Arguments against evolution?

[Bushido216]

Hmm...

Atheistic Evolution (AE) - Evolution, as is, without the interference of a God or Gods.
Theistic Evolution (TE) - Covers a wide range of spectra. Anything from directly guided evolution to evolution as is, with the natural laws being designed by God.
Intelligent Design (ID) - Evolution can happen, but had to have an Intelligent starting point, because some systems are a.) Irreducibly Complex and/or b.) very well designed.
Young Earth Creationism (YEC) - God created the entire Universe, as is, over a period of six days six thousand years ago. Evolution can only produce lateral changes, and never anything new. Some YEC's occasionally allow for full evolution after the Creation.
Old Earth Creationism (OEC) - God created the entire Universe, as is, over a period of thousands, millions, or possibly billions of years. Evolution can only produce lateral changes, and never anything new. Some OEC's occasionally allow for full evolution after the Creation.

Hope this helps.

 

[dnich163]

Hi all. Iam a creationist (obvious i know )
Does any other creationist have some points i can use, or tips, or other arguments against evolution?

The "Theory" of evolution is an answer to How.
With evolution there is still the problem of the "missing link"...when did homo erectus become separated from his ancestors into becoming the "thinking-reasoning-animal" we are?

With the story of creation, this is to explain Why.......not how.
This was accepted by the church a long time ago, and the two are not really in conflict.

The problem is that sceptics on both sides require proof.
The creationist operates from a basis of Faith...no proof is needed.

I have no problem with evolution....science for me points to the greatness and vastness of God which is beyond our comprehension.

David

 

[armed2010]

Heh, I used to debate tons of 16 year old creationist girls back when MSN chat was free. They seemed to outnumber the boys 2-1. They were normally the easiest to refute also. I remember one time when one of them said Mithraism never existed because the bible never mentions it And then youd find the ones that dont believe in dinasours

 

[Arikay]

It will be interesting to see your notes, I hope you wont mind it if we disagree with them.

as far as the "missing link" is concerned and a find of when humans became thinking. The missing link will never be found because as soon as it is, its not missing anymore and because people will just say that there is a missing link between the new link and the old ones. As far as our inteligence was concerned, it was most likely a gradual thing, since we do have evidence of thinking and reasoning neandertals.

 

[Ben is Dead]

Fossils of our ancestors have shown a gradual increase in cranial capacity
larger brain case in proportion to body=most likely smarter animal
the big question is when humans developed a conciousness(sp?) and self-awareness to our surroundings

 

[vibrio]

Hmm...

Atheistic Evolution (AE) - Evolution, as is, without the interference of a God or Gods.
Theistic Evolution (TE) - Covers a wide range of spectra. Anything from directly guided evolution to evolution as is, with the natural laws being designed by God.
Intelligent Design (ID) - Evolution can happen, but had to have an Intelligent starting point, because some systems are a.) Irreducibly Complex and/or b.) very well designed.
Young Earth Creationism (YEC) - God created the entire Universe, as is, over a period of six days six thousand years ago. Evolution can only produce lateral changes, and never anything new. Some YEC's occasionally allow for full evolution after the Creation.
Old Earth Creationism (OEC) - God created the entire Universe, as is, over a period of thousands, millions, or possibly billions of years. Evolution can only produce lateral changes, and never anything new. Some OEC's occasionally allow for full evolution after the Creation.

Hope this helps.

 

[Aggie]

the big question is when humans developed a conciousness(sp?) and self-awareness to our surroundings

Probably pretty early-on, since there are a lot of animals other than humans that also have that.

 

[Puff Father]

Just like you believe that the Theory (it really is still a theory) of Evolution will be proven, I believe it will eventually be abandoned. It is a myth. There isn't a gap, it's all gap. The conclusions drawn from the fragments of "evidence" found are drawn from the presumption, the belief, that evolution is fact.

It's kind of entertaining watching the dramatic discoveries that finally prove some connection to primates, reptiles, or whatever the ancestor of the day is. Later, when it is explained away, it never seems to be as dramatic or news-worthy.

Flame me if you need to, but I am not convinced in the slightest as to there being any merit to the theory of macro-evolution. Too much of a leap of faith for me. Sorry.

Since there seems to have been liquid water there, maybe they will find evidence of previous life on Mars. I'm not holding my breath. I don't think that life arose spontaneously anywhere. Not here, there or anywhere else.




"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
Mark Twain

PS: This is my first post on these forums. Peace.

 

[Bushido216]

The conclusions drawn from the fragments of "evidence" found are drawn from the presumption, the belief, that evolution is fact.

The irony metre just blew a gasket.

 

[Non-Sequitur]

Just like you believe that the Theory (it really is still a theory) of Evolution will be proven, I believe it will eventually be abandoned.

Do you even know what a theory is?

 

[Arikay]

No one is holding their breath that germ theory or cell theory will be "proven" either. But I bet that doesn't stop you from getting antibiotics when you are sick, or from believing cancer is real now does it. That is of course because science doesn't work the way you seem to think it does.

The funny thing is that in the last 20 years the evidence for evolution has probably doubled (possibly even more), so no, I doubt it will be abandoned soon, just like I doubt germ theory will be abandoned anytime soon as well.

What is macro evolution? (there are so many creationist "kinds" its hard to keep them straight)
What does Science say Macro Evolution is? (this would be the non creationist version, the version that exists in the theory of evolution and not as a strawman like many others.)

Just like you believe that the Theory (it really is still a theory) of Evolution will be proven, I believe it will eventually be abandoned. It is a myth. There isn't a gap, it's all gap. The conclusions drawn from the fragments of "evidence" found are drawn from the presumption, the belief, that evolution is fact.

It's kind of entertaining watching the dramatic discoveries that finally prove some connection to primates, reptiles, or whatever the ancestor of the day is. Later, when it is explained away, it never seems to be as dramatic or news-worthy.

Flame me if you need to, but I am not convinced in the slightest as to there being any merit to the theory of macro-evolution. Too much of a leap of faith for me. Sorry.

Since there seems to have been liquid water there, maybe they will find evidence of previous life on Mars. I'm not holding my breath. I don't think that life arose spontaneously anywhere. Not here, there or anywhere else.




"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
Mark Twain

PS: This is my first post on these forums. Peace.

 

[danaman5]

It's kind of entertaining watching the dramatic discoveries that finally prove some connection to primates, reptiles, or whatever the ancestor of the day is. Later, when it is explained away, it never seems to be as dramatic or news-worthy.

See, the mere fact that you claim that anyone ever said we were actually related to reptiles shows me that you in fact have not been watching the news and laughing at the "dramatic discoveries." And since when does evolution appear in the news? I have seen it in time magazine a few times, but that is about it.

 

[Jet Black]

See, the mere fact that you claim that anyone ever said we were actually related to reptiles shows me that you in fact have not been watching the news and laughing at the "dramatic discoveries." And since when does evolution appear in the news? I have seen it in time magazine a few times, but that is about it.

he could well be (unwittingly) referring to the therapsids. some of the best examples of transitionals going.

 

[Creationist2004]

Do you even know what a theory is?

Yes, i'd say he does. Despite all of the so-called "proof" it is still called evolution theory. Not fact!
The evolutionists still have yet to confirm that it is definitely true. And i doubt they ever will. There will always be the missing link.

(As soon as i find my notes, i'll bring some better arguments)

 

[MartinM]

Yes, i'd say he does. Despite all of the so-called "proof" it is still called evolution theory. Not fact!

Theory is the pinnacle of scientific method. Atoms are theory. Gravity is theory.

 

[Creationist2004]

Theory is the pinnacle of scientific method. Atoms are theory. Gravity is theory.

If that is true, then there are 2 meanings to the word theory
I looked the word up in a dictionary and got this:

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge.

Emphasis on the word "limited"

Evolution theory is widely accepted because it is considered science.
Science has cured many diseases and given us wonderful technology (Like computers as a prime example)
So when evolution theory was invented, everyone thought that it had just as much authority.

As Marilyn Vos Savant stated in Parade magazine, February 4, 1996, "I think that if it had been a religion that first maintained the notion that all the matter in the entire universe had once been contained in an area smaller than the point of a pin, scientists probably would have laughed at the idea."

 

[MartinM]

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge.
Emphasis on the word "limited"

Yeah, that's not what it means in science. Dictionary.com gives this:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena

which is close enough.

 

[Data]

Yes, i'd say he does. Despite all of the so-called "proof" it is still called evolution theory. Not fact!
The evolutionists still have yet to confirm that it is definitely true. And i doubt they ever will. There will always be the missing link.

(As soon as i find my notes, i'll bring some better arguments)

AHHHHHHHHHH!!! Not AGAIN!

The theory of gravity! THE THEORY OF GRAVITY!

*bangs head repeditively against wall*

 

[Creationist2004]

Yes, but it says "can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"
A prediction is not fact.

And it also says:
"especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted"
Like i said before, it is widely accepted because science says so.
But science cannot repeat things which happened before man was created.
How can scientists prove that the big bang theory is fact, when they weren't around at the time? They can't repeat something which they don't know for sure actually happened.

 

[Freodin]

If that is true, then there are 2 meanings to the word theory
I looked the word up in a dictionary and got this:

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge.

Emphasis on the word "limited"

There really ARE two meanings (at least) of the word "theory".

Science, like all fields of language, use special terms to describe special concepts. Sometimes these terms "overlap".

Like in Christianity "death" has a slightly different meaning than in "common speech", so "theory" has a slightly different meaning in "science speech".

The common meaning is, as you quoted "an assumption"
The scientific meaning is (roughly) "a system of hypothesises, backed up by evidence, not falsified yet, accepted to be the currently best explanation for certain observations"

Evolution theory is widely accepted because it is considered science.
Science has cured many diseases and given us wonderful technology (Like computers as a prime example)
So when evolution theory was invented, everyone thought that it had just as much authority.

The Theory of Evolution IS a part of science.

Computers are based on the basic scientific principle - observation, hypothesis, experimentation, theory.
In common speech: "Hm, if we do this, it should result in that. Let´s try it. Yes, it works."

The ToE works in the same way. Every scientific theory works in this way. It is a possible explanation.

And that is also the main problem of creationism - it does not explain anything. It only invokes an untestable divine interference.

As Marilyn Vos Savant stated in Parade magazine, February 4, 1996, "I think that if it had been a religion that first maintained the notion that all the matter in the entire universe had once been contained in an area smaller than the point of a pin, scientists probably would have laughed at the idea."

I don´t know this person - but he/she should get his/her history straight: it WAS a catholic priest who first brought on the theory later called "Big Bang".