The theory of Evolution is completely destroyed

[karzma]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lbwo_xwWTMk

watch that video once and I assure you, you will have second thoughts about evolution. that video proves that evolution is not real

/jokes


/ok now i am serious


i believe in evolution. anyway my religion doesn't matter this thread is about evolution.

I think evolution is real.

I will debate against people who think this video is proof against evolution, also the peanut butter argument if you think that argument goes against evolution i can debate against you on that too.

here are the peanut butter athiest videos for you to watch. if you agree that these videos are proof against evolution, i will gladly debate you too on these videos.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Q9-xOKBMgA



I WILL START THE DEBATE...

this video claims that evolution claims that that rock or something on the rock will eventually evolve into something.

that is WRONG. evolution talks about what happened AFTER life started, it does not talk about how life starts. Evolution states that if there is life on that rock, the life will evolve if that life has DNA. but the ENTIRE ROCK will not evolve, because the entire rock is not living.

 

[metherion]

I was really impressed with the first video very early on. He mentioned that he was going to demolish evolution, THEN PROVE GOD. That impresses me because most creationists assume that if evolution is false, Christianity must be true by default.

The video is, of course, mostly strawmen and bunk.

And in answer to something evolving: nylonase. Boom headshot, QED, next.

Metherion

 

[FishFace]

And in answer to something evolving: nylonase. Boom headshot, QED, next.

QFE&T.

That little sentence, by the way, is pretty much universal to evolution debates. More information, no novel proteins/functions, something evolving, observable evolution. Boom, headshot, as you say.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

It never ceases to amaze me how creationists think they can common sense their way out of one of the most solidly supported ideas in science.

 

[MorkandMindy]

that is WRONG. evolution talks about what happened AFTER life started, it does not talk about how life starts. Evolution states that if there is life on that rock, the life will evolve if that life has DNA. but the ENTIRE ROCK will not evolve, because the entire rock is not living.

Evolution has developed since 1859.

It has moved from just the origin of a species to also include the origin of life. Creationist are playing on both sides of the field as usual, claiming it doesn't explain the origin of life, and claiming it does and is therefore contrary to what Charles Darwin and Wallace originally intended.

Man, science isn't just the history of science.

That's school book science.

When someone starts a field of science it doesn't have to stay true to 'the founders vision' ever after. Science is not a revealed religion.

(I suspect the video is a spoof, see the poll on righteousresponse video)

 

[Mavros]

Evolution has developed since 1859.

It has moved from just the origin of a species to also include the origin of life. Creationist are playing on both sides of the field as usual, claiming it doesn't explain the origin of life, and claiming it does and is therefore contrary to what Charles Darwin and Wallace originally intended.

Wrong evolution dont even try explain origin of life

 

[AuraTwilight]

As said above, Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That would be Abiogenesis or Panspermia or some such.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I see, I was thinking of the principle of evolution which also applies in abiogenesis,

but I wasn't aware the definition of biological evolution stopped at that point (going backwards),

thanks, I've used that now in the thread righteousresponse video which I started to add a poll to what we are discussing here.

And, yes the last Harry Potter book came out today and I met a really big flood on my way into town to get it, couldn't possibly get through was about 5 feet deep and fast moving water, so I went way around crossing a huge flood plain where it went out instead of up.

 

[aspiringchef]

Wow, that clip was the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. I mean really. I believe more in theistic evolution, hand of God and evolution together. It's more practical and logical.

 

[sbvera13]

That video presents one of the oldest strawman arguments against evolution.

"Oh looky! I just disprooved this thing you never actually said! But since I called the same name as what you said, I can say I really did disproove what you said! Yipeeee!"

Scrolling through the youtube comments I see an invitation to debate on his website. Looking at his website, I see the "Make Donation" prominently displayed. What're the chances they're frauds in it for the money? There'd be no way to tell one way or the other, would there?

 

[Netbug009]

I love the Richeous Responce Squad, really I do, but if I was an athiest still and I saw this video I'd think the Christians are crazy too. -_-; There is a way to scientifically prove creationism, but this isn't it.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I love the Richeous Responce Squad, really I do, but if I was an athiest still and I saw this video I'd think the Christians are crazy too. -_-; There is a way to scientifically prove creationism, but this isn't it.

Really? I'd like to see it. All the science I've ever seen supports evolution and I have a degree in biology so I've seen a lot of science. The consensus of the evidence and of the scientific community is as close to 100% as can reasonably be expected by any idea that's backed up by evidence.

 

[Netbug009]

Law of conservation of matter states that matter can't just come from nowhere. SOMETHING has to be exchanged for it. Now, it's illogical that the universe has "just always been there" so it must have appeared that some point along the way. The problem is, the law of conservation of mass doesn't allow for this stuff to just start getting created on it's own, so technically we should exsist. However, science is currently not able to understand the material the spirit is made of, and for all science knows it coudl totall be self creating and spriti energy could for all we know be used to create matter. Therefore, use being created by a spirit (God) makes more sense than the Big Bang just happening on it's own. Beleiving is God is proven to be more logical than atheism.

 

[Elduran]

Law of conservation of matter states that matter can't just come from nowhere. SOMETHING has to be exchanged for it. Now, it's illogical that the universe has "just always been there" so it must have appeared that some point along the way. The problem is, the law of conservation of mass doesn't allow for this stuff to just start getting created on it's own, so technically we should exsist. However, science is currently not able to understand the material the spirit is made of, and for all science knows it coudl totall be self creating and spriti energy could for all we know be used to create matter. Therefore, use being created by a spirit (God) makes more sense than the Big Bang just happening on it's own. Beleiving is God is proven to be more logical than atheism.

See here for my rebuttal:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=36946021#post36946021

Please don't spam the same post all over the forum. Once is usually enough. If you feel you have to post it multiple times, how about creating a new thread and then linking to it where you want to make your point?

 

[Netbug009]

Wasn't trying to spam. Sorry. ^^;