Arguments against evolution?

[Creationist2004]

I haven't a clue and i don't care!
Creationists are people too! We're not some vermin that should die off soon!
All of our points are just as valid as yours!

 

[Freodin]

Aaaahhhh! Are ilwjc and i the only creationists on this forum?
If so, then this is a little unfair. Obviously things are going to be biased against creationism.

This here IS the open forum - the only parts of CF were we unbelievers are allowed to gather. There is a Christian only forum for these questions, you might want to post there.

But there are a lot of people who think creationism is .... there as well.

And whats all this about creationism being abandoned by Christians years ago?!! If thats what you think, then you obviously know as little about creationism as i supposedly know about evolution.

Not by all, but by most of them. In the early 19th century it became obvious - even without Darwin - that the 6 day / 6000 years ago variant of creation could not be true.

This is the version of Creationism we debate here, the version you hold: the earth is young, thus called YEC (Young Earth Creationism) - and this version has been falsified for almost 200 years now.

This does nothing to disprove Creation: many of the Christians here believe that Evolution is simply the way God did create, or they hold a differnt version of Creation: Old earth, Gap (Last Thursdayism )

 

[toff]

I haven't a clue and i don't care!
Creationists are people too! We're not some vermin that should die off soon!
All of our points are just as valid as yours!

Yes, creationists are people. Nobody was suggesting either that they are vermin or that they should die off soon.

And no, all your point are not as valid as ours - they are not valid at all. The ONLY support for creationism is biblical.

 

[Freodin]

I haven't a clue and i don't care!
Creationists are people too! We're not some vermin that should die off soon!
All of our points are just as valid as yours!

Hate the idea - love the mind that holds it.

Creationism is NOT valid - that is the point. The only way to make it valid is to invoke a God that hides the evidence - which shifts it from bad science to bad theology.

That is the point of falsification: there are some points that simply cannot be true if creationism is correct. Yet we see these points as true every time we bother to check.

There is no proof in science - only falsification. But that is enough to sort out the wrong hypothesises.

 

[michabo]

Creationists are people too! We're not some vermin that should die off soon!

Of course we don't want you to die! It would be nice if creationism died off, but I imagine you feel the same about evolution, so no hard feelings.

All of our points are just as valid as yours!

And what points would those be?

 

[danaman5]

Why are 90% of creationists 16 year old girls? I mean, I am 16 too, but I don't delve too much into science as it is not my strong field. If you have points that are "just as valid" as the evidence for evolution, then start a new thread and present them. And, by the way, if one of your points involves the second law of thermodynamics in any way, don't bring it up. No, I'm not going to explain, just trust me on this one.

 

[Arikay]

The idea of a worldwide flood was falsified about 150 years ago (thats before darwin). By christians. It was basically the discovery of the geological column (which does exist in its full length, many places in the world). I can't remember his name now, but the man who discovered it got rich off of it, because he used it to predict where they would find oil. This find was amazing for geology and helped shape future science.
Just the same, when Darwin wrote his famous book he was a christian and the big bang was originally thought up by a christian as well. So, if you ever hear that these ideas are "atheistic" ideas, just think about where they came from. Theists in general have been at the head of many major discoveries.

The world wide flood model failed to explain the organization of fossils and rocks (and still fails to explain it today). leading to practically all geologists dropping the flood model by the end of the 19th century.

It is believed that this discovery that the flood was not literal, helped lead him into a depression over life and christianity and its end result was his suicide. So, yes, there is a danger to say "the flood is literal or the bible is false."

It also should be noted that I wasn't baised against creationism when I came here. I originally asked multiple times for evidence for creationism, I recieved none. I then started reading creationist sites and studying what they said and found out that most of it was untrue. So there may appear to be a bias towards creationism, but that is because many here have studied it and found it to be false. Just like there is generally a bias against spontaneous generation, because people have studied it and found it to be false.

Aaaahhhh! Are ilwjc and i the only creationists on this forum?
If so, then this is a little unfair. Obviously things are going to be biased against creationism.

And whats all this about creationism being abandoned by Christians years ago?!! If thats what you think, then you obviously know as little about creationism as i supposedly know about evolution.

 

[HGreen]

I apologize if this has been brought up before but I haven't have the time to read through all of this post. This is directed to Creationist2004 (rather catchy). Evolution is rather soild, however its current weakest points rest on highly complex structural formations. If you have the time do some research on the wings of birds and ask an evolutionist (an open and educated one) on the transitional fossils that show evidence for the hollow bones a bird needs to fly. I believe so far that there is little if any evidence. Hope this helps.

 

[franklin]

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.

Let's assume for argument sake that God does exist, why don't you think He would use evolution as an ongoing life changing, creating process ?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Creationism HAS been abandoned by the vast majority of christians, world-wide. Everywhere except the US, it is a VERY tiny percentage of christians, viewed by others as akin to flat-earthers.

Actually, YECs make up anywhere from 40-60% of the U.S. population (depending on which polls you subscribe to).

 

[toff]

Actually, YECs make up anywhere from 40-60% of the U.S. population (depending on which polls you subscribe to).

Yes, I know. I think everyone in here does.

 

[USincognito]

Note to creationists making your first forrays into Creation/Evolution debates on line - If your opening gambit is mincing over "theory" it doesn't hold out much hope for your future success.

How about just firing a salvo directly into the evidences for evolution and sink it rather than just playing semantic games?

 

[MissFirerose]

Actually, YECs make up anywhere from 40-60% of the U.S. population (depending on which polls you subscribe to).

That's quite a disturbing fact. I blame it on the bad public schools.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Yes, I know. I think everyone in here does.

Oops, I misread your post. I thought you referring to a tiny percentage of U.S. residents... my bad, carry on. :o

 

[toff]

Oops, I misread your post. I thought you referring to a tiny percentage of U.S. residents... my bad, carry on. :o

Ah, I getcha...wondered why you were pointing out something that's pretty general knowledge around here. Looking back at my post it wouldn't be hard to read it the way you did.

 

[Adam Kadamon]

Creationist2004:

How are those notes coming along?

If you wish to 'debate' us, then this debate will be over before it started. Debates are nothing more than who sounds more convincing and throws up the best/most information. There are no winners or losers.

In dicussions, however, there are usually only winners. If all parties are willing to learn. There's no reason to turn what could be a healthy dicussion into a fight.

I wouldn't trust all the creationists on this board. Some of them just end up grabbing at straws. One of my favourite agruments has to be:

"Because [insert name of mass murderer] believed in evolution that means evolution is not only wrong, but harmful."

And no name calling. We are not EVILutionists and you are not CRETINists.

Now...I'm off to get dinner. Yes. 11pm and I'm just having dinner XP

 

[Meatros]

All of our points are just as valid as yours!

In what sense of the word are the creationist's points valid?

So far, it looks like your arguments are all going to be PRATT's. You've brought up your ignorance (no offense) on how scientists use the term 'theory', which can only embarrass you. What other arguments do you have?

2LoT? More and more scientists are discarding evolution in favor of creationism every day? If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Darwin converted on his death bed?

 

[SVRP]

Until someone else takes up the banner for the “theory of creation” (or until Creationist2004 can find his/her notes for this debate), maybe someone can take some thought into the following and comment:

In 1981, the British Museum of Natural History in London, England, marked its one hundredth anniversary with a new exhibit on evolution. Upon entering the exhibition hall, a flickering set of lights shone on these words:

Have you ever wondered why there are so many different kinds of living things?
One idea is that all the living things we see today have EVOLVED from a distant ancestor by a process of gradual change.
How could evolution have occurred? How could one species change into another?
The exhibition in this hall looks at one possible explanation — the explanation first thought of by Charles Darwin.

One of the world’s leading scientific journals, Nature, quickly ran an editorial in response to the museum’s suggestion that evolution by natural selection was only one of a number of possible explanations. The journal’s editorial was titled “Darwin’s Death in South Kensington.” (Nature, p.735, February, 26, 1981) The editor quoted a phrase from the museum’s brochure, “If the theory of evolution is true,” as evidence of the Museum’s “rot.” The editorial continued:

The new exhibition policy, the museum’s chief interaction with the outside world, is being developed in some degree of isolation from the museum’s staff of distinguished biologists, most of whom would rather lose their right hands than begin a sentence with the phrase, “If the theory of evolution is true. . . .”

Two weeks later, this editorial solicited the following response from the museum:

Sir — As working biologists at the British Museum of Natural History we were astonished to read your editorial “Darwin’s Death in South Kensington.” How is it that a journal such as yours that is devoted to science and its practice can advocate that theory be presented as fact? This is the stuff of prejudice, not science, and as scientists our basic concern is to keep an open mind on the unknowable. Surely it should not be otherwise?
You suggest that most of us would rather lose our right hands than begin a sentence with the phrase “If the theory of evolution is true. . . .” Are we to take it that evolution is a fact, proven to the limits of scientific rigor? If that is the inference then we must disagree most strongly. We have no absolute proof of the theory of evolution. What we do have is overwhelming circumstantial evidence in favor of it and as yet no better alternative. But the theory of evolution would be abandoned tomorrow if a better theory appeared. (Nature, vol. 290, p. 82, March 12, 1981)

The letter was signed by 22 of the museum’s staff of “distinguished biologists.”


Any comments?

 

[Jet Black]

I agree with the 22 distinguished biologists. If a better theory came along with evidence, I would drop evolution like a rock too. I think their wording in the exibition is rather too cautious though, since so far evolution is not merely one of many ideas, it is the only supported one - apart from last tuesdayist silliness which could be supported by any evidence because it is just unfalsifiable.

 

[trunks2k]

The idea of a worldwide flood was falsified about 150 years ago (thats before darwin).

"there is no vestige of a beginning—no prospect of an end."
- James Hutton, the father of geology, on his years of observations of geological formations in the Scottish countryside during the 1780's

*continues to sing "No Contol" by Bad Religion*