Best arguments for/against evolution!

[Wryetui]

So. I want to know about it from people who are really into this subject and I would like to receive answers in a polite manner and with no intention of causing disputes! So, which are the best arguments for evolution and the best arguments against evolution? Do you think there are more for or against?

 

[High Fidelity]

I don't mean to sound abrasive, but the best argument against evolution is the biblical account of creation.

Just thought I'd state the obvious

If we can't trust God, who can we trust?

 

[True Scotsman]

So. I want to know about it from people who are really into this subject and I would like to receive answers in a polite manner and with no intention of causing disputes! So, which are the best arguments for evolution and the best arguments against evolution? Do you think there are more for or against?

Why do we need to argue for Evolution? It is a very well validated theory with mountains of evidence.

 

[durangodawood]

The best argument for evolution is that its supported by overwhelming evidence.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I don't mean to sound abrasive, but the best argument against evolution is the biblical account of creation.

Just thought I'd state the obvious

If we can't trust God, who can we trust?

How about the creation itself? I think we can trust that.

Just thought I'd state the obvious

 

[durangodawood]

I don't mean to sound abrasive, but the best argument against evolution is the biblical account of creation.

Just thought I'd state the obvious

If we can't trust God, who can we trust?

I'm constantly surprised how many Christians make their faith contingent on the literal truth of every part of the Bible.

It seems very brittle. There's no resilience in that position. And the whole thing could come crashing down if shaken by basic biological or other scientific facts.

Christians who accept that the Bible might include portions that are poetic or mythical, rather than literal, are in a much more secure position, it seems.

 

[Wryetui]

No satisfactory answer yet. It is my fault for not specificing "scientific" in the title. I don't believe evolution and I believe that God created us, but, there are a lot of people convinced about evolution so I want to hear their arguments, and there are a lot of people not so convinced about it and I want to hear their arguments too.

 

[Wryetui]

Also, sorry for posting this in the "Phylosophy" forum, I missclicked or something, but I meant to post it in the "Natural sciences" one, I didn't want to post it here, sorry for it.

 

[durangodawood]

No satisfactory answer yet.....

Do you expect someone to present a complete tutorial for you? Its a lot of work to do that, and you can easily find that elsewhere.

 

[juvenissun]

Why do we need to argue for Evolution? It is a very well validated theory with mountains of evidence.

NONE of the evidences will stand.
You can try one and I will show you.
I might have given you a chance before. You chickened out. Do I remember it correctly? If I am wrong, you have your chance now.

 

[RDKirk]

So. I want to know about it from people who are really into this subject and I would like to receive answers in a polite manner and with no intention of causing disputes! So, which are the best arguments for evolution and the best arguments against evolution? Do you think there are more for or against?

While this debate is an interesting pastime, you do realize, right, that the question is not really a necessity of evangelism?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No satisfactory answer yet. It is my fault for not specificing "scientific" in the title. I don't believe evolution and I believe that God created us, but, there are a lot of people convinced about evolution so I want to hear their arguments, and there are a lot of people not so convinced about it and I want to hear their arguments too.

Scientific theories aren't collections of "arguments".

Scientific theories are bodies of explanation accounting for a set of data within a certain scope. These explanations are testable and make testable predictions.

God-arguments (even creation-arguments) are just words. With no physical data accounting for it. This is why apologists are often accused of playing word games. Creationists resort to this, because they have no physical data that represents the words they use.

Science does. In fact, it's what the natural sciences are all about: to explain physical reality. To adjust your understanding / explanation to actual reality. Not try to shoehorn reality into an a priori dogmatic belief, like creationists do.


As to answer your request...
The best arguments against evolution? You're going to think it's cliché or cheesy... but honestly, there are none imo.

There certainly are a few arguments out there that are relatively, even very, successful at sounding sciency and completely confusing the audience, making them think that it must be true cause it sounds sophisticated...

But that's not what I call a good argument. That's misinformation and dishonest obfuscation of the facts and the actual science.

As for the best arguments for evolution...
Again, it's a collection of data explained by the theory.

It's public information, nothing stops you to study it properly.

In any case, I'ld say that the phylogenetic tree of life is one of the most encompassing pieces of evidence. It illustrates the grand scale of things quite well. More importantly, how it can be drawn independently from different angles (single genes, entire genomes, comparative anatomy, distribution of species, etc). You always end up with the same tree.

Next to that, the evidence is an enormous collection of small pieces of individual and independend data of specific things, all of which put together accounts for a massive pile of supportive data.



Creationists have no idea on how well established evolutionary biology is.

 

[True Scotsman]

Also, sorry for posting this in the "Phylosophy" forum, I missclicked or something, but I meant to post it in the "Natural sciences" one, I didn't want to post it here, sorry for it.

I think it's fine in the philosophy section. There is a very important philosophical question here. How do we know what we know? What is knowledge and how do we validate it. In the case of TOE the validation has already been done, by observing nature. Scientists do not actually have to observe over a long period of time to witness changes. They just have to show that there is a mechanism and that it is possible. They've done that.

 

[KCfromNC]

No satisfactory answer yet.

What do you mean? Several people mentioned the obvious - that it is supported by an overwhelming amount of physical evidence. See e.g. Evolutionary Biology: Douglas J. Futuyma, Futuyma: 9780878931897: Amazon.com: Books for a decent introduction.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So. I want to know about it from people who are really into this subject and I would like to receive answers in a polite manner and with no intention of causing disputes! So, which are the best arguments for evolution and the best arguments against evolution? Do you think there are more for or against?

When we look at the fossil record, there are many different 'layers' corresponding to different times. Geologists can order these layers in time (usually, the closer to the surface it is, the younger it is, but sometimes they get folded over or tipped sideways). When you look at the fossils in these different layers, they change-over-time.

This fact of change-over-time is the fact of evolution(1).

This fact requires an explanation. The modern theory of evolution(2) is the best explanation of evolution(1).

It is a bit of a shame that we use the same word 'evolution' casually to refer both to the event (the change-over-time) and the theory that explains it (the theory of evolution).

But ultimately, the fossil record shows that change-over-time occurred. This is the fact of evolution.

 

[pgp_protector]

Also, sorry for posting this in the "Phylosophy" forum, I missclicked or something, but I meant to post it in the "Natural sciences" one, I didn't want to post it here, sorry for it.

If you want a mod to move it, report your OP post and ask them to move it.

 

[juvenissun]

I think it's fine in the philosophy section. There is a very important philosophical question here. How do we know what we know? What is knowledge and how do we validate it. In the case of TOE the validation has already been done, by observing nature. Scientists do not actually have to observe over a long period of time to witness changes. They just have to show that there is a mechanism and that it is possible. They've done that.

Every piece of scientific information ever said by scientists is ultimately wrong. That is the nature of science. How can you trust what scientist says?

In contrast, it is much more important to focus on what YOU would say. If you said that evolution is proven, then you need to have it pass through YOUR mind, instead of the mind of scientist. Have YOU ever taken a good look on ANY of the so-called "evidence"?

I bet you, if you do, you will find out it does not work.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

There are zero good arguments against evolution. The fact people even deny it disturbs me.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't mean to sound abrasive, but the best argument against evolution is the biblical account of creation.

Just thought I'd state the obvious

If we can't trust God, who can we trust?

Thats not an argument. Its a matter of faith. That's fine. But lets call it what it is.

 

[juvenissun]

There are zero good arguments against evolution. The fact people even deny it disturbs me.

I suggest you try to eliminate those people so you can make a good contribution to human evolution.