|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
1)Most of the evidence put forth by evolution can equally be used as evidence for creation. including evidence of speciation, natural selection, genetics and mitochondrial dna, and a fossil record full of intermediate forms? i mean, in the the strictest sense of the word, evolution is a form of creationism, isn't it? if you wanna believe god made the world 6,000 years ago in 6 days, and i wanna believe he's been making it through natural processes for the last 4.5 billion years, well, they're not much different, really, are they? let draw the line somewhere, shall we? aside from the god bit. the evidence is on my side.
a)"microevolution"--changes in a population, for example, *bacteria* evolving into other kinds of *bacteria*. Because we've evolved new forms of bacteria is by no means an argument that all plants and animals evolved from a single cell! lets go for a walk, shall we? one step at a time. a little farther here, a little farther there. it's too bad we'll never get out of the neighborhood. you know, unless we keep walking. you see, "species" "genus" "family" etc are all arbitrary lines we draw. there's no magical barrier there, a so called glass ceiling of biology, to stop things from going further. the aforementioned archaeopteryx was kind of tricky to classify (i don't even know where it lies taxonomically). see, it's got most of the body of a dinosaur. but it's hips are more bird-like than other similar dinosaurs. it's tail is shorter, but not as short as a bird's, and lacks the specialized end. it's starting to develop the bird's breastbone, but lacks the rib articulation. it has feathers, but no beak. it's head is liek a dinosaur's, but it lacks the neck ribbing like birds. it really is stuck somewhere between dinosaur and bird. group this with the dozen or two other feathered dinosaur exacmples we have, all at different states, it's pretty safe to call it a transitional fossil. creationist debates are always funny. show me a transitional species, they say. something half way between two large seperate groups of animals. and someone posts a picture of an archaeopteryx. some say it's a bird. some say it's a dinosaur. some say it's fake. some say transitional fossils don't mean anything. well... make up your minds. but uhh, none of those answers are right.
Finally, last but not least, evolution contradicts some of the most basic laws of nature that we've observed time and time again. Fish produce fish--they don't produce legged creatures. i had an amphibian once, called an axylotl. the problem is, it wasn't EXACLTY an amphibian. see, it never grew out of the fish-like stage, and got up on land on it's legs. it had gills, legs, and swam. it also has primitive lungs that aren't good for much but floatation. they provide a good look at what amphibians were just before they became amphibians. these things are closer to lungfish, really. but every now and then... one goes through metamorphosis and becomes something very like a salamander. apparently, it just takes the right hormone...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
3) If we do evolve we haven't we changed yet? If it takes millions of years for one thing to evolve wouldn't it die before it could evolve. So therefore the process of evolution has infact died out. So all evolutionists answer me. Please did you know that in the last 100 years, the average human height has increased several inches? in the last 1000 it's increased about a foot.
2) We had to debate the subject in class and one of my peers brought up that we evolve when we learn. So basicly she was telling me that if I brought in a monkey out of the jungle taught it to read and wright and sign so good that we could have full colnversations after many years it would evolve into something higher which is supposledly believed to be a human. So that means all the chimps we have broughten in and taught over many years should in all technicallity be a human. evolution is the change in a SPECIES from one GENERATION to the NEXT. humans are not higher on the evolutionary tree than chimpanzees. "height" is determined by date, and we're both around today. we also share common ancestry, one would likely not evolve into the other, although the end result may be similar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
apparently i was duly corrected before.
although i'm not sure it has EVERYTHING to do with nutrition, because women often cite height as a quality they select for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
We cant think of a creator or a designer even if the evidence supports it sure we can! the problem is that evidence doesn't support it. don't bother citing behe, btw, i just finished a paper refuting his argument quite thoroughly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Look at you all avoiding the origins and starting a campaign that the ToE is nothing to do with. because, quite simply, the theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with how life got here, just what happened afterwards, and it developed complexity. it's not a campaign. evolution ONLY says that things change from generation to generation based on a natural selection process.
The cell itself is evidence for design. no, this is a system of subsystems. behe himself only deals in the subsystem of the cell, and ene then his "theory" fails. sorry, the cell or anything else with subsystems is not evidence for design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I'd be interested in that, thank you i considered posting it here once or twice, but it's not particularly great. it's not exactly scientific, more argumentative, because it wasn't for a science class, but an english one. although, i can post just the sources i used, such as the miller debate and behe himself. i think i actually did that in another thread. basically, it'd just be nine pages re-stating the same old argument we have here everyday.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024