to a flood, mudslide or volcanic ashfall (the three most common causes of rapid sedimentation). In other words, the strata that the tree passes through were laid down during the tree's lifetime, and or time of death. All of Yellowstone's upright petrified trees are rooted in place, having been buried alive during a prehistoric volcanic eruption. The Carboniferous fossil lycopod stumps show a series of roots that suggest that the trees were buried in floods, but continued to grow by producing more roots and adding more height to their trunks.
You believe a global flood did it? Evidence?
How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution if they were laid down in the turmoil of a single flood? That is usually dismissed with a hand wave by saying the animals quickly sorted each other out based on their ability to compete for the shrinking high ground.
It overlooks an important issue: Since fossil layers were really constructed over millions of years, there was sufficient time to accumulate a consistent layer of corpses from many many generations of animals over wide areas. You could dig up a layer of trilobite fossils in Boise, for example, and it would have the same density of trilobite fossils as the same layer in Kansas City. So if you read the Noah story back into this observation, the antediluvian world must have been wall-to-wall trilobites, not to mention all the other animals in the other layers. In fact, there must have been far more animals than the biosphere could reasonably be expected to support, all because YECs compress a billion years of fossil building into a few weeks.
The theory also fails to take into account fossilized plants, which show the same type of order as animal fossils, and which are not noted for their ability to flee rising floodwaters
Repeating series of layers within coal measures indicate cycles of sedimentation rather than being laid down as part of one single event. The huge Carboniferous limestone strata which consist of the remains of innumerable marine shells, require long periods of clean water. Any flood would have mixed the remains with silt and sand to give us the grey cliffs of Dover rather than the white ones we see today.
Here is other problems with your flood theory
Where did the water come from
Where did it go? Water never leaves the earth
The flood story does not explain the present geographic distribution of species, e.g., how did marsupials wind up in Australia, and only in Australia?
The Deluge, according to the Ussher chronology, occurred circa 2348 BCE. It should have represented a clear historical breaking point for every civilization around the world. No such breaking point exists. History appears to continue uninterrupted through the flood in every other part of the world.
Once the animals got off the ark, they would have nothing to eat. All the plants would have died in the flood, so the herbivores would have nothing to eat. The carnivores would wipe them out anyway, and then they would die too.
Creationists often claim that there were only babies of each species and only seeds of each plant on the ark, but then this would require a time for them to grow. For every ten units of mass on one level of the food chain, only one unit of mass can be created on the next level. That means for a lion, which weighs over 400 pounds, to become fully grown, he needs to eat 4,000 pounds of meat, and that animal would have to eat 40,000 pounds of plant to get that much weight.
A single worldwide deluge cannot explain the distribution of fossils in the fossil record:
Radiometric dating, geological layering (both fossils and otherwise), major extinction events, corrosion, and mountain range formation all line up to show the same age. Any argument that attacks a single dating method has to address why all of them show the same thing.
Even if the dating method is not accepted as accurate (i.e. you don't believe a fossil is 250 million years old), every dating method shows the same relative difference. So to be successful, even an argument that attacks every dating method would have to show why they're all out by the same amount, to account for the agreement over the relative age
.
Given the distribution of fossils, even if fossilization were accelerated under high-pressure water, which it is not, there have still been several times when almost all life has been wiped out (we're talking 50-75% of all species going extinct, not 50-75% of all individual animals dying). No apologist argument addresses all five major extinction events.
I believe physical matter was created from energy, which scientists seek to do themselves.
On earth, we have a building up of topsoil. We also have, upon the highest mountains in the world, sedimentary rock containing fossils of leaves and easily perishable things that could not have occurred from a slow buildup like that of topsoil.
The fossil record contains huge gaps that 'scientists' fill in with supposition.
And, there is nothing in the BIble that indicates dinosaurs coexisted with men. Both you guys are wrong.
Primitive in which way? The FSM argument is a joke, it's a satire, to make fun of the Intelligent Design theories. What's the point in science cracking jokes about religion, namely intelligent design, by teachers in hopes of not teaching intelligent design? FSM is lame and not even fruitful.
At least creationism (non christian, and including christian; the entire spectrum of creationism) is not a joke, is taken seriously by many people.
Again, why would creationism be a primitive hypothesis?
Evolution as it is taught now, I believe to be a lie. I am not disputing the changes in animals that can occur as a result of the environment, but I do not believe one can change species from ape to man.
So in response to the title of this debate (I cannot view the video due to audio output failure), I will have to say that Evolution is a lie as it currently stands. Should they wish to amend their theory in a more accurate light, I may reconsider my position.
Okay, I'm going to pick out some quotes from this video and show why they are fallacious and in many cases simply nonsense.
" evolution in the sense that life began to randomly generate new genetic information...is something that quite honestly doesn't hold up against science"
An honest mistake, but unfortunately for creationists a mistake nonetheless. Beneficial constructive (positive) mutations have been observed in bacteria many times - hence why bacteria can become immune to antibiotics. Positive mutations concerning the Nylon Bug are described here: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
" it (evolution) is in great opposition to observational science"
(see above). Also, as I've mentioned in a couple of posts now: ubiquitous genes are something we can and have observed and strongly indicate that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Ubiquitous genes are protein sequences that are found in all life forms that perform the same function. However, different protein sequences could perform these functions just as well - so there is no reason for all life to use the same sequence, a phenomena explained only by a common ancestor.
"life doesn't arise from non life"
Miller and Urey's experiment in an attempt to verify the primordial soup theory showed that amino acids can be created from non-living chemicals. Suggesting it is certainly possible for life to arise from non life. I am not stating that their experiment proves the primordial soup theory, only that it demonstrates non-living chemicals, in the right environment, can be conducive to life.
"there is no known observable process by which genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code"
(see first paragraph - this statement is simply false).
"humans are humans, apes are apes"
It is important to be clear that no modern day animal evolved into another modern day animal. For example, we did not evolve from monkeys. Both humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, but a monkey did not evolve into a man. Likewise, a fish has never evolved into an amphibian. There was no half-fish half-frog species (so the drawings in this video are incredibly misleading). Humans are humans, apes are apes, but both are descended from a common ancestor that was neither a human or an ape.
"never has it been observed that life can arise from non life"
(see paragraph 3) - clearly this video is a tad repetitive - not as much substance as it makes out.
lol this looks like a presentation a grade seven kid put together at a catholic school. This guy doesn't know science for shit. His puny brain just doesn't understand. Look at the actual science behind evolution and it makes sense, even though it might not seem so at first. OliverJDH you fucking nailed it.
Technically, it was an ape, and humans are apes too. It just wasn't one of the contemporary ape species.
True true - I should have made that clear. Where I have used the term ape I meant a member of the contemporary ape species as described in the video. However of course, if you trace our lineage back far enough the common ancestor would not be an ape.
That bacteria then died when reintroduced to its surroundings.
That bacteria being the Nylon bug or bacteria which develop immunity to antibiotics? When did I mention bacteria being taken out of it's surroundings? Antibiotic-resistant bacteria do not die out as a result of the genetic mutation, to the contrary, they multiply - this is why any doctor will tell you to complete a course of antibiotics; so that no bacteria survives to develop an immunity and multiplies, making future treatment more difficult. (Forgive me if I've missed your point - I wasn't quite sure what you were getting at with this sentence...)
Where did DNA come from?
I'm not sure whether this is a general question concerning the origin of DNA or a more specific question regarding where the new DNA has come from in a productive (positive) mutation - so I'll answer both:
As you doubtless know, DNA consists largely of phosphorous and nitrogen. A reaction between phosphorous and nitrogen and other trace elements (elements produced through nuclear fusion within stars if you really want to trace it back) would have produced nucleotides and the bases (A,T,C,G) - the monomers for the DNA molecule. This is an incredibly simplified brief description and obviously misses out many many steps. If you are particularly interested in the evolution of DNA here's a useful link:
During a productive mutation new genetic information is created when a section of DNA is displaced by one or more nucleotides, altering the codons (the set of three bases which code for one amino acid). As a result, different amino acids are formed in a different order resulting in the synthesis of different proteins and so on. The displacement is often caused, as creationists agree, by the deletion of a nucleotide (a destructive mutation) but also by the insertion of a new nucleotide (a positive mutation). New nucleotides and their bases are formed within the nucleus of all cells that divide (GCSE examples being meiosis and mitosis); a process I can describe if you wish.
Amino acids are not life
Very true, but they do form proteins, and proteins are the building blocks of life. Stick enough proteins together and you have a fully functioning living cell (again, I've simplified the process - though I'd like to think I've captured the essence). I'm not going to claim that we have observed the creation of brand new life, we have merely seen evidence that strongly indicates the process I've described did happen. Remember, it only needed to happen once and the universe gave it a long time to happen - we are not talking about protein synthesis overnight, we are talking over 2 billion years (the Earth is estimated to be 4 billion years old if I remember rightly).
There is still no proof of that common ancestor.
Again - the existence of ubiquitous genes strongly suggests that all life descended from one common ancestor. There is no reason for all life to carry the same protein sequence if various other sequences would be just as efficient and effective. The similarity in our genetic make up with other apes also indicates we are related. Homologous skeletons across the animal kingdom again suggests kinship. I could go on...
Repetition is good for memory
I'll give you that one ; )
Finally - it is clear that there exists now life that did not exist at the time of the dinosaurs. No human (or contemporary animal) remains have ever been found in a layer of rock that does not match their time period, or with dinosaur bones. So either life evolved or God intermittently creates new life forms... the latter is somewhat unlikely.
I'm saying that while in the laboratory, the bacteria when reintroduced with the parent bacteria were killed very shortly after encountering one another. Second, this is still not prof of macro-evolution.
DNA is the longest book in the world and could reach the moon and back 5 million times if stretched out. Do you truly believe that, not even a book, but a magazine could randomly form itself together especially when things in nature away from complexity?
Watch the video series! The experiment is faulty. They didn't use oxygen so that nothing would oxidize, however, if there was no oxygen on earth there wouldn't have been ozone which blocks UV light from the sun which destroys ammonia which was one of the fundamental components in the soup.
I'm saying that while in the laboratory, the bacteria when reintroduced with the parent bacteria were killed very shortly after encountering one another.
I'm going to assume you are talking about the Nylon Bug, correct me if I'm mistaken.
This bacteria was found in a pond behind a Japanese factory - due to the waste from the factory this pond contained large quantities of Nylon. If taken out of this environment this bacteria would die as it has been removed from its food source. If reintroduced with the unmutated bacteria (which aren't present in the pond) it would die because (again) it is not near its food source. I fail to understand your point, the only time in which this bacteria was in the lab was to be examined (no changes to the bacteria were made) - furthermore, in this instance your point is irrelevant; I am merely demonstrating that productive mutations do occur - that is to say that new genetic information can be created - not whether it incurs a survival advantage (though in the case of the Nylon Bug it did).
Second, this is still not prof of macro-evolution
It wasn't intended to be an all encompassing proof - as I stated above, this is simply evidence that new genetic information can be created, a fact that (as the video pointed out) must be true in order for macro-evolution to be true.
DNA is the longest book in the world and could reach the moon and back 5 million times if stretched out. Do you truly believe that, not even a book, but a magazine could randomly form itself together especially when things in nature away from complexity?
The argument from design (the teleological argument - whatever you want to call it) has been disputed time and time again. One famous response is simply that: You cannot explain away complexity by introducing greater complexity (i.e. God). It is much more sensible to assert that complexity arises from a number of simple steps over a long period of time than from an even greater complexity over a short period of time. As for DNA in particular - it is comprised of varying patterns of 4 different kinds of bases consisting of 4 (I think) different elements - hardly the archetype of complexity.
The experiment is faulty
I am not claiming that Miller and Urey's experiment proves the primordial soup theory - it simply demonstrates that given the right environment it is possible for non-living chemicals to produce amino-acids. I'm not saying it happened as described by their experiment.
Before I begin a rebuttal, I must ask you something. If I prove that the claims in that video are false, beyond all doubt, will you accept evolution as true?
People like you make this site worthless. When you join a debate, you join it with an open mind with an eye on your thesis and your stand. Ideally, if you want to be taken seriously, you fight an argument with an equally logical argument. Even if those arguments do not convince you, then you should at the least defend your stand, otherwise, you are merely one of those brainless nitwits that believe in something they don't know about.
Don't just take a stand and ignore all arguments. FIGHT for your stand with proper, concise and well substantiated arguments! Otherwise, piss off this debate.
all he said was that he was not going to belive in evolution and you are to stubborn so you make excuses just to dispute him all because hes a christian.
The reason why I choose not to believe it is because in the video it said that no one has refuted that argument in the video and I believe what He said and their is plenty of evidence how evolution if flawed and not a fact.
I have been studying the flaws of evolution and it appears that there is flaws in the theory of evolution.
So if evidence is shown against your position, you'd keep your belief, ignoring the evidence? Oh, and OliverJ (I believe it is) just refuted the video's claims quite adequately.
I don't care if he refuted the argument. I am not going to refuted the argument because I already stated my opinion and now I am going to leave this debate and move on.
I honestly don't care if you try and refute Oliver's arguments or not. Let me see... If evidence against the Christian god was found, would you continue to belief it?
If evidence against the Christian god was found, would you continue to belief it?
There is no error or contradiction found in the Bible and there hasn't been anyone who has disproved the resurrection of Christ. So therefore there isn't any evidence against God and if it there is it is probably vague or I could refute it easily.
There hasn't been solid proof against the Christian God no one has ever refuted every single thing about Christianity.
Uh... not what I meant. Ignore everything else about Christianity, I am simply asking if evidence against the Christian god (as if the God is false, then everything else about Christianity is, too) was presented to you, would you believe in it?
But I would still continue to believe because I know for a fact that Christianity isn't flawed.
I am trying to get you IMAGINE if evidence against God was presented to you...
So you'd continue to believe in God, even if (verified, peer-reviewed) evidence of the contrary was shown to you?
If the God is false, then everything about Christianity is false. For example, God is said to have made the Earth in 6 days. However, if God is proven false, then this obviously isn't true, and as such nothing past that point is true, as well.
The Big Bang theory is just a theory it can be wrong and it can be right. There is also plenty of evidence that God exists but you don't care enough to look it up. But the whole idea of rocks smashing into rocks to create the earth is just bull crap. In order to make the earth you have to have a someone to create the earth. The earth can't be made by itself it needs a creator to create it.
The Big Bang theory is just a theory it can be wrong and it can be right.
The Big Bang theory isn't a theory, it's a scientific theory. "A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
There is also plenty of evidence that God exists but you don't care enough to look it up.
No, there isn't. There's arguments for God's existence, but there is no actual evidence.
In order to make the earth you have to have a someone to create the earth.
No, you don't.
The earth can't be made by itself it needs a creator to create it.
Yes you do need a creator to create things. What about the the things we use every single day like a cell phone, computer, video game consoles, houses, etc they weren't created by themselves someone created them it the exact same thing with the earth. The earth can't be created by itself it needs a creator to make things. Nothing can't be made into something.
Sure it can. Why can't it?
Read my argument above it applies to the same thing.
What about the the things we use every single day like a cell phone, computer, video game consoles, houses, etc they weren't created by themselves someone created them it the exact same thing with the earth. The earth can't be created by itself it needs a creator to make things. Nothing can't be made into something.
That's a contradiction, dude. You just said everything needed a creator. This includes God.
Well God doesn't need a creator since He was there in the very beginning maybe He willed himself into existence? Who knows? You can ask Him when you die. That's what I am going to ask him.
Yah and you kind of did waste your time asking me that question. It appears that in the video that the guy said that no one has been able to argue about the 2 major flaws in evolution and hasn't said a word so I think the guy did a good job. Nuff said.
Now now, I think a certain "OliverJDH" would be rather vexed at that claim. From what I've read, it seems he made an articulate and informed rebuttal to your video.
What in particular do you disagree with him about, seeing as you didn't respond to his argument?
this argument is already invalid because: (1) it states evolution says life came from non life. Abiogenesis is not evolution.
(2) life can come from non-life under certain conditions. see the Miller-Urey experiment.
(3) yes humans are humans and apes are apes. Evolution says nothing to the contrary.
(4) The theory of evolution as we understand it today has only been around for roughly 150 years. How could we have observed a process of evolution that takes millions of years?
(5) slight evolutionary changes have been observed. See Darwins fiches.
(6)There is no such thing as "molecule to man" evolution.
And do you know what this "Miller-Urey" experiment illustrates...? It takes a CREATOR!
The idea of evolution has been around for much much longer than 150 years. It has just gotten "popular" due to the immorality of man. Exactly, we can't observe millions of years, thats where it leaves the realm of science and becomes religion. (Faith)
Darwin's finches? Yes and they all came from, guess what, a pair of finches! Darwin also implies that birds and plants have a same ancestor. Are you trying to tell me you think a bird is related to the banana I ate earlier?
"Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms... One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows: ‘. . . I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.'"
Miller and Urey experiment has no backing either. They excluded oxygen in the experiment because anything they created would oxidize and life would not form. However, with no oxygen in reality then one of the key components in the soup, ammonia, would be destroyed because UV light destroys it and UV light is stopped by the o-zone. Next, amino acids along with poisonous tar was created along side one another. The tar alone would kill any life that would possibly form but amino acids are not life so there was no life to kill from the tar.
If you watched the video series I posted it shows that this experiment is a lie that is in the text books.
They excluded oxygen in the experiment because anything they created would oxidize and life would not form
Oxygen is the second-most chemically active element. No matter how much free oxygen was in the Earth's primordial atmosphere to begin with, that oxygen would have quickly (on a geological timescale) reacted with other existing matter to form various molecules (i.e., carbon dioxide, water, ferrous or ferric oxide, etc), thus eliminating free oxygen from the primordial atmosphere. Therefore, either oxygen's properties were very different in the primordial atmosphere, or there wasn't a significant amount of oxygen in Earth's primordial atmosphere.
However, with no oxygen in reality then one of the key components in the soup, ammonia, would be destroyed because UV light destroys it and UV light is stopped by the o-zone.
This is the
Perfectionist Fallacy (UV exposure doesn't have to be all or nothing)
and
Jumping to Conclusions fallacy (that life developed where it would have been exposed to UV)
When simple organic molecules are held together in a fairly concentrated area, such as stuck to a dust or ice grain, the UV light actually enhances the formation of more complex molecules by breaking some bonds and allowing the molecules to recombine (Bernstein et al. 1999; Cooper et al. 2001). DNA and RNA are relatively resistant to UV light, because some parts of the molecules shelter others and damage to the bases can provide the materials to repair the backbone. UV light gives nucleic acids a selective advantage and may in fact have been an essential ingredient for abiogenesis (Mulkidjanian et al. 2003; Mullen 2003).
The molecules need not all have stayed exposed to UV for long. Some would have dissolved in oceans and lakes. In one proposed scenario, the complex organic molecules form in the deep ocean around geothermal vents, well away from ultraviolet light.
Ultraviolet radiation is the weakest form of ionizing radiation, and the argument's implication is that it creates an all-or-nothing scenario, where life either could not have existed in such an environment (making abiogenesis wrong), or else such an environment never existed (setting up a false dilemma). The premise is not true, however. UV radiation is not as ionizing as the argument requires.
The tar alone would kill any life that would possibly form but amino acids are not life so there was no life to kill from the tar.
Its needed. Cyanide and formaldehyde are necessary building blocks for important biochemical compounds, including amino acids. They are not toxins in this context.
Miller-Urey experiments produce amino acids among other chemical compounds
Jack Szostaks abiogenesis experiment is the most successful out there.
The Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described science as the search for truth. Science does this by continuously comparing its theories objectively with evidence in the natural world. When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or rejected in favor of new theories that do conform. In other words, science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and rejects implausible explanations. In this way, scientific knowledge and understanding grow over time. Religious explanations for the order of things are not science because they are based primarily on faith and do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified. Because of this fundamental difference in the approach to understanding our natural world, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect decided in 1987 that the Biblically based "creation science" is not a science and cannot be taught as such in public schools as an alternative or in addition to the mainstream evolutionary theory of the biological sciences. However, religious creation stories and the idea of "intelligent design" can be taught in philosophy, religion, or history courses. Religion and Science provide different approaches to knowledge. It is important to understand both.
Biological evolution is genetic change in a population from one generation to another. The speed and direction of change is variable with different species lines and at different times. Continuous evolution over many generations can result in the development of new varieties and species. Likewise, failure to evolve in response to environmental changes can, and often does, lead to extinction.
When scientists speak of evolution as a theory they do not mean that it is a mere speculation. It is a theory in the same sense as the propositions that the earth is round rather than flat or that our bodies are made of atoms are theories. Most people would consider such fundamental theories to be sufficiently tested by empirical evidence to conclude that they are indeed facts. As a result of the massive amount of evidence for biological evolution accumulated over the last two centuries, we can safely conclude that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. All life forms, including humans, evolved from earlier species, and all still living species of organisms continue to evolve today. They are not unchanging end-products.
For those who have difficulty in accepting evolution because of what they perceive as contradictions with their fundamental religious beliefs, it may be useful to distinguish the ultimate origin of life from its later evolution. Many, if not most, biological scientists accept that primordial life on earth began as a result of chance natural occurrences 3.5-4 billion years ago. However, it is not necessary to believe in that view in order to accept that living creatures evolved by natural means after the origin of the first life. Charles Darwin modified his religious beliefs, as did many others, as a result of the discovery of convincing proof of evolution. Darwin's religious faith was also severely challenged by the death of his 10 year old daughter Annie in 1851. Apparently, he came to believe that his God created the order of the universe including the rules of nature that result in biological evolution. His famous book, On the Origin of Species, was not a denial of his God's existence. However, he did reject a literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible. His religious beliefs were probably very similar to those who advocate "theistic evolution" today.
he evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations
Remains of animals and plants found in sedimentary rock deposits give us an indisputable record of past changes through vast periods of time. This evidence attests to the fact that there has been a tremendous variety of living things. Some extinct species had traits that were transitional between major groups of organisms. Their existence confirms that species are not fixed but can evolve into other species over time.
The evidence also shows that what have appeared to be gaps in the fossil record are due to incomplete data collection. The more that we learn about the evolution of specific species lines, the more that these so-called gaps or "missing links in the chain of evolution" are filled with transitional fossil specimens. One of the first of these gaps to be filled was between small bipedal dinosaurs and birds. Just two years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, a 150-145 million year old fossil of Archaeopteryx was found in southern Germany. It had jaws with teeth and a long bony tail like dinosaurs, broad wings and feathers like birds, and skeletal features of both. This discovery verified the assumption that birds had reptilian ancestors.
Since the discovery of Archaeopteryx, there have been many other crucial evolutionary gaps filled in the fossil record. Perhaps, the most important one, from our human perspective, was that between apes and our own species. Since the 1920's, there have been literally hundreds of well-dated intermediate fossils found in Africa that were transitional species leading from apes to humans over the last 6-7 million years. This evidence is presented in the last 3 tutorials of this series.
The fossil record also provides abundant evidence that the complex animals and plants of today were preceded by earlier simple ones. In addition, it shows that multicelled organisms evolved only after the first single-celled ones. This fits the predictions of evolutionary theory.
Living things on earth are fundamentally similar in the way that their basic anatomical structures develop and in their chemical compositions. No matter whether they are simple single-celled protozoa or highly complex organisms with billions of cells, they all begin as single cells that reproduce themselves by similar division processes. After a limited life span, they also all grow old and die.
All living things on earth share the ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other elements. In fact, 99% of the proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other molecules of living things are made from only 6 of the 92 most common elements. This is not a mere coincidence.
All plants and animals receive their specific characteristics from their parents by inheriting particular combinations of genes. Molecular biologists have discovered that genes are, in fact, segments of DNA molecules in our cells.
These segments of DNA contain chemically coded recipes for creating proteins by linking together particular amino acids in specific sequences.
All of the tens of thousands of types of proteins in living things are made of only 20 kinds of amino acids. Despite the great diversity of life on our planet, the simple language of the DNA code is the same for all living things. This is evidence of the fundamental molecular unity of life.
In addition to molecular similarities, most living things are alike in that they either get the energy needed for growth, repair, and reproduction directly from sunlight, by photosynthesis , or they get it indirectly by consuming green plants and other organisms that eat plants.
Many groups of species share the same types of body structures because they inherited them from a common ancestor that had them. This is the case with the vertebrates , which are the animals that have internal skeletons. The arms of humans, the forelegs of dogs and cats, the wings of birds, and the flippers of whales and seals all have the same types of bones (humerus, radius, and ulna) because they have retained these traits of their shared common ancient vertebrate ancestor.
All of these major chemical and anatomical similarities between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of similar natural processes. These facts make it difficult to accept a theory of special and independent creation of different species.
Just because we do simliar things such as eat,sleep,reproduce,etc doesnt mean evolution is real and if evolution is so real how come we still ahvent evolved?
You know what your not even worth my time, your arguments are weak and you cant come up with great excuses so you know what why bother arguing with an idiot if hes gonna keep amking up lame excuses (and dont give me any of that bs saying well I guess I got under animedude's skin and the answer is no you didnt your arguments are just weak so i decided not to argue with someone who cant keep up with mine.
Also you need to stop beliving we can evolve like pokemon this is the real world not a pokemon world, to be honest I think alot athiests are just plain childish thinking we can evolve just like pokemon XD
Also you need to stop beliving we can evolve like pokemon this is the real world not a pokemon world, to be honest I think alot athiests are just plain childish thinking we can evolve just like pokemon
Where did i say i think evolution is like pokemon?
How was that an insult,do u even know what an insult is I said I looked at evolution online and I still thought it was false so tell me how is that an insult?
hahah I know you would have a comeback like that XD and since when did I say I was christian I never I was christian (even though I am) and stop putting god into the subject, this isnt about god.
The point of the video isn't to show creationism, it is to show that the theory of evolution is not accurate and that all the "evidence" they have is not real.
There isn't any evidence for the Big Bang, the methods for dating the earth are not trustworthy, what cave man? and Job 40 and 41.
The point of the video isn't to show creationism, it is to show that the theory of evolution is not accurate and that all the "evidence" they have is not real.
I don't care, he is still an idiot. Why should I believe his "evidence" when he makes unsubstantiated assertions?
There isn't any evidence for the Big Bang
Uhhhh... Yes, yes there is. There's an immense amount of evidence for the Big Bang theory.
the methods for dating the earth are not trustworthy
I'll give you the fact you do have an argument (though an albeit weak one) here. I'd say it's more flawed, then untrustworthy, though.
what cave man?
1:55 in the first video in the series.
and Job 40 and 41.
Nope. Don't give a shit about scripture. Not until the Bible has been verified, that is.
Yes, that is one definition of faith. And God does have proof. The Laws of Thermodynamics prove that a God/Designer had to have created everything. You must deny the Laws of Thermodynamics to disprove God, otherwise God exists.
Consider conways game of life, where both chaotic, expansive features can be seen and its because of the complex formations the cells form. These formations either stabilize, or like thermodynamics states "cool off".
The formation of "complex" structures(undoubtedly your argument) is in no way a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, which is a statistical large scale phenomenon.
Without searching for it, could you please summarize the relevant law of thermodynamics that has been been claimed to prove that God must have created everything?
Then could you please explain how the entirety of evolution happens in an isolated system, and how evolution necessitates that life has gotten more complex, and why the law - which refers to energy, entropy, and levels of multiplicity - would refer to genes in this instance. A basic understanding of science + the laws of thermodynamics should make it blindingly obvious that there is no basis in your argument.
1) In a closed system, matter cannot be created or destroyed.
2) In a closed system, things go from complexity to simplicity (entropy)
I'm not talking about "the theory of evolution" which is restrained to biology in this instance. This is a case about the universe which is cosmological evolution - as can be seen with debating about the big bang (and yes, there is a thing of it, because psychology, geology, etc. refer to psychological evolution, geological evolution, etc.). Did you even read the article I posted above?
You see, you are just as badas the one you say is an idiot!
You make statements without giving proof / reason as well!
It takes MORE "faith" to belive in evolution than it does creation, considering the fact that life doesn't come from non-living matter, and every single thing we see and touch was created by someone. Why not we ourselves? Why not life?
You need to read the book "The Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries," by Reginald Daly. Every page gives evidence for a global flood, just as the Bible said.
You said you dont give a shit about scripture until it is verified... verified by who? i believe in the Big Bang... I simply believe it is the description of an event (by scientists), to say an event that has been described by Judeo-christianity did not happen which is counter productive and evidence to many scientists occultic origin, that you probably dont even know about. How does a belief in magic reconcile with science? it does not.
Actually yes there is lots of evidence for the Big Bang; the ratio of hydrogen to helium (76:24), cosmic microwave background radiation and redshift (the idea that the universe is continually expanding and growing). We can also derive, from the second law of thermo dynamics that the universe is cooling but I shall leave that out before things become too complicated. The Universe's light-element abundance is another important criterion by which the Big Bang hypothesis is verified. It is understood that light elements were formed within the first few minutes of the Big Bang while elements heavier than helium (beryllium) are thought to have their origins in the interiors of stars which formed much later. After the light elements (e.g. deuterium) were formed the temperature of the universe fell far below that of which is required for nuclear fusion. According to stellar theory, deuterium cannot be produced in stellar interiors; in actual fact it is destroyed inside of stars. The Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory predicts that roughly 25% the mass of the Universe consists of Helium and the fact that helium is nowhere seen to have an abundance below 23% mass is very strong evidence that the Universe went through an early hot phase. Which is where thermodynamics comes in, as the universe is expanding (redshift) it is also cooling leading scientists to suggest that it could end in a 'Big Crunch'. Further support for the BBT and BBN comes from the consistency of the other light element abundances for one particular baryon density and an independent measurement of the baryon density from the anisotropies in the readings of cosmic microwave background radiation. So yes, there is in fact a LOT of evidence for the Big Bang but I cannot stress this enough- IT IS STILL ONLY A THEORY, I just wish over-excited Christians would stop treating it as if we 'non-believers' have foubd all the answers. And, you have to be an atheist to support the BBT.
Do you believe the Big Bang was an expanse or an explosion?
And in science a "theory" is considered "fact," so I'm told at least by atheists/agnostics alike. Most Christians say that it is "just a theory" but then people will respond by saying that gravity is just a theory too.
P.S. You actually present good arguments. I appreciate that! Hopefully you are open minded too... haha :)
A 'theory' or 'hypothesis' in science is NOT considered a fact, you've been told wrong. For any scientist to assert that their theory is an absolute truth is totally unacceptable. Scientific laws cannot be verified but they can be falsified- as Karl Popper described in his Falsification Principle in Response to Alfred Ayer's Verfification Principle. On the subject of evolution, Darwin himself ,NEVER at any point in his own lifetime,did assert that his evolutionary theory was an absolute fact. He, for want of better phrasing, simply laid out what he had found on his voyage on the Beagle and the evidence he'd gathered and pretty much said: 'look, here's what I've got, this is my theory (and I emphasise that word here) as to how the life began on this planet and how we have come to be what we are today' (the theory for the origins of life should not be confused with the origins of the universe in this matter). For Darwin to let the world see what he had discovered was a huge decision- he was himself a Christian and his wife was a staunch Roman Catholic- to against the church and everything he believed in in the name of science was a brave choice. And once again I stress that evolution is only a theory however, its the best lead we've got to determine how we have become the human beings that we are today. And thank you I appreciate your compliment :)
Are you referring to the behemoth and leiviathan? These have not been confirmed to be dinosaurs. And actually, from what I've read, its more likely that these creatures were hippopotamus and crocodile.
I personally own the video series in question and, while he does not mention these other topics in detail in this video, you have to remember that it is still part of a SERIES. He explains all these other topics and more in his other videos. Don't attack something when you only see a small piece of it. Though he charges roughly 80 dollars for his 6 part series, his explanations make sense and all his counter-arguments are solid. And if you don't want to see the videos, he has debated MANY supporters in evolution, The Big Bang, etc. So feel free to find any of these debates, his name is Kent Hovind
Kent Hovind is in prison for fraud. All his arguments are from ignorance, based on his wishes not on evidence. He has fake degree from degree mill. He is illiterate and useless fuck.
I've gone through the first five, it is going to take more time than I have to do in one sitting, so I'll start with these, and you can refute me.
Firstly I'd like to start out by stating that Kunt Hovind was a high school science teacher, I've been in college with science teachers, they shared the preliminary subjects with us to get a broad base knowledge and it ends there, the last maths module I did in second year had final year science teachers in it, they do not go deep into any of the disciplines as they only have to teach the basics, and the rest they study is to do with education, his PhD is in education and this speaks volumes.
OK, here we go.
(1) Dinosaurs lived with Adam and Eve,
Sigh, meaningless assertion, have you any evidence of either of these people?
(2) "Textbooks should be factual"
I suppose they should say that dinosaurs lived with Adam and Eve, right?
(3) Majority of the population believe in the bible
Argumentum Ad Populum
(4) Lies should be torn out of textbooks
How does this work for religious textbooks?
(5) Scientists want you to believe water flows uphill
This is ridiculous and a baseless assertion, the Colorado palte has been pushed up over time by plate tectonics.
(6) There is no Delta
Outright lie, there are several, here is a book on one.
(6) People see thing in different ways, "proved" by a ridiculous unfunny joke
What retard would assume that a calf can run and insert itself into a cow's vagina?
(7) People that scoff at the bible are willfully ignorant
What is this based on?
(8) He correlates the fall of belief in the bible with the rise of democracy
Would he like to return to the dark ages? Would you?
(9) Charles Lyell hated the Bible
This couldn't be further from the truth, he was a devout christian that had trouble reconciling the evidence he found with his beliefs as were all of the Christian geologists at the time, he was an adviser to Darwin and was even at the end not sold on evolution, advising Darwin of the danger of his work, Darwin.
(10) Shake up a Jar and it will form layers
Does this idiot actually believe that all of the Earths solid matter was dissolved in water? If this hypothesis was accurate, surely the bottom strata would be made of the most dense material.
(11) Fossils tell what age rocks are and vice versa
I assume he's referring to Index fossils, these are used to identify strata not age it, radiometric dating does that. People like Lyell and Darwin were wrong but in the fact that they under not over estimated the age of strata.
(12) Meister foot print is evidence of man and trilobites living together
That is a cut spall, not a foot print, it superficially resemble a foot print.
(13) Graptolites and Coelacanths, still alive
What does this prove/
(14) hand print from cretaceous
Never verified, the piece sits in creationist museums and they don't allow anyone to take it away, as in they removed it from where they found it and it hasn't been aged.
(15) Petrified trees
These fossilised trees that are seen through multiple strata (as Hovind excludes) are found around areas of rapidly changing geological topography.
They have been shown to happen quite quickly in these areas, strange given Noah's flood was global, that petrified forests aren't found uniformly around the world.
There is observed evidence of partially buried trees regenerating by growing new root systems in new soil.
Petrified trees, as can be seen now, can become partially exposed by soil erosion, and buried again by new activity, strange that, I mean it's like they exist only in areas of volcanic or flooding activity.
Yes he has evidence of the people.... adam and eve... Every human on the planet comes from a single Paternal ancestor and a maternal ancestor..... Not acknowledging this fact (which the Bible does, and narrows it down to Noah and Eve (since the x chromosome was more ancient than the y-chromosome of Noah- or whoever you want to call it!) is testament to your extreme ignorance...
There is substantial evidence for both micro and macroevolution:
Ubiquitous genes being an example of molecular evidence for macro. (I noticed you didn't reply to this evidence lolzors last time I referenced it in a previous debate...?)
Microevolution has been observed - for example, the changing colour of Guppies (type of fish) according to the levels of predation in their environment.
In my narrow-minded dogmatic view, there are people who believe in evolution and there are people who don't understand evolution.
Guppies changing color to adapt to predation in their envirionment is adaptation, not evolution. The guppies didn't become seagulls or men or monkeys or horses. Nothing will make a guppy change his guppiness. He will always be a fish "according to its kind."
I appreciate this debate is cluttered with posts, and you probably haven't had the opportunity to read everything I've posted so I'll reiterate briefly:
Adaptation within a species is called "microevolution" - and my example involving Guppies was an example of microevolution, not "macroevolution" which you are disputing.
Secondly; a Guppy will never evolve to become another modern day species like a man or horse (and no evolutionist claims this). However, a guppy may in the future evolve into an entirely new species. This occurs as a result of a number of factors - and constructive genetic mutations (which I have talked about in quite some detail in this debate) is one of them.
At a simpler level, macroevolution is simply microevolution happening again and again to a large number of a certain species - large enough so that the evolving members can mate with each other and not with the "unevolving" members of the species. To clarify: If the genetic make-up of a group of guppies changes enough over a period of time through "adaptation" or "microevolution" it will become distinguishable from a guppy who hasn't made this change. If an "evolved" guppy and an "unevolved" guppy cannot mate together, the "evolved" guppy is now a member of a new species.
I hope I have made this clear - let me know if you still have any questions.
How can you even deny evolution.If you are going to deny evolution why not deny everything else science has proven.
All kinds of proof for it the best of which is DNA
Even if there were no other evidence other than DNA the theory would still be accepted. We share 98-99% of our DNA with chimps.
Humans also share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
Whales have genes for making legs
Chickens have genes for making teeth
Humans have genes for making TAILS!
and these are just 3 examples.The only way these genes can get there if they were once dominant in the ancestors
If you dig down in the layers of the earth, you find fossils of life forms that don't exist anymore, and you don't find fossils of life forms that exist now. The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
ERVs are usually species-specific, inserted almost randomly in the host genome, and the error or mutation that inactivated the gene is random. If two organisms share the same ERV in the same location with the same inactivation mutations, then they almost certainly share them due to common inheritance and not two separate infections. Researchers analyze shared ERV insertions across species to construct phylogenetic trees. For example, the common ERVs in simians indicates they share a common genome. When phylogenetic trees are constructed based on the pattern of ERVs, they indicate humans share more ERVs with chimps than either share with gorillas. Other examples are known.This is strong evidence for common descent.
Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth and just about every living thing has a tail in embryology.
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
^ Rice, W.R.; Hostert (1993). "Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years". Evolution 47 (6): 1637–1653. doi:10.2307/2410209. JSTOR 2410209.
Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004). "Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?". Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 19 (3): 111–4. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2003.12.008. PMID 16701238.
Boxhorn, J (1995). "Observed Instances of Speciation". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
Weinberg JR, Starczak VR, Jorg, D (1992). "Evidence for Rapid Speciation Following a Founder Event in the Laboratory". Evolution 46 (4): 1214–20. doi:10.2307/2409766. JSTOR 2409766.
Kirkpatrick, Mark; Virginie Ravigné (2002-03). "Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments". The American Naturalist 159 (3): S22–S35. doi:10.1086/338370. ISSN 00030147. JSTOR 3078919. PMID 18707367.
You may also be interested in knowing that we don't have to observe everything, but that we can make logical deductions from what we have observed.
"So exactly why can’t microevolution lead to macroevolution? In order for this to happen, something very fundamental must occur: new genetic information must arise in an organism. The organism must then pass on its genes on to its descendents, and with later accumulations of changes over several generations, eventually macroevolution will occur. This theory actually seems pretty logical, yet as logical as it may seem, it is not what we observe when microevolution occurs. In fact, we observe exactly the opposite of what must happen if microbe-to-man evolution is true. And that is, we see organisms become more specialized as they adapt to their environment, or when speciation occurs. Sometimes these changes might even be beneficial despite being an overall loss of information. For example, beetles on a windy island will sometimes lose their wings due to a degenerative mutation.[2] This mutation is actually beneficial in this circumstance because the beetles aren’t able to fly and be blown off into the ocean. But even though this mutation is beneficial, it still resulted in a net loss of information."
"So there are observed instances of secondary speciation -- which is not what Darwinism needs -- but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria."
The first paragraph is just rhetoric and shows a lack of understanding of the basics of information.
The lose of wings can be interpreted as a gain in "information" just as much as a loss. Demorgan's laws are pretty awesome.
As for the last link, it is a leap of faith to suppose there was an uncaused cause of a supernatural origin, especially one with so many attributes and surrounding mythos as any particular god. Lets just say occums razor says its simpliest to stick to what we actually know in this case, which is that in the begining there was a giant wound of clock...and thats all folks.
Occams razor says what is simplest is the most likely. God being real and creating the world in seven days is pretty simple compared to the big bang happened for no reason, and was there randomly, and randomly created life that randomly over the years went into plants with no cause and also into animals with no cause, and finally went to humans which are insanely complex and ordered by no means of propulsion. Sounds like God wins in this.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Yes, but you can see it on a small level. If you want to you can look at how quickly dogs evolve, or you could just look at the features of people over time and see how we change, we sure have gotten alot taller.
Watch the videos. Dogs evolve into less efficient organisms because no new genetic information is added but instead is lost. If you start with 2 parents with 48 chromosomes each but they only pass 24 down then the other 24 were lost as well. Macro-evolution is dogs gaining genetic information to become something other than a dog.
I watched the video, I would like to see the sources for the video's claims. Most of the things in the video is just creationist views, which weather you like it or not, the Bible has less proof than science. It is not God's word, it is a collection of stories from various sources that were picked to be in the bible by the church.
Can the creator of this thread give one logical criticism of evolution? And that means in his/her own words, not saying "Watch these 30 Christian propaganda videos."
I have already given you one and you tried refuting it. Just because you don't agree with logic doesn't mean what I say is false and just because I agree with logic doesn't mean what I say is true.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that we go from complexity/order to simplicity/chaos, yet, the theory of evolution states that we go from simplicity to complexity. One of them is correct but which one is it? Look at the world around us, do things not go from structured order to chaotic messes? And if it were even possibly for things to go backwards contrary to the 2nd law, then mutants would never be able to reproduce after they have mutated to another kind. I'm not arguing micro-evolution, we have clearly seen variations of like kinds but we have not seen one kind change to another kind (meaning not being able to reproduce with any organism but of its own kind; this is also listed in the law of biogenesis). And if we had seen something mutate into a different kind then who would this organism reproduce with? If it can't reproduce outside of its own kind then another organism would have to mutate likewise and be of the opposite gender. However, mutations generally are detrimental for organisms and if some sort of mutation did in fact allow for the organism to become another kind then it most certainly would have some sort of problem that would not allow for the new kind to continue throughout history. Would you like for me to continue?
Thats a very good rebuttal... I concede on that the earth is not a closed system... but it still does not show how things that are simple and useless can go to complex organisms. Do you truly think that life becomes more complex over time? Does anything become more complex over time? And even at that, regardless of the earth not being a closed system, the entire universe is, which demonstrates that cosmological evolution is incorrect. And yes, evolution does refer to the entire thing maybe not the "theory of evolution" specifically but the concept of the results of evolution and what was required before it could happen and what the effects of those things are, etc. Even if you could find a hole through that, it still does not refute the other claims about the mutations and like kinds.
but it still does not show how things that are simple and useless can go to complex organisms.
Evolution does not state that life becomes more complex, only that life changes. This can be to a more complex or more simple structure, whichever one benefits the species the most.
And even at that, regardless of the earth not being a closed system, the entire universe is, which demonstrates that cosmological evolution is incorrect.
Wrong. The universe is an isolated system.
it still does not refute the other claims about the mutations and like kinds.
There is no problem with mutations, I believe a user already clarified this in response to Srom, read that.
Evolution states that we adapt to the environment to best suit the environment. If we started as bacteria and go to humans, then that is becoming more complex.
Evolution states that we adapt to the environment to best suit the environment.
Which is not synonymous with "evolution states we become more complex", is it?
http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/second_law.html
Again, the universe is isolated, not closed. Furthermore, energy does not require creation, as energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy merely changes form. Thirdly, even if his argument were true, it does not logically follow that God did it. Allow me to outline his argument.
P1: The universe is a closed system
P2: The second law of thermodynamics states that all available energy becomes unavailable eventually.
P3: There must have been a point when all energy was available (from 2).
C: The Christian God of the Bible created the universe.
Its contextual... be picky why don't you... evolution does state that we become more complex because that is the theory... we go from bacteria to humans....
Well, a doctor says otherwise... so I'll trust him... We're not saying the God of the Bible is true... we are saying that God must be true.
evolution does state that we become more complex because that is the theory... we go from bacteria to humans....
In that particular instance, yes. But that's anthropocentrising the concept of evolution. Read this, it should clear up 2 key terms: "Complexity" and "Diversity
Well, a doctor says otherwise... so I'll trust him.
Fallacious appeal to authority, by doing this you concede the point.
Though I should point out, I am not the the only one saying this. It is listed on Wikipedia's article concerning isolated systems. Not to have an intellectual dick measuring contest, but if we're appealing to authority...
We're not saying the God of the Bible is true... we are saying that God must be true.
OK, replace the words "God of the Bible" with "God" in his argument then. It's still invalid.
I don't concede point... I merely choose to trust that people who know what they are talking about advocate what I am talking about.
But he doesn't know what he's talking about, that's my point. The universe is not a closed system, the mass energy is constant. What have I specifically said that is wrong? You keep ducking my points regarding the science, and appealing to authority.
How is it invalid?
The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. One cannot deduce "God created the universe" from "the second law of thermodynamics necessitates that energy has an origin".
How is he wrong, though? The universe is one big closed system. Can anything exit the universe? Can anything enter the universe? No. He is a Ph.D. scientist at Penn State.
Can anything exit the universe? Can anything enter the universe? No.
Which is what makes the universe isolated, not closed.
Seeing as I'm not sure you actually know what these terms mean, I will clarify for you.
Closed system: Can exchange energy with its surroundings, but not matter.
Isolated system: Cannot exchange energy nor matter with its surroundings.
Seeing as the universe has no surroundings, it is isolated by default.
He is a Ph.D. scientist at Penn State.
Irrelevant, that's fallacious.
After reading it again, I actually noticed something that may explain how a PHD scientist could make such a bad mistake. He says:
Imaginethe universe as a closed system...
Imagine. I believe this man knows that the universe is isolated, not closed, but allowed his beliefs to influence his work, and make it appear to Christians that they have a shred of empirical evidence.
How does it not?
It's a complete non sequitur. It's also affiriming the consequent.
If A then B.
B
Ergo A.
Which is fallacious, as A is not the only sufficient condition for B. Applying that to his argument:
If God, then closed universe
Closed universe
Ergo God.
God is not the only sufficient condition for a closed universe, therefore the argument is fallacious.
Others have given good refutations. But I have another one.
Fundamentally, what is life? The second law of thermodynamics was misstated in your argument. It has do with a concept called entropy (S).
Again, what is life? Life has a special characteristic that, for all we know, is distinctive of life.
What is that? The ability to counteract the entropy of the universe.
Schrödinger would say life feeds off of negative entropy. Thus, the second law of thermodynamics and the evolution of life are no more contradictory than of the very existence of life itself. And the latter no one denies. Thus your argument is nonsensical and self-contradictory.
"The smallest unit of life by biologists is considered a cell, which means that amino acids are not life.
"A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce"
You apparently did not see in my response to "SecturionX" or whatever his name is, I can't remember, where I said I concede on the point that the 2nd law does not apply to evolution in biological terms but to the universe's evolution...
It is actually scary to see the number of people saying that ti is false? Oh, so the fact a species changed over millions of years..? Preposterous. But some magic man in the sky made us out of 2 people, and suddenly there are 7 billion people, whom show no signs of thousands of generations of inbreeding..?! Oh yeah that must be it! By the way, i am being sarcastic, Evolution is the only possible way humans could have turned out the way we did! religious ideas are based on belief. Which is complete crap, if i believe that when i die i turn in to a tree.. People would call me mad! Some cosmic zombie man and his un-dead, but dead, floating in the sky son who is Jewish, but killed by Jews ruler of the world...? Yeah totally legit!!
Please tell me why you personally believe that and i will gladly debate you over it. But if you are just going to be sarcastic about the whole thing and not consider what i say, then i will not bother
I am repeatedly surprised with the absolute paper thin weak arguments that creationists propose to refute evolution. They often cite pseudoscience, flawed logic/reasoning, or throw out science, logic, reason, and skeptical inquiry entirely.
I watched it last night... but they include things like, "there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation," "no life has ever been created from non-life," "there is no geologic column," "the necessity for the Great Flood of the Bible and the Grand Canyon," etc. I think you might enjoy this! :)
You know what's funny, up until Louis Pasteur's experiments in the late 1800s, Christians believed that life came from non-life all the time (spontaneous generation). It would be even funnier if Christians argued against biogenesis when it was first proposed, like they did a lot of other scientific theories, but I couldn't find any real solid evidence of that on google, just one sentence in the article on biogenesis on wikipedia:
Just type in "Law of Biogenesis" and you'll get tons of hits.
But regardless of whether the Law of Biogenesis is the only thing we creationists have, it still does not refute the fact that no non-life has ever produced life.
Chances are numerous things are at least close to being alive from non-life.
If we go with the biological definition:
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
Of course, I might be able to debate that clouds are living organisms by the above definition.
First provide me with a satisfactory definition of life, and I'll provide you with an example of abiogeneisis.
The smallest unit of life by biologists is considered a cell, which means that amino acids are not life.
"A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce"
OK, I've told you already that the law of biogenesis is regarding the germ theory of disease as set out by Louis Pasteur et al.
It states that non-life can not produce life, as in if you sterilise a broth for example (as Pasteur did) and expose it to the atmosphere it will acquire microbes from the atmosphere. Pasteur proved that by isolating the broth from the atmosphere you can keep microbial life away from it (see his famous Swan-necked Flasks). This was a blow to the accepted (by the church) Idea of spontaneous generation, they argued that God was the only thing that gave life and that it could arise out of non-living materials.
The law of biogenesis states nothing about abiogenesis, and that is that. Refute all you like but that is the truth.
To assume that life can arise by it's own over night in a nutrient broth is idiotic by today's knowledge, one needs a hell of a lot more time than that to move through the multitudinous variation of complex molecules that would eventually lead to a model of replication. Once a replicator has been produced the chances of another are ridiculously low as all available molecules will start to be used in the new life form's metabolism.
On the fourth link, incredulity and lack of knowledge of the Feynman sum over histories, does not a convincing argument make.
But regardless of whether the Law of Biogenesis is the only thing we creationists have, it still does not refute the fact that no non-life has ever produced life
I already responded to another person about this... actually 2 people I believe... those bacteria were then reintroduced back into an environment with their parents and were killed off. If you would like I can find you the article that says that these bacteria and all the cases like this have been considered "crippled" but I'm too lazy to do it right now... if you look at my other posts, you'll find it.
The points I was going to make have been laid out pretty accurately about how this video has flaws and how evolution is very firmly implanted in the scientific community. I'd also like to add that refuting evolution, in a scientific viewpoint, is akin to refuting gravity. Both are theories- the highest level of scientific understanding. Evolution did not become a theory for no reason. And no evidence has ever gone against it.
It is a fallacy to think just because the majority agrees with something that it is true or morally correct. Continued, it is also a fallacy to think that just because gravity is a theory and is accepted throughout the majority of the world that evolution could not be wrong because it too is a theory. Finally, there is plenty of evidence against evolution but people seem to ignore it.
Are we really still doing this? There is not a single piece of evidence for creationism that can't be refuted, and just because we don't have a complete taxonomic and genetic record of every animal that has ever lived on Earth does not falsify evolution.
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
He cites 15 falsehoods. Most of them are covered by one video but there are at least two that he breaks into two parts. Although there are less episodes in this series, the run times appears to be longer on the one I'm presenting, so watching them should require an similar investment of time for both of us.
I watched your video and the entire thing was one big rant saying that creationism has no proof and that the majority is always right (meaning evolution). No evidence was shown against creationism or for evolution and it could be clarified as one big ad hominem attack, which implies that evolutionists are getting desperate.
I watched your video, you said you would watch mine.
It was a set up to rest of the series. And his point was not about proof for or against either creationism or evolution, but, in this specific video his entire purpose was to explain that evolution is not an inherently atheist subject matter. Are you SURE you watched this video?
Anyway, as I said before, each video deals with a different aspect of the debate. As you continue into the series, you will notice considerable evidence in support of evolution.
Now for some poetic justice.
You said:
No evidence was shown against creationism or for evolution and it could be clarified as one big ad hominem attack, which implies that evolutionists are getting desperate.
And, in Hovind's video....no evidence was shown against evolution or for creation. He made a few statements that about certain known scientific facts being wrong. I can only assume that this part 1 is a set up to the rest of the series, because for now he doesn't support his claims AT ALL. Maybe in later videos?
But most of the time, in this video, he repeats that text book are full of lies, but instead of showing any, he sites passages that he believes showcase an anti-creationist stance...arguable an ad hominem attack itself. But has yet to show any lies.
There is plenty against evolution in his series. Watch the series! On the right hand side there will be 2-24, then on that video there will be 3-24....
Like I said...I will watch and respond to the whole series if you watch and respond to the whole series that I posted. Should take us about the same amount of time.
All I was saying is that the EXACT same claim you made about my video could be levied against yours. But in both case this would be a hasty assessment, because in both cases the videos are setting up for the remainder of the series.
As a show of good faith...I have elected to respond to you regarding part two of your series before you opted to respond to part two of mine...
Question? Have you ever bothered to wonder why the Grand Canyon is so much Grander than most other Canyons? This is a good question, because it applies to both my understanding, and to Hovinds. I mean, he points out this fairly large lake...but there are and have been many lakes of that size during the proposed time of Noah's Flood. So, If Noah's flood actually happened, should we not expect MANY Grand Canyons?, at least if Hovind is correct? There should be at least 3 on each continent. But there are only 4-5 canyons on the planet that are of a similar magnitude. So why is the Grand Canyon so special? Geologic uplift.
The GC is formed on the Colorado Plateau. The CP was formed by a unique geologic uplift that was created by the formation of the Rocky Mountains and the unusual mix of minerals that make up Western North America. Basically, the river was carving down AT THE Same time that the region was rising, which is why it was so deep. A former Earth Science teacher should know this since it is one of the most researched areas of modern geology and explains every "discrepancy" he mentions in his video.
He also claims that the Grand Canyon has no delta, which is quite an embarassing thing for an Earth Science educator to say, since "Canyons" don't have deltas, the rivers that created them do. And the Colorado River has quite an impressive delta:
What are you talking about? I have "1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism" called up on my youtube in another tab. On the sidebar that shows related videos on the right, three down from the top in a video titled "2nd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism" by the same poster, AronRa...seems like a good place to check...
yeah, it isn't there.... haha but I'll search for it in the youtube search.... but i won't be able to watch it right now.. i have to shower and go see my grandparents! :) I'll do it later tonight!
Well, I'm looking at it right here on my screen, don't know why you can't see it. I did look for a playlist but they were out of order, so, since you are lazier than I am, I will organize them for you:
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Well, I'm looking at it right here on my screen, don't know why you can't see it. I did look for a playlist but they were out of order, so, since you are lazier than I am, I will organize them for you:
1) The first video I am not disagreeing on. I agree that the majority of people even Christians agree with evolution. But just because a majority agrees on something does not make it right.
2) What fossil record? There is no fossil record (which is supposedly in the geologic column) because there is no geological column! What evidence for evolution? The Bible was written by men, inspired by God. There are too many similarities between the books of the Bible from multiple people who had never met or read any other Scripture passages to say that it is not inspired by God. Then, they are too different to be seen as a conspiracy/collaboration to spread lies, unlike evolution. The men who did write the Bible also made many prophecies that have come true and did many miracles. There is much historical evidence for Jesus Christ and Hs miracles. You can trust that Moses existed because Jesus was true. 3 blind men and an elephant is untrue as well because the religions of the world contradict each other too much. Saying that God would not allow differing religions is a logical fallacy because we don't know the will of God. Radiocarbon dating is proven false a number of times so the Dead Sea Scroll argument is refutable. The apocryphal gospels were not what was taught in the early church nor by the apostles. One example of a Bible verse that was compiled to be incorrect and added after the original writings is the end of Mark. Go to this site: http://dgreenruf.org/index.php?option=com_content&view;=article&id;=15:how-can-we-trust-the-bible-as-true&catid;=2:article&Itemid;=12 and look at "God’s Word Has Been Faithfully Transmitted." We can also get into the so called "immoral" things of the Bible another day. Bible contradictions answered: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm Creationism is putting religion in science. Intelligent Design is putting science into religion... look at the Discovery Institute.
3) Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus and without understanding anything about Christianity instantly knew everything there was to know about the religion (as advocated by the other apostles that were alive at this time) and believed it. It was not one man saying that god met him and that road and that god told him to say things, like spiritualman on this site. There us such a thing as absolute truth but perception gets in the way of things. If I throw a ball out the window, can you honestly tell me that I didn't? Sure you can, but does that mean it didn't happen? However, we do not know the absolute truth of everything because if God was small enough for us to understand Him, He would not be God. Historians say that the books written on Alexander the Great are true even though they were 400 or 500 years after he died because they coincide with one another yet have enough difference to show that it was not a conspiracy. And, again, there is historic proof of Jesus outside of the Bible. But even if there wasn't, why shouldn't we trust the books of the Bible? Historians trust many books that are the only account of certain history. Death is the term for spiritual death not physical death. It was an actual fruit in the Garden of Eden. Jesus said many times in the Gospels "I Am" which is a reference back to Exodus 3:14 displaying Godship. The Isaiah prophecy of Immanuel is Jesus and Immanuel means God. Look to John 1. Jesus was omnipotent and omniscient but used rhetoric strategies while He lived. The early theologians did not believe the earth was flat: http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/12/contra-mundum-the-flat-earth-myth.html and the dome around the earth is wrong also because the idea came form Genesis saying there was suspended water... this water is what helped flood the earth. He refers to metaphors from the Bible as if they were literal. Just because the Bible uses metaphors does not deny its inerrancy or absolute truth.
4) Just because you believe something does not make it true. I agree with that. Some people believe in evolution and some people believe evolution is crap. Someone has to be wrong. However, just as the bible requires in the courts for two people to bring forth charges against you to prove you were wrong or right, so does the Bible. There are numerous people who advocate the things that happen in the Bible, which would say to a logical person that either this happened or it is one big conspiracy. There is no evidence of most of the things in evolution, as the video I showed you shows, so it along with Christianity is a faith. We have a freedom in America to believe whatever we want so why is it that in schools any sort of creationism is grounds for expulsion of being fired? Evidence of God is the same evidence of the Laws of Thermodynamics. A God is required for matter to start its existence. Therefore, atheists must disprove the reliability of these Laws. I do, however, theologically believe that if you have faith in God then you know that Jesus is Lord because you believe it to be true.
5) I'm not saying that America is a Christian nation. This has nothing to do with creationism and not much of these videos have anything to do with creationism. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams. The nation is based on Christian morals so that there is freedom and people do not have to be taken care of by the government... which is what is happening today. I don't care about teaching creationism in schools, I just want evolution out. Kent Hovind in the video is not trying to get evolution out but to show that the evidence in the schools is wrong because there is no evidence. Evolution has had no scientific breakthroughs either and is useless along with being considered religious just as Karl Popper says. Look at this site for quotes for the last sentence: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/flyers/15-questions-for-evolutionists-s.pdf questions 13 and 15.
6) I understand evolution quite a bit more than people think I do. His argument is a fallacy just as he was complaining earlier. He says that just because you believe it does not make it true. He is now saying that Christians do no understand it, which implies that if you did know it, you would believe it to be true. Cats branch out to different breeds but lose genetic information not gain any. Creationists attack anything that is not in line with science and the Bible. His entire premise is wrong. In my geology class I heard my professor say more than once geologic evolution. His entire idea was that evolution was only biological but this is wrong because there are many branches of science that deal with it. Psychology for instance has an evolutionary psychology sub discipline. Abiogenesis is impossible as seen in video and as stated in the Law of Biogenesis. Radiometric dating has been proven false... here is one citations about it: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/ Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm As seen in the video, the smaller things get, the more complex they are. The 2nd law of thermodynamics http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/second_law.html proves that life goes from complexity to simplicity not the other way around as evolution suggests. Even if it did, there still is no proof of it happening because there is no geologic column to prove it. Mammal fossils have been found in strata supposedly 430 million years ago and petrified trees have been found through multiple layers of this strata... in fact geologists have a law of relative time to try and explain why this happens. Miller and Urey is wrong as seen in the video; there is no such thing as abiogenesis.
7) There is no such thing as free will. God has planned our lives ahead of our understanding. The Bible is either right or wrong. If Adam lived 930 years and was created on the 6th day but God banished them afterwards and put a mark on Cain afterwards then the 7th day at the most is 930 years if it supposed to be a metaphor and not a literal "24 hours." 3:52 I'm pretty sure he just admitted the existence of God. Natural selection is a creationist term, why do evolutionist use it? http://creation.com/images/pdfs/flyers/15-questions-for-evolutionists-s.pdf question 4 and the video series I posted. Chaos does not produce order, 2nd law of thermodynamics. A number of the things that we thought were only from the past have been discovered in present times. Biblical creationism is a faith just as evolution is.
8) Mutations are explained in the video. Micro-evolution is different from macro. There have been a number of examples of where there have been "beneficial" mutations and I'm not denying that. However, people also forget that they have been created in a laboratory and when reintroduced with the parent organisms, the mutant has always died. This citation is from a video from the "Understanding the Times" teachers edition. "Bacteria can be made antibiotic resistant by mutation, but biologist Novick calls such forms 'evolutionary cripples.'" http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/mutations#n9 as mutations occur, the organism is crippled not allowing for most mutations to be bad. However, as mentioned earlier and in the video, we do not deny variations of like kinds and micro-evolution.
I'm going to take a break and watch a movie then if I have time tonight I might do it... but I'll probably finish this up tomorrow after I move in to my apartment.
“I agree that the majority of people even Christians agree with evolution. But just because a majority agrees on something does not make it right.”
His argument was not an ad populum argument. He was simply highlighting how evolutionary theory is not inherently atheist. Maybe you don't need that lesson, but many creationists do.
“ There is no fossil record (which is supposedly in the geologic column) because there is no geological column!”
To say that there is no fossil record is to argue that there are no fossils, that there aren't countless fossils found all over the planet all the time showcasing thousands of species of plant animal and even bacteria both living and extinct, that the people who found these fossils haven't kept track of where they were found, their condition and the environment in which they were embedded, that they haven't been thoroughly studied and compared against other fossils and living organisms. To say that there is no fossil record is to say that the entire occupation of paleontology does not exist.
As far as “no geologic column”...that is an even MORE ludicrous statement. Rock formations are everywhere and has been very closely inspected and studied. Numerous methods of both relative and absolute dating have been developed, tested and successfully used for quite some time now. There are countless ways to observe they Earth and deduce its age as well as deduce the circumstances that form certain formations, types of minerals and geologic phenomena.
“What evidence for evolution?”
The evidence of overwhelming. As you follow this series you will see plenty of it, and he just scratches the surface. After you watch it all, I will happily provide you a near infinite supply of sources, links, book recommendations and logic that confirm evolution.
“There are too many similarities between the books of the Bible from multiple people who had never met or read any other Scripture passages to say that it is not inspired by God.”
Similarities? Care to explain every single contradiction shown in this video?
“Then, they are too different to be seen as a conspiracy/collaboration to spread lies, unlike evolution.”
They should not be different at all if revealed by God, assuming God cannot or would not lie to them. Meanwhile, the reason that evolution theory is so consitent from on researcher to the other is a sign of its veracity, not a “conspiracy”. Although of course there is collaboration within the scientific community. Why would there not be?
“The men who did write the Bible also made many prophecies that have come true and did many miracles.”
Name one that prophecy that is a) the result can be verified independently from the Bible, b) is specific enough that it could not be misinterpreted, guessed at or dismissed.
“There is much historical evidence for Jesus Christ and Hs miracles.”
Please provide a link. All non-Biblical evidence I've seen was written well after the time of Jesus and not by people who actually met him or witnessed his miracles. This evidence only confirms that there was a group of people who believed in him, not that the Biblical depiction of him was accurate.
“Saying that God would not allow differing religions is a logical fallacy because we don't know the will of God.”
He did not say that God would not allow other religions. He is saying that the inspired word of a perfect being should be expected provide unity, particularly as it is spread over time and space. Instead, it seems to promote disunity and conflict. Why?
“ Radiocarbon dating is proven false a number of times so the Dead Sea Scroll argument is refutable.”
Not true. You'll have to site evidence for this.
“The apocryphal gospels were not what was taught in the early church nor by the apostles.”
So Paul Myer, the historian in this video (and also a devout Christian) and numerous other historians who specialize in this are dead wrong. At best we can say that there is not consensus about what exactly happened during that period, but there is very strong historical evidence that the early days of Christianity saw the Bible be compiled and edited due to politics and de facto popularity contests, and it is very well established that there have always been (and still are) countless conflicting interpretations of the Bible. Interpretation should not even be an issue in something that is completely true.
Obviously I did not read the whole thing, but I am pretty experienced with apologetics concerning scriptural contradictions. As often as not it boils down to interpretation. This is risky business considering all of the translation involved. At the very best: the modern Bible is confused and confusing, probably very diluted from its source, and so open to wildly different interpretations that many people who have claimed to know what he wants have gotten into conflicts and caused the Church to constantly splinter. Most factions can be verified by certain verses or interpretations and denied by others, and objective analysis makes it far easier to rule out all of them than it does to confirm any.
“Intelligent Design is putting science into religion... look at the Discovery Institute.”
The various members of the Discover Institute stopped behaving scientifically years ago. Most have had extreme difficulty passing peer reviews because they brazenly ignore the scientific method in order to reach their conclusions, which defeats the whole purpose of science and makes their claims unverifiable.
“3) Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus and without understanding anything about Christianity instantly knew everything there was to know about the religion (as advocated by the other apostles that were alive at this time) and believed it.”
It is also said that many who encountered the Buddha learned the Dharma simply by being in his presence or hearing his voice. It is not difficult to imagine followers making these kinds of claims in order to make their favored figure look more powerful.
For now this is all I have time for. I do intend to watch and respond to the next video in the Hovind series within the next 24 hours or so, though.
God's anger cannot last forever with His people, which is what Micah 7:18 is talking about. Jeremiah 17:4 is talking about Hell and God;s eternal anger towards the unrighteous.
There is a difference between testing someone and tempting. God tests people to see if they will follow His rules, etc. but He does not tempt people with evil.
The next "contradiction" is about works based and faith based doctrine. As a Presbyterian (PCA/Reformed) I say that Faith = Justification + Works meaning that when we have true faith, not faith like demons, but saving faith, we want to do good deeds, which is a sing that we have been given salvation and that we truly believe.
There is difference between "seeing" the Lord and "seeing" Him. Let me explain, Jesus has been seen, as can be seen in John 1:18 (which is mentioned in the video) where it talks about how Jesus (who rescues people from the anger of God the Father and makes them righteous and allows for people to be able to stand before Him face to face; the Trinity) has allowed people to see God. God the Father has never been seen and won't be until you accept Jesus allowing for you to see the glory of God. No man who is unrighteous can stand before God the Father without being destroyed.
No where in there does God say He delights in burnt offering. It is pleasing to Him because it is a symbol of Jesus to come and is a metaphor for being made clean.
No where in there does it say that God creates evil.
This next one makes no sense either. Both verse mentioned say the exact same thing.... God created man after animals.
The next one does the same thing... the men with Paul heard the voice but did not understand it.
The context of Ecclesiastes 1:4 is that the earth will last and it will stay the same, even though generations will come and go. The earth and heavens will pass and a second earth and a second heavens will come again which is another way of interpreting it. Exodus 21:6 talks about a man serving another man "forever" however, men don't live forever implying that forever is not an eternity.
There are numerous answers to this. "Ascend" can be referring to an act by which that person can do. Meaning, ascend by one's own power. Another example which I personally find the best answer is that Jesus is referencing back to Deuteronomy 30:12 and Proverbs 30:4 saying that only heavenly things are known by that which is form God. The context of the discussion in which Jesus says this makes sense to why it was said this way.
I have already answered a number of contradictions, that should be good enough. If you truly care about answering the rest just ask me!
9) Here's the thing about fossils... If you go to any dinosaur museum it will say that they have been preserved due to sediment and mud flow. We find fossils wide spread across the globe, which implies that not only could a great flood have happened but it is required to have happened. Geologists say that every place on earth has been covered by water at some point or another... this is why we find fossilized sea creatures everywhere on earth. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n4/fossils "Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms... One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows: ‘. . . I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.'" The archaeopteryx is a forgery... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html "Archaeopteryx also had fully formed feathers, just like living birds. Fossils of Archaeopteryx leave no hint of the animal being a half-scaly/half-feathered creature. It was not in some kind of in-between stage. Furthermore, “[e]xperts don’t know what Archaeopteryx’s closest [alleged—EL] dinosaur ancestor looked like—fossils haven’t yet been found” (“Fossil Evidence,” 2007), i.e., evolutionists have been entirely unsuccessful in finding the real alleged missing link between dinosaurs and birds." http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article;=918 Think through this... the back of the head and the eye brow ridge for humans grows for life... just like all lizards grow until they die... now, if Adam lived 930 years, could it be possible that the eye brow ridge and the head were larger? This would also explain the dinosaurs. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070210170623.htm "Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh professor of anthropology in the School of Arts and Sciences, is working to debunk a major tenet of Darwinian evolution. Schwartz believes that evolutionary changes occur suddenly as opposed to the Darwinian model of evolution, which is characterized by gradual and constant change. Among other scientific observations, gaps in the fossil record could bolster Schwartz's theory because, for Schwartz, there is no 'missing link.'... However, it is not only the current molecular theory that intrigues Schwartz, but the failure of the scientific community to question an idea that is more than 40 years old: "The history of organ life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else," says Schwartz." Here is some more about "missing links:" "Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?" http://www.icr.org/article/2709/ Here is more.... http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c029.html
10) He is begging the question, "how did life arise in the first place?" He automatically assumes that life can arise from non-life without any proof of such. Second. he also says that we are animals even though there is no proof that we are but by the evolutionary definition of what an animal is. This also explains why the Bible calls the bat a bird; there are different definitions. It is merely an attack to show that creationists are stupid when it truly revolves around opinion. Special creation implies a common designer just as evolution can imply a common ancestor (regardless of if there were more than one origin bacteria). If there were no other living things that are common to one another then no organism would be able to digest a different organism. I am not denying all the similarities between animals; however, saying that because they are common proves evolution is a pre biased fallacy.
11) Micro-evolution is different from macro. There has been no evidence of macro-evolution as presented in the rebuttal to video 9 because there are no transitional fossils. His entire argument is based on what he thinks has already been proven. There is no evidence of a kind drifting away from their own kind to a point in which neither can reproduce. What I mean is that dogs can still breed with other dogs regardless of if they are different types of dogs. A kind is something that can reproduce with one another. Here is part of my post to another person: "http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/micromacro.htm 'So exactly why can’t microevolution lead to macroevolution? In order for this to happen, something very fundamental must occur: new genetic information must arise in an organism. The organism must then pass on its genes on to its descendents, and with later accumulations of changes over several generations, eventually macroevolution will occur. This theory actually seems pretty logical, yet as logical as it may seem, it is not what we observe when microevolution occurs. In fact, we observe exactly the opposite of what must happen if microbe-to-man evolution is true. And that is, we see organisms become more specialized as they adapt to their environment, or when speciation occurs. Sometimes these changes might even be beneficial despite being an overall loss of information. For example, beetles on a windy island will sometimes lose their wings due to a degenerative mutation.[2] This mutation is actually beneficial in this circumstance because the beetles aren’t able to fly and be blown off into the ocean. But even though this mutation is beneficial, it still resulted in a net loss of information.; Even a biased source for evolution agrees... http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d020411.html 'So there are observed instances of secondary speciation -- which is not what Darwinism needs -- but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria.'" The same biased source agrees again: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/talk_origins_sp055281.html and http://www.discovery.org/a/18121 "NOT ONE of the examples demonstrates the origin of large-scale biological change... The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a 'species' is defined by the standard definition of a 'reproductively isolated population.'"
12) I’m not denying that people lie a lot. But he is also implying that evolutionists do not lies. As can be seen in the video series, there are a lot of lie! Look at the Discovery Institute. There is a difference between creationism, which is putting religion first, and intelligent design, which is putting science first. Intelligent design makes reasonable sense just as most people think that evolution makes logical sense. The origin of the term "science" really means "knowledge" and has changed over time to be defined differently and only applied to the natural world. "The word science comes from the Latin 'scientia,' meaning knowledge." http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html His entire argument is based on modern definition of science. There have been no scientific breakthroughs because of evolution "science." http://creation.com/images/pdfs/flyers/15-questions-for-evolutionists-s.pdf Question number 13.
13) I have seen a text book with Haeckel's drawings... it was in psychology class. As can be seen in the video series, this is false. Next, we have to get something straight. Kent Hovind was put in prison for "tax evasion" not fraud unless you want to consider tax evasion as fraud. His family and friends think that he was put there because of his video attacking the illuminati, which shows that he might not be guilty. Next, we have all done something wrong so that does not discredit him. Finally, his entire ministry was tax exempt because he was fighting against evolution being a tax funded expenditure. He had every right to not pay taxes because it is called "passive protest." All of Kent Hovind's information is more than likely true and has just as much credibility as the man in these videos does, if not more. Here are the frauds for the missing links: http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html/ You can also look at "Understanding the Times" teachers edition videos that show why the "missing links are false. Multiple citations against them, just type in on google each individual one you want to learn about. See other post about the size of human heads and eye brows being actual evidence for the Bible.
14) God is evident but that doesn't mean that people believe it. Some people create illogical thoughts and some people create rational thoughts. For some people, they will see skid marks on a road and think that someone painted it there while other will clearly think it was from a car because it is obvious. This also goes into Biblical ideas about how people suppress the truth for lies so that they can believe that they will not have to stand before God in the end. http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/second_law.html and law of biogenesis. Why do you think a building has a builder? Or does it? You think this because it is there not because you can see, touch, hear, smell, or taste the builder but because the fact that it is there implies it is created. We have never observed anything coming from nothing, therefore, everything had to come from something and since nature cannot do this on its own a God is required to understand this. Yet again, he was not a fraud he was tax evasionist. Get facts straight. Ad hominem attack on Christians being primitive? You can advocate creation through Jesus: http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/pg79644 Creationists do look at the world with a biased; however, so do evolutionists. Everyone has a bias. However, Intelligent Design does the very same thing that evolution does (Discovery Institute). Also, those who fight saying that a person has a closed mind usually is himself closed minded. Saying that creationists have never disproven evolutionist facts is not an argument because we have, just some people deny it. It goes both ways. They say we don’t have proof, we say they don’t have proof. His entire argument is based on opinion not fact.
15) Citing Men in Black can be argued against evolution just as it can be argued against religion. Actually, saying that all the religions believed the earth was flat is incorrect. The early Christians denied this: http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/12/contra-mundum-the-flat-earth-myth.html The Bible verses that people think say the earth is flat are metaphors. I don't deny that science believes evolution to be true and that a "theory" is basically saying it is fact. That still does not negate the fact that they could be wrong. However, in fact this proves that evolution is hegemonic and that the "scientific bourgeois" rules over young adults. It is not free thinking to be an evolutionist now and because of this, it proves that no person who is not an evolutionist is closed-minded but instead open-minded to the thoughts of the supernatural. Think of this, "1 Corinthians 1:27, "But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;" Read Romans 1 and 2 Peter 2... These are prophecies of atheism. Intelligent Design actually has a multitude of evidence in support of it... this is not saying the Christian God is right but saying that the evidence points towards some sort of intelligent being designing us. They consider that an alien could have put us together, etc. He just said at about 8:00 in part 2, "Now, very early explanations of the universe are as yet unknown because our current theories are insufficient to explain it." What he said refutes his entire arguments in part 1 and part 2 of his 15th falsehood. He contradicts himself.
Well, I do you give you respect and admiration for your thorough and well researched answers. Simply put, you have managed to make me "lazier" than you :P...I do not have the time or energy, especially in this coming week to do a full response to each of yours.
I will say that a lot of what you propose is incorrect. Many of your objections were actually addressed right there in the video series and your responses simply say "he is wrong." The sources you use are highly spurious.
However I will grant you the victory in this one since I simply do not wish to put in the effort to go into all of this (not to mention hunting down links to challenge your assertions.)
That being said: I am a man of my word. Therefore, over the course of this week, when I can find, I will watch and post responses to the remaining videos from the series you linked to. I should be able to do vid 3 within the next few hours, and will continue on when I can.
Take your time! haha I understand that everyone is busy at moments here and there! And honestly, I probably won't respond that much to what you have responded to when it comes to the Kent Hovind videos... quite frankly I just want you to watch it! haha :P
If you wouldn't load the question with libel, I might be more inclined to agree with you.
To say that someone lied is to say that they knew something to be different and they misrepresented what they knew. If you were to make the case "Evolution is not entirely accurate", I'd almost certainly agree with you. It's a theory, an evolving theory, one that attempts to rationalize the data its collected over time. On a broad level, it simply states that living things have changed over time (presumably to adapt to a changing environment). We've watched this happen before our eyes. On average kids are growing taller nowadays than they ever did in the past. Of course, it's because of improved nutrition. But the point is THEY STILL CHANGED. Whether or not is all traces back to a single-cell organism billions of years ago... well, that's more debatable, but it's theory.
The only reason why people say things like 'Evolution is a lie' is because they believe that it conflicts with their belief in God. It doesn't. I'm not arguing for the existence of God now. I'm simply stating that there's not a contradiction there. Yes, it is possible to believe in God AND evolution. Many intelligent, enlightened people do. We have to past this black-and-white kind of thinking. Nothing is all one way and not another. There's a lot of gray in the universe. And when we realize it, it CAN BE a beautiful thing.
The video is trying to show that there is no evidence for evolution and that all the "evidence" that they have is fake. If you want to believe in evolution go ahead and believe it, but everything past what we see today is pure religion and faith.
How many times are you going to keep having the same argument over and over? You're like the energizer bunny. Is it your strategy to wear everyone down until they resign that God created the universe in 7 days?
God is infinite and eternal. Anything infinite cannot have form. For example: You cannot make a line that is infinitely long, except in concept. You cannot have an infinite number of a sand grains. God is infinite, in the form truth and mathematical possibilities and infinite consciousness.
.
Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
.
Right there in the Bible is says, that even though the earth was created in spirit, that it was formless.
.
Genesis 1:3
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
.
The Big Bang was the Light. The creation of Earth spoken of in the Bible was it's spiritual form. As the Big Bang implies, the Light, (Christ) went on to be the Creator of all things. The Light took form according to the spiritual plan.
.
Contrary to what many "evolutionist" believe, something can be created out of nothing, in terms of matter. Truth is foundation of the universe. The Living Truth is God. And the Living Truth is conscious. And consciousness has the ability to play roles. And consciousness reacts according it's needs and abilities. And so conscious is put into a position to react, either to light, or heat, it does with specific intentions. The primary intention is to survive.
.
The Drive to survive is the strongest spirit that shapes the life form. Even the position of the eyes is a product of the survival spirit. For example: "Eyes in Front, I hunt. Eyes on side, I hide."
.
All things evolve according to desires and survival needs.
.
God exists in an eternal and infinite realm and doesn't not change, sort of like mathematics. God Consciousness is slightly more flexible, but it starts in "non-form condition."
If there is no evolution and you believe man was created by God many questions arise -
1.God created Adam and taught him everything and Adam had seen things from heaven (that is from space or a different dimension whatever) so Adam must be knowing that earth is round / sun is a star and there is glaxies (or group of galaxies etc) and this knowledge will be passed on to his next generation quite easily. So human race will not be curious about any of the thing that man used to wonder for 1000s of years.
2. It clear that God and Adam talked to each other and so there was some language. Humans would have used this language forever (Since this language already had words for everything and Adam knew the same)
3. Evolution is clearly supported by Fossils and any religious book more than mentioning about beliefs mentions the need to use reasoning which is gift to mankind.
4. No books clearly mention about Pre mankind age (though monsters etc are mentioned) - the scriptures ahs many versus that mentions God has detailed his verses where man will use his reasoning - so its quite obvious for man to use reasoning and god could have mentionedi t in clearer way
5. if you believe God exists then why not God make his presence felt now so that it is now a generation who can verify things scientifically and no human can do miracles and cheat mankind. So why not god send a prophet now with miracles ( i mean anything that can convince mankind to velieve in God)
6. Evolution is an accepted theory and cannot say the whole of mankind is ignorant to the facts.
