Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?”
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


(1)
Message 152 of 196 (663679)
05-26-2012 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dr Adequate
03-13-2012 1:54 PM


I will
I will debate with you. I make a lot of new and original points. While they are not conclusive, they are evidentiary, which is all that macroevolution rests on, circumstantial evidence open to interpretation. There is not evidence one way or the other to draw a conclusion with any degree of certainty. At any rate, here are some of my points for you to respond to, that you will not find anywhere else but me. I will give links to CreationWiki articles (quoting content written by me) where I provide sources for specific detail, or other sources as necessary, in building a case.
Please pardon the slow build-up, major evidence will be presented in later points as I provide groundwork establishing early points.
1. Macroevolution is not provable like Microevolution. While we can witness small-scale evolution between species, this is compatible with God creating core species in Genesis 1 and telling them to bring forth after their "kinds", a Hebrew word similar to our concept of genera/family. Much of the 'proof' for evolutionary theory has in fact been proof for Micro, not Macro, evolution, like Darwin's finches or moths on trees. Furthermore, we define what a species is, as pointed out by WYOTK authors The Brothers Winn, and while we've been watching bacteria (which evolve 525,000 times faster than we do) for hundreds of years since inventing the microscope and they've adapted as bacteria, they've never become a new, 'higher' form of life.
http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/...wins-intelligent-design
2. The Scopes Trial never actually proved Evolution, just consisted of a series of mocking attacks on the Bible's claims of the supernatural. While it swayed public opinion towards Evolution, Evolutionary theory itself has never truly been required to show proof in a court of law. Brent Dalrymple in "The Age of the Earth" for example expressed frustration that he and other Evolutionists were not allowed to present evidence in a case that dissolved last minute.
3. Alfred Russel Wallace, one of the two co-discoverers of Evolution was exiled from the scientific community for his "little heresy" when he began speaking in support of a Creator responsible for inbreathing life. The scientific community dislikes mentioning him because he refused to acknowledge evolutionary theory disproved a Creator or that Evolution was incompatible with the Bible. Again, while Microevolution and Natural Selection can be proven to be fact, Macro specifically and the Big Bang theory remain very hypothetical and subject to interpretive speculation.
Alfred Russel Wallace - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
4. Darwin himself acknowledged four major weaknesses to his theory. Two comprise Intelligent Design (which is not itself a competing theory to Evolution), Complexity indicative of design, and Instinct indicative of design. The other two are in my opinion more concrete, the lack of transitional forms and sterility caused by interspeciary breeding. To this day sterility in interspeciary breeding remains a serious and largely unaddressed weakness for the theory, since interbreeding of species often results in sterility (e.g. Horses + Donkeys = sterile Mules, Tigers + Lions = sterile Ligers).
Charles Darwin - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
5. Concerning transitional forms, Over the past decade, a series of controversies have engulfed evolutionary theory, as an array of fossil discoveries have provided new knowledge on the fossil record. However, these discoveries have been so controversial as to require even major publications begin acknowledging, first in 2001 after the discovery of O. tugenesis, and climaxing in 2007 with the discovery that Habilis and Erectus coexisted, that the human evolutionary tree now looks like a "bush with many branches". One after another of the species previously labeled "missing links," ancestors of modern humans, have been conceded to be "offshoots" because of early complexity, as they are discovered to walk upright, coexist with other hominins, or prove similar to modern humans, rather than showing early similarity to apes.
Essentially we've found a number of new hominins and these have been wreaking havoc on evolutionary theory over the past decade. Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, and Ardipithecus ramidus (Ardi) now make for our three oldest hominin fossils. Trouble is, they are way too human-like, showing far more early complexity and similarity to modern humans, including evidence of early bipedalism, than was supposed to exist so far back in the human lineage. The discovery of such early bipedalism then led to the discovery that both Afarensis (Lucy) and Homo erectus walked upright as well. A new fossil, Australopithecus sediba, also appears to have walked upright. We also found the first chimp fossil in 2005, and it revealed that chimps lived east of the Rift Valley, which would play a role in the eventual abandonment of the famous Savannah Hypothesis that humans evolved without chimps because of leaving the African jungles for the savannahs (since chimps also left).
We've also discovered species which were supposed to be linear descendants of one another actually coexisted, and thus couldn't have evolved from one another. Homo erectus and Homo habilis both coexisted, Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) and Australopithecus ramidus (Ardi) both coexisted, and we even found some brand new fossils that coexisted with modern humans and Neanderthals, like Homo floresiensis ('Hobbit Man') and the Denisovans. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica's current dating of Australopiths, Ar. kaddaba and Ar. ramidus coexisted; A. afarensis, K. platyops, A. bahrelgazali, and A. africanus all coexisted; P. aethiopicus, A. africanus, A. garhi, H. habilis, and H. rudolfensis all coexisted; and A. sediba, P. boisei, H. rudolfensis, and H. habilis all coexisted as well.[34] A large number of hominins therefore coexisted and thus are 'offshoots' which could not have evolved from one another, resulting in a messy 'bush'.
Transitional form - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
6. If the world is as old as is commonly claimed, we should see animals today evolving at a rate consistent with this, over thousands and millions of years. That is why it is shocking for the scientific community that the accumulating evidence shows instead that Microevolution occurs over decades, rather than thousands and millions of years.
Biological evolution - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
7. Punctuated Equilibrium was itself designed to address the increasingly apparent stasis in the fossil record. Darwin and Lyell assumed Uniformitarianism, that evolution (along with geologic processes in general) is slow and gradual. The trouble is the fossil record is now very apparently in disagreement with this, showing slow stasis within parent species as if God created core species that while adapting with Microevolution, never truly changed transitionally per Macroevolution. The lack of transitions and stasis led to the speculative, unevidenced, and unfalsifiable theory of "Punk Eek" that evolution went very slowly for most of history (equilibrium), and then very rapidly within short time periods (punctuated). However, as Don Batten has pointed out, it creates a "no-lose" situation for evolution where the evidence against Gradualism that once would have indicated Evolution is false is now used to "support" the truly unevidenced theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.
Punctuated equilibrium - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
8. Recent evidence has begun growing for Canopy Theory, showing that earth's atmosphere had far higher levels of oxygen resulting in massive insects. Fossilized raindrops also show a thicker atmosphere. These discoveries followed shortly after Creationist Carl Baugh patented a hyperbaric biosphere showing insects and other life changed in longevity and size given higher oxygen levels, and the scientific community then caught up to his research (without giving him credit I might add).
Canopy theory - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
9. Uniformitarianism was originally invented to replace Catastrophism because Lyell disliked his mentor William Buckland using Catastrophism to support a Biblical Flood. However, we can now recognize such catastrophes occurred. Nevertheless, scientists refuse to consider the implications of catastrophes occurring, that such catastrophes would affect atmospheric isotopic levels and isotope decay rates used to infer radiometric dating results - results that were based on the theory of Uniformitarianism. Even though Gradualism has been abandoned in Punctuated Equilibrium theory and Microevolution seen today (given the rapid rates per Point 6), scientists adhere dogmatically to the belief that isotopic decay rates and atmospheric levels were gradual enough to allow for their predicted dating results. The evidence of the fossil record overwhelmingly shows in earth's past that a major catastrophe or catastrophes simultaneously wiped out most of earth's life, including 90+% of sea life. The only disagreements between Creationists and Evolutionists on this subject are (a) how many of these events there were, (b) when these events occurred, and (c) whether a Global Flood could be an acceptable explanation. But that a catastrophe did occur is not debatable. Furthermore, evidence this occurred rapidly is also available, such as trilobites buried in life position by rapid sedimentation. The mere fact of fossilization indicates a rapid catastrophe since depositional rates are to slow to effectively prevent scavengers and erosion from destroying fossilized material, as mentioned in the book "Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity", ch. 3, by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart.
Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell - Understanding Evolution
Catastrophism - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Reasons skeptics should consider Christianity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Also, I have limited time, so much of the debate will likely occur on weekends, at least from my end.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-13-2012 1:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 5:31 AM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 6:03 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


(1)
Message 154 of 196 (663685)
05-26-2012 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 5:31 AM


Re: I will
I thought the debate was supposed to involve evidence "for/against Evolution"? Your format would only allow your side to be presented, correct? At any rate, I've presented mine and am happy to see what you have to offer, although I can imagine much could be seen at Talk Origins.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
I imagine you will bring up phylogenetic trees and vestigial organs at some point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 5:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 6:03 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 158 of 196 (663694)
05-26-2012 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by RAZD
05-26-2012 6:03 AM


Re: I will
(1) nothing you listed is new or original. What you have is a list of pratts (points refuted a thousand times).
And where is this refutation? I know of no one else online who makes the points on recent transitional form controversies or sterility in interspeciary breeding. I think you are making a hasty generalization to avoid addressing what is a serious list of weaknesses in Evolutionary Theory.
(3) If you think otherwise then please read and respond to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 ... you could be the first creationist to get past the first couple of posts.
I'll take a look, thanks.
For someone with limited time you sure spammed a lot of threads and will have a lot of posts to respond to in return. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
You apparently missed the part where I said I have little time apart from weekends. This is a weekend, and I type over 80 WPM when I have time (which I do - for the moment). And I'm not new. I was here back in 2010 which is why I have 60+ posts. I've been on so many hundreds of forums before that I have trouble remembering the formatting distinctions between them, that's all.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : typo fix

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 6:03 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 6:19 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 165 of 196 (663786)
05-26-2012 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 7:02 AM


Re: I will
As for his Gish Gallop, if he wants it answered, he should start a new thread for each theme in it, so's they're on topic, and I shall be perfectly happy to point out his mistakes...
If I am to lay out the case for evolution, the shape of our discourse cannot be dictated by the mistakes that he wants to make in the order in which he wishes to make them. It can't go like: he makes a mistake about bananas, I tell the truth about bananas, he makes a mistake about aardvarks, I tell the truth about aardvarks ... 300 posts later, and I wouldn't even have got round to defining terms...
...Er, no. He apparently misunderstood the format. I explained it to him in message #155 in this thread. If he has any objections, he has yet to make them.
This is an awful lot more complicated than just simply having both sides present their points at one time and both responding. If new topics could just be posted this wouldn't be as much of an issue but I haven't been here in some time and imagine the topic approval could take a while.
Well, I presented my points and have yet to see any response to them, so I made my good faith attempt so far. I just don't have the time to go through so complicated a format though if it will be this much of a hassle. I did not recognize how complicated it would be to just start an actual debate on the subject.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:02 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 6:57 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024