Arguments against evolution?

[Creationist2004]

Hi all. Iam a creationist (obvious i know )
I have been having debates with people on evolution. It's a creation vs evolution debate.
I have my arguments against it and i have been trying my best to deal with every "complication" to creation.

But iam running out of points to make and answers i can give.

Does any other creationist have some points i can use, or tips, or other arguments against evolution?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Jet Black]

what is the point? creationism has already been falsified. All you will get is points already refuted.

 

[MartinM]

You could try just making it up as you go along. It's what most creationists do anyway.

 

[MartinM]

How bizarre. As I type, this thread has 2 replies and 0 views. Guess we must have posted with our eyes closed.

Edited to add: Now it's 3 replies, 0 views. I guess it only counts as viewing if you don't also post. As I said, bizarre.

 

[Creationist2004]

Hey, i haven't done anything wrong. You might be convinced that evolution or some other theory is correct, but iam not.

The arguments FOR evolution are just as farfetched and unbelievable as creation is "supposed" to be.

Why are you so worked up about what i believe?

 

[MartinM]

Hey, i haven't done anything wrong

Yet.

You might be convinced that evolution or some other theory is correct, but iam not

Yet.

The arguments FOR evolution are just as farfetched and unbelievable as creation is "supposed" to be

Says you. And on the other side, we have pretty much the entire scientific community.

Why are you so worked up about what i believe?

Because it's demonstrably false. It's no different to believing that the Earth is flat.


Hmm. And still no views. How odd.

Edit: What's really odd is that the views count in my CP doesn't match that in the forum itself.

Actually, what's really odd is that I'm wondering about this at all. Oh, well.

 

[Creationist2004]

Yes it is. There is just as much proof to creation as there is to evolution.
And there are Christian scientists you know. Even though many people think so, science is not all against Creation.

 

[MartinM]

Yes it is. There is just as much proof to creation as there is to evolution

Let's see it, then.

And there are Christian scientists you know

Most of whom accept evolution. Christian != creationist.

Even though many people think so, science is not all against Creation

Science is not at all against the general concept that God created. Science is wholly against the concept that God created in 6 days 6000 years ago, and so on.

 

[Jet Black]

Hey, i haven't done anything wrong. You might be convinced that evolution or some other theory is correct, but iam not.

The arguments FOR evolution are just as farfetched and unbelievable as creation is "supposed" to be.

Why are you so worked up about what i believe?

my apologies, I was just thinking then that I should be nicer I get a little twitchy when people come in and tell me that decades of the brightest minds on the planet have overlooked something trivial, we get so many trolls here so it's natural I guess (I am not accusing you of being a troll) feel free to go over your counterarguments against evolution and we can go through them. I will be nice

 

[MartinM]

my apologies, I was just thinking then that I should be nicer I get a little twitchy when people come in and tell me that decades of the brightest minds on the planet have overlooked something trivial, we get so many trolls here so it's natural I guess (I am not accusing you of being a troll) feel free to go over your counterarguments against evolution and we can go through them. I will be nice

I'd second that. But I am being nice...

 

[Jet Black]

Yes it is. There is just as much proof to creation as there is to evolution.

science is not about seeing who can get the pile of facts the highest, it is about not having any falsifying cases. Sadly creationism falls short of this. One thing I must comment on before we go on, is that there is no proof for creation at all. Creation is an act, and there for we may or may not have been created, and we will never know either way. However evolution does not argue against creation, since evolution is not an act, it is a mechanism. Therefore we may well, as many believe, have been created using evolution. I think you should refer to your position as creationism , that is, the belief that everything was created in one week, approximately six thousand zears ago (for Young earth creationism) or some other creationism variant.

 

[Creationist2004]

Okay thanx. *Runs off to get all the notes she made*

 

[artybloke]

Yes it is. There is just as much proof to creation as there is to evolution.
And there are Christian scientists you know. Even though many people think so, science is not all against Creation.

No there isn't, otherwise someone would have posted convincing evidence for it before now. Never seen any except the usual strawmen and PRATTs that have been refuted time after time.

Not only that, it's bad theology, as it posits a God of the Gaps. I suggest you read some Ken Miller.

 

[Jet Black]

Okay thanx. *Runs off to get all the notes she made*

cool

 

[Creationist2004]

Sorry, but i haven't a clue what "gaps" means or who Ken Miller is.

 

[MartinM]

Miller is the author of Finding Darwin's God. Comes highly recommended.

 

[Creationist2004]

Oh, thank you.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Sorry, but i haven't a clue what "gaps" means or who Ken Miller is.

Miller is a biology Professor at Brown University and as Martin say author of Finding Darwin's God.

http://bms.brown.edu/faculty/m/kmiller/

The gap theory is a particular kind of old earth creationism

http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Gap_creationism

I think that sometimes the phrase "God of the Gaps" is also applied to progressive creationism, the idea that God separately created various species over long periods of time. IMO intelligent design creationists are actually invoking a "God of the Gaps" even if the don't acknowledge it openly.

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Jet Black]

Sorry, but i haven't a clue what "gaps" means or who Ken Miller is.

the idea of "God of the Gaps" philosophy, is that if there is some "gap" i.e. a thing that nature cannot do, God is called in to fill it. Examples of this in an evolutionary sense are Intelligent Design, where the position is made that certain structures cannot come about through evolution, and hence must be designed (i.e. something that nature cannot do, therefore God did it) The evolution of new structures such as wings, or mammalian features are other examples. The problem with this philosophy, is that it starts off with a basically atheistic statement that Nature is without God, and it allows God to be falsified by discoveries, i.e. of the evolutionary path towards the flagellum, or the number of transitionals from arboreal dinosaurs to birds, therapsids and so on. In another sense, it also calls God incompetant, because he can't create a universe that will do what he wants it to do without him poking his nose in all the time. It would be a bit like having to call out ford every time you want to start your car because they didn't design it to do what you want.

 

[Freodin]

No - "God of the Gaps" means a God that is only active in the areas - gaps - where science has found no explanation yet.

It has nothing to do with "Gap Creation".