There Is Little Convincing Evidence For Evolution.

» Home » The Unknown

Your Opinion?

Urjak

12 Mar 2009 04:32

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

Of course there isnt its still based on a theory but that dosnt exempt it from being used in scientific practices. Which could be bad or good but who knows.

ricko362

14 Mar 2010 18:12

Add a Comment

There is positive evidence against macroevolution.
Whether or not evidence convinces anyone is irrelevant, it just has to be real and demonstrable. Some of the atheotards around here will never accept any evidence of any kind that disagrees with their aetheist beliefs, that doesn't mean that the evidence isn't factually real, only that they carry a ridiculous bias.

afl40

30 Jun 2009 03:33

9 Comments

Show us all this demonstrable evidence that goes against macroevolution. Make sure it's not only accurate, but scientific as well. Remember, religious concepts and ideas don't count for anything when concerning science.

Hizashi

03 Jul 2009 21:51

Comment

What do you mean by the “wrong order”. Here’s something to think about. The Earth’s an active planet (hurricanes, volcanoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, erosion, ect) Only an idiot would expect to find every single fossil to be found in a particular order with no exceptions. A paleontologist would laugh at such a comment. In truth, fossilized remains are actually a rarity. I’ll be the first to agree with you that there are still many unanswered questions remaining about things concerning evolution. The same is true for just about any scientific theory or field of study. But none of your claims even fit into the unanswered questions category. They’ve been answered and resolved many times over. I’ll go ahead and help you out on each one of them individually.

“there are numerous examples of "systems" in the body (humans or other animals) that need to be all together in order to work. how can a system evolve? Similar in concept to a car engine evolving...it won't work until it's all there. how does it get guided if it's not working until it is complete? why is it evolving?”

Simple. All the parts must be present for that particular system to perform the function its supposed to while all the parts are present, but the individual parts have functions of their own and thus taking one part away might make the thing’s previous function obsolete but, while missing a part, the thing can still perform particular functions different from the function it had while it was complete. You’re using Michael Behe’s old worn out argument he gave in his book Darwin’s Black Box. Behe’s argument is refuted, in detail, at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html, though it has been debunked multiple other times as well (even once in court).

“why and how did the eye evolve? without sight, how could an organism know to produce an eye?”

Basically what it looks like you’re saying is “I don’t understand how this could have happened, therefore it couldn’t have”. Your inability to understand something in no way makes it incorrect. I’ll explain to you how eyes evolved. Pay attention.

Step 1. First you would have an organism that uses photosensitive cells. 
Step 2. Those photosensitive cells would lose nerves eventually. 
Step 3. An optic nerve would then form with pigment cells of said type surrounding it. 
Step 4. A depression would then form which would slowly become deeper and deeper over time. 
Step 5. The translucent skin over the depression would then form a lens shape, after which muscles would evolve which allow the lenses to adjust and move.

If you could watch the eye evolve over generations of organisms for millions of years, those would be the steps you would see take place. How do we know this? Because each type of eye described in each step belongs to at least one form of organism on Earth (the last step being the eye type that most mammals use).

“where did food for the first orgainism come from?”

Food? As in a source of nutrients? That can be anything. The most probable substances being amino acids and proteins, which are both natural materials that exist all over the planet. Light can also be used to produce nutrients.

“was is just coincidence that it was the right thing in the right location to sustain life?”

Could be. Truth is, if Mars were where Earth is and Earth was where Mars is, Mars would be an active planet able to sustain an atmosphere with liquid water while Earth would be a frozen planet with no liquid water. It’s the distance from the Sun that makes the planet able to support life. You can call it luck if you want. But I wouldn’t say luck applies to inanimate objects.

“where did the space for the universe come from?”

Space isn’t a tangible substance. It’s simply an imaginary concept used to measure the temporary. But, assuming you’re wanting to use the simplified version of the word, it would have been brought into existence during the Big Bang. Although, none of that is even relevant to the theory of evolution.

“where did matter come from?”

Same as before. Matter would have come into existence with the first event known to have occurred within this universe, the Big Bang.

“how did everything get so perfectly organized?”

Perfectly organized? You’ve got to be kidding. I guess that’s easy to say from the safe little planet Earth isn’t it? Do you call stars tens to hundreds of times more massive than the Sun exploding in a violent burst of radiation that can obliterate anything within billions of miles organized? What about black holes devouring stars and planets that drift too close to its event horizon? What about galaxies colliding into one another? Or maybe asteroids and comets plowing into planets constantly?  Come to think of it, even little ole Earth isn’t as organized as you make it sound. Randomized weather conditions like global warming, extinctions occurring all over the timeline by chance, continents drifting along erratic patterns. And I didn’t even include people into those events. Perfectly organized? Not even close. You can’t claim anything to be organized if there’s possibilities left to chance.

I'll be the first to agree with you that there are a lot of questions that haven't been answered yet. But simply because a question hasn't been answred doesn't mean it has no answer. Also, just because you don't like the answer to a question isn't a valid reason to claim the answer is wrong.

Comment

while there are answers...they aren't good solid answers.  There have been fossils found in the wrong order in seemingly undistrued rock formations.  While it is possible something moved them around, there's no proof.  
how does a cell become photosensitive? I understand there not enough space to draw out your 5 steps, but no scientists can map out your 5 steps...it's just belief in an unovserved process.  Natural selection and evolution have been observed,but not to the degree of complexity needed to creat an eye.  an unguided process can't crate sight. Where are the one eyed fossils?  you missed that question.
food for whatever first life existed had to be available in the right form at the right place...luck is just a scientific explanation.
organized..yes, the periodic table, elements, matter, yes everything is organized...
the big bang exploded within a millionth of a second of what was needed, the earth is the right distance from the sun, right rotation, right axis, right moon nearby, right atmosphere, right amount of lighteneing and earthquakes, jupiter is in the right place to catch the asteroids, gravity is just right, there's many more...that's organized for life on earth.  of course something can be organized and still have a possibility of chance.
I agree with your last statement...because something isn't answered doesn't mean there isn't one.  Also agree that not liking an answer doesn't mean it isn't valid...of course, that cuts both ways and applies you you as well.
there's just too many unanswered questions to say macro evoltion (evolution from one family of species to another, not fly to fly) is a fact from what I've seen...you have a website that discusses birds to dinosaurs I believe.  That's what I'm interested in seeing.  I can't find where you posted it.
Michael Behe was not proven wrong in court, the judge based his outcome on the motivation of the school board, not on the science.  His book is an example refutation of evolution.  I need to see a step by step creation of the eye, or any system,  to start believing otherwise.

Comment

I apologize for the delay. I never even knew you responded to me on this debate.

“while there are answers...they aren't good solid answers.”

There are plenty. I answered all of your questions with detail. Just because you don’t like the answers doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

“There have been fossils found in the wrong order in seemingly undistrued rock formations. While it is possible something moved them around, there's no proof.”

Science’s answer is that nature moved them. I find that highly plausible seeing as how nature tends to move a lot of things around. What’s your explanation for why those fossils are where they are? If science’s answer is so incorrect, you must have a better one right?

“how does a cell become photosensitive? I understand there not enough space to draw out your 5 steps, but no scientists can map out your 5 steps...it's just belief in an unovserved process.”

Are you certain on that one Afl? Have you researched this topic thoroughly? Have you read scientific papers and journals? Have you gone over the experimental data obtained on this subject? My guess is no.

“Natural selection and evolution have been observed,but not to the degree of complexity needed to creat an eye. an unguided process can't crate sight.”

Direct observation is not necessary for scientific validation.

“Where are the one eyed fossils? you missed that question.”

Why do you assume there would only have to be one eye? I never said anything about organisms evolving two eyes from one. I said their eyes evolved from less complex forms to more complex versions.

“food for whatever first life existed had to be available in the right form at the right place...luck is just a scientific explanation.”

You’re exactly right. Luck plays a vital part in evolution. But you’re a fool if you deny it’s occurrence based on that fact.

“organized..yes, the periodic table, elements, matter, yes everything is organized…the big bang exploded within a millionth of a second of what was needed, the earth is the right distance from the sun, right rotation, right axis, right moon nearby, right atmosphere, right amount of lighteneing and earthquakes, jupiter is in the right place to catch the asteroids, gravity is just right, there's many more...that's organized for life on earth. of course something can be organized and still have a possibility of chance.”

You and I must have two separate definitions of the word “organized”. Sure, there are plenty of things you could name that appear to be organized. But what about the list of things I mentioned that weren’t? Are some things in the universe organized? Yes. Is everything in the universe organized? No.

“there's just too many unanswered questions to say macro evoltion (evolution from one family of species to another, not fly to fly) is a fact from what I've seen…”

There are a lot of unanswered questions. But, to be honest, I’m not convinced that’s why you dismiss evolution. I believe it has more to do with your religious beliefs than you’re willing to admit. Regardless of that however, the theory of evolution postulates the best explanation of the diversity of life. You may not agree with its concepts, but I have yet to see you offer up any scientific alternative to the questions you claim evolution doesn’t answer.

“you have a website that discusses birds to dinosaurs I believe. That's what I'm interested in seeing. I can't find where you posted it.”

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc

That link contains a large assortment of evidences in support of macroevolution that I think will fit your request. Everything concerning each piece of evidence is explained in excruciating detail. Sources and references are present all over the pages.

“Michael Behe was not proven wrong in court, the judge based his outcome on the motivation of the school board, not on the science. His book is an example refutation of evolution.”

Michael Behe isn’t an evolutionary biologist. Even excusing the court case, Behe’s book has been debunked hundreds of times by hundreds of well-respected scientists around the world who know a lot more about evolution than he does. You can find the refutations for his work all over the web. Here's one of many.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

“I need to see a step by step creation of the eye, or any system, to start believing otherwise.”

I think you’ve already got plenty to read as it is. Let me know when you’re finished with all that.

There is eye witness, reproducable evidence for "micro" evolution or change within a species which is irrefutable. However, the goo to you via the zoo evolution or "macro" evolution is a theory with way to many holes in it to be considered plausable. 1) macro evolution cannot explain first life, or how non-intelligent lifeless matter through nature (which by nature randomizes) could have created the first life which we now know thru DNA and protien sequences had a highly intelligent and spacific design. Creation or intelligent design theory fits perfectly. 2)macro evolution cannot explain the viability of transitional forms. In other words how could a half lizard half bird survive. Creation/intelligent design doesn't need this step. And the fossil record is proof for creation/ID and completely against evolution. The fossil record shows all life came into existance all at once and fully formed sometime between 600millionBC and 500millionBC. (life's big bang) there have been NO fossils that have shown ANY transitional forms, much less viable transitional forms... Micro evolution yes, girraffes necks might have grown longer over time to better enable them to reach tree branches, a cheetah's sense of sight and smell could have developed over time to make him a better hunter, and humans might have less body hair than our ancestors thanks to airconditioning/heating and the fact we now live indoors and wear more cloths. But a girraffe is still a girraffe, and a cheetah is still a cheetah and a human is still a human. Sharks have been the same since the time of the dinasours with little or no change....Macro evolution not plausable.

Driver

18 Jun 2009 10:44

10 Comments

We’ve got a brand new person bringing the same old stuff. Let’s work on this a little.

“macro evolution cannot explain first life,”

It doesn’t have too. No part of evolutionary theory even concerns the origin of any kind of life. In fact, life itself must already exist for evolution to take place.

“or how non-intelligent lifeless matter through nature (which by nature randomizes) could have created the first life which we now know thru DNA and protien sequences had a highly intelligent and spacific design. Creation or intelligent design theory fits perfectly.”

Again, none of this even matters. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, much less the transition from non-life to life. The study of how life originated is called abiogenesis. Evolution only matters once life already exists. However you want to think of that life forming is entirely different from evolutionary theory and it’s predictions.

“macro evolution cannot explain the viability of transitional forms. In other words how could a half lizard half bird survive.”

A poor argument. All you do is ask a question and assume there is no answer. Just because you don’t understand how something works doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

“Creation/intelligent design doesn't need this step.”

Creation/Intelligent Design doesn’t need a lot of steps, because it skips over just about every scientific question that would need to be answered in order for its concepts to be considered legit. For example: Who’s the designer? What all did it design? When did it design those things? What was the design process used? Go ahead, try to answer some, or all, of those questions. And remember, religious ideas aren’t scientific.

“And the fossil record is proof for creation/ID and completely against evolution. The fossil record shows all life came into existance all at once and fully formed sometime between 600millionBC and 500millionBC. (life's big bang) there have

What fossil record are you looking at? Please show me. I want to see it. It sounds like a fairly odd one that’s not very accurate.

“there have been NO fossils that have shown ANY transitional forms, much less viable transitional forms…”

Go to my debate entitled Transitional Fossils Do Exist Within The Fossil Record. I give a link to a bunch of transitions that have been found. I made that debate a while back for someone who’s already exhausted just about every claim you’re just now making.

“Micro evolution yes, girraffes necks might have grown longer over time to better enable them to reach tree branches, a cheetah's sense of sight and smell could have developed over time to make him a better hunter, and humans might have less body hair than our ancestors thanks to airconditioning/heating and the fact we now live indoors and wear more cloths. But a girraffe is still a girraffe, and a cheetah is still a cheetah and a human is still a human. Sharks have been the same since the time of the dinasours with little or no change....Macro evolution not plausable.”

Your bottom line for macroevolution not being plausible is microevolution being plausible? That makes no sense. So small scale changes can occur but not large ones? Microevolution occurs but not macroevolution? Why? I want you to explain it to me. I want to see just how much you think you know about evolution, or if you’re just repeating what you’ve recently read or heard from somewhere else.

Hizashi

18 Jun 2009 11:22

Comment

We’ve got a brand new person bringing the same old stuff. Let’s work on this a little.

“macro evolution cannot explain first life,”

It doesn’t have too. No part of evolutionary theory even concerns the origin of any kind of life. In fact, life itself must already exist for evolution to take place.

“or how non-intelligent lifeless matter through nature (which by nature randomizes) could have created the first life which we now know thru DNA and protien sequences had a highly intelligent and spacific design. Creation or intelligent design theory fits perfectly.”

Again, none of this even matters. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, much less the transition from non-life to life. The study of how life originated is called abiogenesis. Evolution only matters once life already exists. However you want to think of that life forming is entirely different from evolutionary theory and it’s predictions.

“macro evolution cannot explain the viability of transitional forms. In other words how could a half lizard half bird survive.”

A poor argument. All you do is ask a question and assume there is no answer. Just because you don’t understand how something works doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

“Creation/intelligent design doesn't need this step.”

Creation/Intelligent Design doesn’t need a lot of steps, because it skips over just about every scientific question that would need to be answered in order for its concepts to be considered legit. For example: Who’s the designer? What all did it design? When did it design those things? What was the design process used? Go ahead, try to answer some, or all, of those questions. And remember, religious ideas aren’t scientific.

“And the fossil record is proof for creation/ID and completely against evolution. The fossil record shows all life came into existance all at once and fully formed sometime between 600millionBC and 500millionBC. (life's big bang) there have

What fossil record are you looking at? Please show me. I want to see it. It sounds like a fairly odd one that’s not very accurate.

“there have been NO fossils that have shown ANY transitional forms, much less viable transitional forms…”

Go to my debate entitled Transitional Fossils Do Exist Within The Fossil Record. I give a link to a bunch of transitions that have been found. I made that debate a while back for someone who’s already exhausted just about every claim you’re just now making.

“Micro evolution yes, girraffes necks might have grown longer over time to better enable them to reach tree branches, a cheetah's sense of sight and smell could have developed over time to make him a better hunter, and humans might have less body hair than our ancestors thanks to airconditioning/heating and the fact we now live indoors and wear more cloths. But a girraffe is still a girraffe, and a cheetah is still a cheetah and a human is still a human. Sharks have been the same since the time of the dinasours with little or no change....Macro evolution not plausable.”

Your bottom line for macroevolution not being plausible is microevolution being plausible? That makes no sense. So small scale changes can occur but not large ones? Microevolution occurs but not macroevolution? Why? I want you to explain it to me. I want to see just how much you think you know about evolution, or if you’re just repeating what you’ve recently read or heard from somewhere else.

Comment

We’ve got a brand new person bringing the same old stuff. Let’s work on this a little.

“macro evolution cannot explain first life,”

It doesn’t have too. No part of evolutionary theory even concerns the origin of any kind of life. In fact, life itself must already exist for evolution to take place.

“macro evolution cannot explain the viability of transitional forms. In other words how could a half lizard half bird survive.”

A poor argument. All you do is ask a question and assume there is no answer. Just because you don’t understand how something works doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

“Creation/intelligent design doesn't need this step.”

What fossil record are you looking at? Please show me. I want to see it. It sounds like a fairly odd one that’s not very accurate.

“there have been NO fossils that have shown ANY transitional forms, much less viable transitional forms…”

Comment

Abiogenesis is the study of how life originated on Earth. Evolution is the study of how that life evolves. If you don’t even know the basic definitions of scientific terms, you should give up now. The History channel programs are specifically meant for scientifically uneducated people. They dumb just about everything down for those who aren’t familiar with the subjects. The topics are a lot more detailed and go further in depth than what they cover on the History channel. Let me try to explain it one more time as simple as possible for you, since the History channel’s layman’s version still seems too complicated for you.

It does NOT matter how life got on Earth when concerning evolution. Not a single tiny itsy bitty bit. That event is completely and utterly irrelevant to the process of evolution entirely. I’ll put it in even simpler terms for you by giving theoretical examples of how life could have originated on Earth and then telling you if evolution could still occur.

Cause - Life came from comets that hit Earth billions of years ago. 
Result - Evolution still happens.

Cause - Life was created here by a supernatural deity at whatever point in Earth’s history. 
Result - Evolution still happens.

Cause - Life was placed here by aliens from a foreign planet or galaxy sometime in Earth’s past. 
Result - Evolution still happens.

Cause - Fluffy pink unicorns from a magical rainbow universe came here to early Earth and created life.
Result - Evolution still happens.

No matter what cause you want to say created life on Earth, evolution can and will occur. Go ahead, make up an event for how life got here sometime in Earth’s history. Think of as many as you can. As long as the event results in life being created, evolution can occur. The cause of life forming is not applicable to evolution at all. None. Zip. Nada. You say evolution can’t occur without knowing how life originated? That makes no sense. Not knowing something doesn’t debunk something else. A lack of knowledge is NEVER a refutation for anything. Rather, it’s reason not to make unnecessary conclusions. Your statement is equivalent to saying that an umbrella won’t work without knowing how rain falls from the sky. Whether you know how rains falls from the sky or not, that umbrella will still operate correctly if used properly. Likewise, whether you know how life originated on Earth or not, evolution still occurs if you know where to look. Using the terms “micro” and “macro” when concerning evolution is close to irrelevant as well, since the word “evolution” employs both of those types. It makes no sense to say microevolution exists and not macroevolution. That’s like saying temperatures of a few hundred degrees exist and not temperatures of a few million. I’m not going any further with the typing because you keep bringing up the word “god” in a scientific debate, which isn’t appropriate. If you want to talk science, I’ll be happy to oblige you. But if you’re just going to preach to me, I’m not going to waste time listening. Because I don't care what your religious views are or why you think they're relevant to this discussion.

Comment

While you are technically correct about abiogenesis and evolution, my point is people, including evolutionists start evolution with dead chemicals, and start from there.  In other words, they don't distinguish the different of the two.  I agree the two are diferrent...but when the History channel presents stuff to the masses and make no differentiation, the result is people on both sides of the argument starting evolution in the wrong place.  And, even abiogenesis itself is chemical evolution.
Also,  I'm not saying literally that evolution couldn't have occured if you can't explain the first life.  What i am saying is that for an aetheist, creating a life is a step that proceeds the evolutionary step.  Being able to prove or disprove evolution is pointless if the first life can't be explained.  Too many people accept evolution as a reason for not believing in a god without answering the problem of getting the first life...that's why i brought it up.
You asked "Microevolution occurs but not macroevolution? Why? I want you to explain it to me."
Micro and macro are improtant distinctions...one being observed, and the other not.  and the part you don't want me to get into is part of the answer...God put limits in our DNA that allows for micro, but not macro.  and yes, there is no empirical evidence that God put these limits in.
Please show me the one eyed fossils, and please explain how male and female evolved, and how DNA came to be.

Comment

What with the one eyed fossil bit? All advanced life on earth exhibits bilateral symmetry eyes included. Eyes in general first started to evolve during the Cambrian ere some 540 million years ago. There are a number of different models and theories for the development of DNA and sexual reproduction. None of them require god stepping in. That is the whole core of the ID propaganda B.S.  Life on Earth is 3.5 billion years old. We’ve been working on figuring it all out for 150 years. We have made amazing strides.
 Your I.D. yahoos just look for any spot that hasn’t quite been figured out yet and claims well god must have done that part. 
Well let me tell you, even if god did do it he did it through the natural process of evolution, because if there is a god then that’s the way the he developed all life forms aside from the first.
The term Macro and Micro evolution is just an artificial distinction of convenience that is rarely even used in the science community anymore as there is no real such distinction in biological evolution. But let me reiterate micro and macro evolution have been observed and have been supported by empirical evidence over and over again.

Comment

I don’t care about what an atheist might say concerning evolution. I correct anyone who tries to misuse the theory. Evolution DOES NOT concern the origins of life. Tell every atheist who’s ever tried to insinuate such a concept that they’re wrong. What you’re wrong on now, however, is involving your god into the equation. That’s a massive no no. If anyone involves a god when concerning science, whether they’re trying to prove or disprove its existence, they’re misusing whatever scientific theory they’re talking about.

As for the macro/micro part, I listed forty documented incidents in which macroevolution has been observed in my debate entitled “Evolution Possesses A Wide Variety Of Evidence In Its Support That Apparently Not Many People Are Aware Of”. I made that debate especially for people who make claims like the one you’re making now. Again, I don’t care about your religious ideas. If this were a religious debate, I’d be all for hearing your thoughts on whatever god you want to mention. But this is a scientific debate about a scientific theory. Religious concepts shouldn’t even be brought up here.

Comment

I don't believe in evolution, or anything contemporary beyond the dictionary definition of it. But one thing many non evolutionists need to believe is, that most evolutionists have way too many ways of defining evolution. First there is periodic evolution, then a gradual changing species, or even a change in genetic DNA(not mutation but simple reproduction). The DNA example can be something as insignificant as my parents made me and that is sufficient enough as proof as I am a byproduct of evolution. Any way you flip it, the hard result is that I am still a human being. Not evolving too fast, eh? I think we need to better define what is evolving and how other than the use of pictographs and stuff. It makes it hard to argue because I believe in Creationism (not trying to through religion into the argument.) And I am trying to be as respectable to evolutionists and am eagerly awaiting opinions.

gottfried

15 Mar 2009 00:35

5 Comments

You're not too familiar with science are you? It just doesn't seem like it by noticing a lot of your comments on it. In biology, evolution is specifically defined as “the biological change in the inherited traits of a population of organism over time from one generation to the next”. Scientists have specific definitions they use when referring to almost any theory out there. The trick is, you have to make sure you’re speaking with someone who knows what they’re talking about. Because, from experience on this site alone, I can tell you half the people you encounter do not. I’d be happy to explain anything about evolution you’d like to know, seeing as how you don’t appear to be like Voov.

Hizashi

17 Mar 2009 05:34

Comment

Just call it evolution. Or, depending on what you’re referring to, evolutionary theory. I guess that’s a good place to start too. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. The fact of evolution being that biological organisms undoubtedly change (biologically) over periods of time. There’s no question about that. No argument against it. It’s a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation for that fact. It explains, to the best of current knowledge, the mechanisms and causes for such changes in organisms. Many scientific theories also work that way. The phenomenon of gravity is a fact and the currently accepted theory that explains that phenomena is Einstein’s General Relativity. Needless to say, like all other scientific theories, evolution is not completely understood. There are still debates concerning some of the mechanisms of such a process. However, despite that, there is no argument about the basic principle of evolution within scientific community. Evolution has a very stern foundation compared to a lot of theories in science. Not only has it withstood over a century of scrutiny and still managed to come out on top, it also possesses a wide variety of evidence in its support not many other theories can match. Some would even say that evolution is more understood than gravity (which I would actually agree with depending on the context of the statement). Unlike what the religious weirdoes will tell you on this site alone, evolution isn’t some made up idea out of nowhere. It’s been around for a while, longer than a lot of scientific theories out there.

I hope that answers your question in some way or another. Ask away whenever you wish.

Comment

You seem to have a habit of confusing the scientific community with the media. Almost every time I see you talk about science you’re referring to something that has nothing to do with what an actual scientific theory says but with something someone wants that scientific theory to say. You’re not very good at distinguishing between what a scientific theory says and what someone says a scientific theory says. You’ve got to be careful when listening to someone repeat what a scientific theory, law, or concept states. They mess it up more often than they get it right. My advice would be to research. Anytime someone says a scientific theory states “this” or “that”, look it up. Find out if it really says that or not before assuming it does or doesn’t. You can even look up the stuff I’ve told you. I have no problem with that, because I know that I’ve only given you the pure scientific evidences and concepts. I didn’t mix them with personal beliefs or goals. It’s just the raw science. Science isn‘t better than the truth. Science is a form of truth. It’s the knowledge we now possess that’s been gained through objective methods. It’ll only become greater over time. You can follow science through all of its discoveries to come, or you can get left behind. It’s alright to be skeptical, but you blur the line between skepticism and ignorance sometimes when you talk about science.

There is absolutely no proof for Evolution. Despite the fact that Darwin is hailed as a genius in much of the scientific community, there are many holes in his theory. Darwin himself stated that if it was proven that an organism could not have come to exist through slight, successive changes over a long period of time, (in other words, if an organism was shown to be Irreducibly Complex) then his theory would fall apart. Irreducible Complexity has been proven with the example of the Flagella Motor, an extremely intricate system which requires all parts of itself to exist together in order to function.

IdeasMan

13 Mar 2009 12:45

12 Comments

you say there is no "proof" but the supposition asked about evidence. Irreducible complexity has been disproved in your example of the bacterial flagellum; both scientifically and in court.

Better come up with some more ideasman

openurmind

13 Mar 2009 18:53

Comment

I didn't see it so it cant be true

Epicfailgy

12 Mar 2009 19:40

1 Comment

How'd you come up with that reasoning? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't evolution change over time?

mystirider

15 Apr 2009 04:55

Comment

I have repeatedly asked for proof on this site and have yet to be supplied with any real proof. I'm still up for it if there are any takers.

created

12 Mar 2009 17:09

22 Comments

You might try this little thing called a LIBRARY, they have tons of books that can offer you all the proof you want. Of course, you're not interested in actually learning, you just want to complain about it.

Cephus

12 Mar 2009 17:44

Comment

I'll try to prove that the universe is temporal (silly way to put it but anyway...)

With the universe you have nothing which I would like to describe as you (whatever you are) no longer being you (whatever you are). All the evidence points to you coming to an end as you. So far, the only suppositions of this universe continuing have to do with all but completely collapsing to an extremely small and quite lethal dense thingamajig that big bangs again or colliding with another universe which would be quite lethal and turn it into a thingamajig or other theories that turn it into a thingamajig. Or there's the big rip theory that I consider to be the most realistic which has it ripping itself into true nothing. Nonetheless, in every supposed case to this point, the universe, for all practical purposes isn't going to be this universe.

When it comes to humans, there is no universal evidence that the humans that have died or are going to die (that's every single human that has lived and by all odds, every single human that is living) exist. In my humble opinion, for humans to say they become part of the universe when they die is goofy. I understand that technically they decompose and in a sense become part of the universe but at some point they will be utterly lost.

Since humans and every single other thing that humans can observe in the universe end, other than maybe the universe itself as it becomes a thingamajig (maybe), I think it is more reasonable to think the universe is temporal.

That it was created by a creator when that creator decided to make something in the creators own image. That creating something in the creators own image demanded that it be created outside of what really is eternal (the creator). Wallah! A temporal universe(s).

And then I think it's quite reasonable that this thingamajig the humans call love that has no reason but abounds for no reason, that exists in them but doesn't exist eminates from this creator and is going to enable humans to move from the temporal to the eternal, becoming one with the creator (that's all there really is) while retaining being the individual persons they were created to be (in the image of God - like God but not God).

When this becomes reality, the universe(s) will end and become what it was in the first place. Nothing.

The only way that can be construed as delusional (I've given reasonable explanation) is on the grounds that it is not generally accepted by my society. Only thing is, while being more defined than most like concepts, there are many in my society who think along the same lines.

Nope. Not delusional. The way to prove me delusional is to prove that dying and becoming partical matter that is one with a universe that at best is rapidly expanding into what MAY become some sort of thingamajig while everything in it is destroyed is reasonable.

You prove that is reasonable and I'll stop insisting the universe is temporal. I think I am clearly being more reasonable. Being reasonable doesn't prove anything, but it does prove being reasonable.

Comment

verum, there are theories of multiple universes. I am relating my comment to the theories that this universe is not "everything" in the scientific sense.

You're right on about the "truly nothing". One of the main points I'm trying to make on this site is that once human reasoning ceases to exist, there is no reason. Human reasoning suggests, in and of itself, that human reasoning does not end. It simply does not compute with whatever we are which doesn't make sense. That doesn't prove anything other than the arguments some feel compelled to make against my reasoning are weak at best. Humans cease to exist...there never was reason. Ok...one can say, yes there was. So what? It becomes a non-factor. Once reasoning becomes a non-factor, there was never any reason.

Peopl who want to argue with my reasoning don't have a reason to stand on unless there is a reason. lol

There is no such thing as nothing. We can't imagine it but we use the freaking word like it's going out of style.

You will encounter these problems as long as you are hindered by the universe being the end-all. I say the universe(s) are for all practical purposes...nothing. That they and all they possess are measurable. They are defined by measure. But isn't it interesting that nothing in them can seem to be ultimately measured? So, so close. Everywhich way we turn. They say the closer we get to absolute zero temperature, the larger (more powerful) the instrumentation would have to be to measure it. Last I heard, a guy was saying it would take something the size of the solar system. Don't quote me here, I'm just talking about the concept.

Eternity is not measurable. No matter how far you travelled, no matter how long it took, you would be in the center and no time would have passed. You can't get to the end of eternity and pop through the boundary into nothingness. It's absurd. lol

What I say is the human condition, combined with everything we know about our surroundings (the universe), overwhelmingly suggests to me that the concepts in the Bible are on the money. I truly don't see how it could be coincidence. The perfect, eternal creator...creates something in the creators image...this forces the creation of something other than eternity which is the universe....it also causes what appears to reasoning to be a serious problem in eternity...parts of eternity see it as a threat to eternity...are consumed by the thought of something other than eternity...the creator says, trust me....right there...right here...right then...all the human condition, all the questions about good and evil, all the questions about why did God...

It's all right there...when God told the angels to trust God and....

Anyway...I suppose it doesn't have to be true but anyone who says I'm not basing my thoughts on reason and evidence is way mistaken.

Evolution is just an excuse for biology to occupy the adolescent young mind.

LordDaniel

12 Mar 2009 15:35

7 Comments

I fear biology stands no chance against adolescent young members of the opposite sex.

Quincel

12 Mar 2009 19:22

Comment

What else would we have evolved from? Lizards? Fish? Horses? Dinos?

DdAWg

09 Jan 2010 03:43

Add a Comment

Go read "On the Origin of Species"...

I need not make a point of my own!

RoboHippo

30 Oct 2009 05:06

Add a Comment

If you wanted to start an actual debate you should have said there is no ‘convincing’ evidence. Because the simple fact of the matter is that there is more evidence than you could examine in several lifetimes of study. The question is whether you agree in the interpretation of the evidence. It is your privilege if you wish to disagree with those that know and understand vast amounts more than you do on the subject.

finsch

14 Mar 2009 18:05

4 Comments

Whether or not evidence convinces anyone is irrelevant, it just has to be real and demonstrable. Some of the theotards around here will never accept any evidence of any kind that disagrees with their religious beliefs, that doesn't mean that the evidence isn't factually real, only that they carry a ridiculous bias.

Cephus

14 Mar 2009 18:20

Comment

Wow. Do you really think that a theory with NO evidence would be as widely recognized in the science world (and the rest of the world as well)? That doesn't make any sense. There's a lot of evidence, I'm just not going to give examples because that would take a long time. But really, how would such a controversial theory (especially at the time it was proposed) get as far as it did with no evidence?

mariafu

12 Mar 2009 22:31

1 Comment

Easy, Satan is doing it.

lol

justsumguy

12 Mar 2009 23:08

Comment

Evolution is STILL happening.. Viruses evolve constantly to not be "killed off" by antibiotics, which is why we have to constantly change the antibiotics. Everything evolves currently. Even humans.....the average height of a grown man in 1800 was a lot shorter than that of a man today.Evolution. I could go on for days about the proof. Just because an ancient book written by people who weren't exposed to modern science says nothing about it doesn't mean science is a lie. You can't argue w/ science, sorry.

hodver

12 Mar 2009 19:55

14 Comments

I missed the ancient book reference in the debate. Dang it! I like to debate about that book too.

justsumguy

12 Mar 2009 20:04

Comment

Sorry, but this is not an opinion. It's a fact.

There is a massive amount of evidence that supports evolution.

justsumguy

12 Mar 2009 19:51

Add a Comment

Darwin observed species and wrote it down - evidence!

Quincel

12 Mar 2009 19:23

Add a Comment

I think you'll find there is. And rather a lot of it too.

Evileye

12 Mar 2009 16:29

Add a Comment

Anyone who thinks there is no evidence for evolution is either blind, stupid, or both. As Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution."

Cephus

12 Mar 2009 05:36

Add a Comment

The evidence that supports evolution is not only significantly abundant but predominately irrefutable.

Take a minute and think about that statement. Evolution is a scientific theory. Its supported by many highly regarded individuals from the scientific community. Now think about how theories are created. That's right, theories are built on the solid foundation of evidence.

verum

12 Mar 2009 04:49

Add a Comment

Who enters into a scientific debate about evolution asking only for opinions? Are you serious? Forget opinions. This is science we’re talking about, not political controversies concerning presidential candidates. My bet is that you probably don’t know hardly anything about evolution to begin with. With that being said, I’ll ask you a simply question before proceeding any further in such a debate. In layman’s terms, what does evolutionary theory postulate? If you can answer this question correctly, I’ll go on to show you some evidence for the theory.

Hizashi

12 Mar 2009 04:42

2 Comments

Let me start by saying I know quite a bit about evolution. I am also saying you should keep your big fat insulting mouth shut about stuff you have no idea about. All I asked was people's opinion on my proposed argument. In fact, I completely believe in evolution. All I wanted to see was other people's side on this subject. I did a near identical argument saying "There is Little Convincing Evidence for Creationism." So don't go accusing me of being some stupid idiot who knows nothing about anything.

Sorry for being so harsh, but your comment made me mad.

Urjak

15 Apr 2009 04:36

Comment

Wrong - evolution is probably the most supported theory in biology - it's withstood considerable scrutiny for the past 150 years and is as strong as ever.

Anyone who doesn't agree is one of two things - a liar or plain ignorant (willfully or otherwise). The evidence is readily available to all but the problem is that people will only read stuff that backs up their pre-concieved beliefs, which only reinforces their ignorant beliefs.

It's incredible how many people will use arguments against evolution that have been thoroughly refuted over, and over again.

sensai80

12 Mar 2009 04:40

8 Comments

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!

hodver

12 Mar 2009 19:59

Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?

For and Against Recent Activity

Latest Responses

Latest Comments

6 hours ago

Guys have PROBLEMS. read more...

6 hours ago

Its how they grow up and decide what they want. They have to make mistakes. read more...

6 hours ago

Gays and lesbians deserve freedom. read more...

6 hours ago

Republicans want to control everything by making them illegal. Democrats keep the world "on the fence". If the country was... read more...

6 hours ago

Grief is healthy for a person. read more...

Related Debates

	People Should Be Mean To Eachotha
	There Is No Point In Fearing Death
	Lightspecs By Foster Grant Have To Be The Geekiest Thing Ever.
	Most People Have Never Heard Of Or Questioned Tower 7, And Several Other Facts Of 9/11 Have Been Distorte...
	Are There Really Aliens In Outer Space
	Man Is A Smaller World And The World Is A Great Man.
	The Number 23 Is Real
	Kids Are Better Than Adults
	Should Animals Be Used For Researches??
	The Reason People Are Not Completely Good Is Because Adam And Eve Sinned

New Debates

	Urgent Urgent Help Is Needed
	K2 Should Be Banned!!!!!!!
	Marriage Is Strictly Religious And Between A Man And Woman
	There Is No Fixed And/or Physical Center Of The Universe.
	You Can Never Truly Get Rid Of Poverty, Disease, Racism, Depression, Homelessness, And Other Negative...
	Manufactured Board Vs Natural Timber
	IPads In Senior School
	Margaret Thatcher Was A Good Prime Minister
	IS Teenage Love Stupid
	Progress Is Dangerous