Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[Davian]

Scripture is "wishful thinking"?

How is it not?

 

[Split Rock]

I wouldn't.

What you observe today is called "adaptation."

Yeah, we call that "evolution." That's why I like to say most of you creationists are really evolutionists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, we call that "evolution." That's why I like to say most of you creationists are really evolutionists.

I think limited evolution is a good term, but microevolution is just as good; only evolutionists take it much too far.

Give'em an inch, and they want a mile!

 

[1000Flames]

I think limited evolution is a good term, but microevolution is just as good; only evolutionists take it much too far.

Give'em an inch, and they want a mile!

We stole it from Creationists. Give 'em an "I don't know" and they'll say "God did it!"

 

[gluadys]

I think limited evolution is a good term, but microevolution is just as good; only evolutionists take it much too far.

But where does "too far" begin?

 

[EternalDragon]

Given evolution is something we observe happening today I'd say 1-4 are moot.

Um....no. Not observable.

Unless you want to drop the common ancestor, ape to man, fish to mammal inferences, and have evolution mean only limited variation in species then we're good.

 

[EternalDragon]

Said the guy who thought an atomic explosion was the same thing as watching an atom split.

Says the guy who thinks variation in species is watching evolution happen.

 

[lasthero]

Says the guy who thinks variation in species is watching evolution happen.

It is. By definition it is. So, I don't see how that's a very effective comeback.

I mean, I get that YOU don't think it is, but that's just another thing you're wrong about.

EDIT: And, once again, you ignored a rather pertinent question - what 'evolution proponent books' have you read?

 

[lasthero]

Um....no. Not observable.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider 'observable' in science? Would you say that gravity is observable? Plate tectonics? Would you say that the center of the Earth is observable?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Um....no. Not observable.

Unless you want to drop the common ancestor, ape to man, fish to mammal inferences, and have evolution mean only limited variation in species then we're good.

Wrong. We can observe large scale evolution in several ways.

You should learn about the concept of scientific evidence. It is an extremely powerful tool for science. I can confidently state that all scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution and none supports creationism. And I can also state the lack of any evidence for your beliefs is due the acts, or to be more specific the lack of acts of creation "scientists".

 

[AV1611VET]

But where does "too far" begin?

After 6000 years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong. We can observe large scale evolution in several ways.

Ya ... by playing Connect the Dots.

I refuse to play.

You should learn about the concept of scientific evidence.

Ya ... here's the concept: Pencil it in as necessary.

It is an extremely powerful tool for science.

Powerful or convincing?

I can confidently state that all scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution and none supports creationism.

I am confident you can.

And I can also state the lack of any evidence for your beliefs is due the acts, or to be more specific the lack of acts of creation "scientists".

No argument there.

 

[EternalDragon]

Wrong. We can observe large scale evolution in several ways.

I feel like I am waiting for the other shoe to drop here.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yeah, we call that "evolution." That's why I like to say most of you creationists are really evolutionists.

And yet not a single evolutionist has ever observed one kind evolving into another kind. While creationists have observed one kind adapting to its environment and simply changing appearance, yet evolution is called a science. Funny how that works.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Said the guy who thought an atomic explosion was the same thing as watching an atom split.

Says the guy who doesn't have a clue as to what fission really is:
Nuclear fission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, nuclear fission is either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts (lighter nuclei). The fission process often produces free neutrons and photons (in the form of gamma rays), and releases a very large amount of energy even by the energetic standards of radioactive decay."

 

[EternalDragon]

Says the guy who doesn't have a clue as to what fission really is:
Nuclear fission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, nuclear fission is either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts (lighter nuclei). The fission process often produces free neutrons and photons (in the form of gamma rays), and releases a very large amount of energy even by the energetic standards of radioactive decay."

Thanks, man.

I am amazed at the leaps of logic these people go through.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Thanks, man.

I am amazed at the leaps of logic these people go through.

You are quite welcome!

Yes, they are quite adept at ignoring the facts and making up things as they go as long as it sounds good if you don't know how it really works.

Sort of like their perpetual motion machine spinning against friction for 4+ billion years at the core of the Earth without an outside source of energy. Even though science says perpetual motion is impossible. Go figure.

 

[lasthero]

And yet not a single evolutionist has ever observed one kind evolving into another kind.

Please define 'kind'.

Says the guy who doesn't have a clue as to what fission really is:
Nuclear fission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, nuclear fission is either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts (lighter nuclei). The fission process often produces free neutrons and photons (in the form of gamma rays), and releases a very large amount of energy even by the energetic standards of radioactive decay."

Which is not the same thing as visibly watching an atom split, which is what I was referring to in relation to EternalDragon, who seemed to be laboring under the strange impression that watching a nuclear explosion was the same thing as observing the thing that caused it in the first place.

That is a large leap of logic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ya ... by playing Connect the Dots.

I refuse to play.

That is fine. But if that is the case you cannot legitimately argue against the theory. You are taking yourself out of the debate by not considering the evidence.

Ya ... here's the concept: Pencil it in as necessary.

Sorry, no time for willfully ignorant people.

You do realize that if your God was real that willful ignorance would have been one of the Big Ten.

Powerful or convincing?

Extremely powerful. If we did not have it you would not be communicating using a computer, or a mobile phone. Even the simple phone that Bell made would not have existed without the concept of scientific evidence.

I am confident you can.

Good. So we agree that all scientific evidence supports evolution.

No argument there.

Excellent! Now AV agrees that no evidence, well no real evidence, supports creationism. So let's see if AV will admit to being a hypocrite since he is using tools that were totally dependent upon scientific evidence and the scientific method to build.

 

[Split Rock]

And yet not a single evolutionist has ever observed one kind evolving into another kind. While creationists have observed one kind adapting to its environment and simply changing appearance, yet evolution is called a science. Funny how that works.

How many times to we have to go over this?? Define "Kind," and how we can distinguish them. If you cannot, then don't ask us for evidence of one "kind" evolving into another "kind."

Using vague terminology will not get you anywhere with scientists. Funny how that works.