Sure, why not..I need some time to relax. I will try to be as thorough as possible
Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory is that there is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex. How can matter just become alive and so complex?
There are multiple problems with this statement, but lets begin with the simplest and work out way down.
The theory of Evolution doesn't really need to explain abiogenesis(creation of life from inanimate matter). Why not?
Does the theory of Astronomy need to explain the origins of the Universe?
You might not believe in the big bang, but I think we can all agree that there are stars, galaxies and other solar systems out there. The "Big Bang Theory" is a theory to explain the beginning of the Universe, but Astronomy can function without an assumption of the big bang. The same goes for evolutionary biology.
They are also wrong to assume that there is no adequate explanation. There is a fairly good explanation. The argument goes that proteins assembled in such a way that they created DNA. This is both plausible and feasible. It would be extremely rare, but you cannot use that as an argument against something occurring. i.e. If I told you I had flipped a coin and gotten "heads" 20 times in a row, you couldn't use the rarity of the event to argue that it didn't occur.
It is also important to point out that life didn't suddenly become so complex. It took billions of years for eukaryotic cells to emerge(eukaryotic or "multi-celled" organisms). Think about that. The world was covered, literally covered, with bacteria and it still took BILLIONS of years for the multi-celled organisms to evolve. In this case you are dealing with quantities you cannot even begin to understand, and a very long period of time. If you do the statistics, it almost becomes a inevitable that evolution would take place
QUOTE
2) The other one is the fossil record, our ONLY documentation of whether evolution ACTUALLY occurred in the past BTW, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present.
This is a bad argument. It doesn't make any sense.
I can prove it.
Hypothetically, lets say that squirrels evolved into humans. I want you to pretend that they did.
Now.....
What would be a "transitional fossil" between a squirrel and a human?
What would this fossil/organism look like?
You probably wont answer this question, so let me try to elaborate.
The fossil would look partially like a squirrel and partially like a human. It would look like a "fully-formed" organism. It would look like some freak with a squirrel head sitting on the shoulders next to a human head.
The whole argument about transitional fossils is a red herring or strawman argument.
Creationists just say "there are no real transitional fossils", but then you forget to define what a "transitional fossil" is and what it would look like.
I could easily say "there are no real rabbits", and then tell you that every rabbit you show me is not a "real rabbit".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2) The other one is the fossil record, our ONLY documentation of whether evolution ACTUALLY occurred in the past BTW, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. |
This is a bad argument. It doesn't make any sense.
I can prove it.
Hypothetically, lets say that squirrels evolved into humans. I want you to pretend that they did.
Now.....
What would be a "transitional fossil" between a squirrel and a human?
What would this fossil/organism look like?
You probably wont answer this question, so let me try to elaborate.
The fossil would look partially like a squirrel and partially like a human. It would look like a "fully-formed" organism. It would look like some freak with a squirrel head sitting on the shoulders next to a human head.
The whole argument about transitional fossils is a red herring or strawman argument.
Creationists just say "there are no real transitional fossils", but then you forget to define what a "transitional fossil" is and what it would look like.
I could easily say "there are no real rabbits", and then tell you that every rabbit you show me is not a "real rabbit".
3) The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.
See....this is the same as my rabbit claim from earlier.
If you are going to claim that early hominid fossils are not "the missing link", then you need to define what the missing link would look like. You also need to define the morphological differences between humans and apes.
QUOTE
4) In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, the gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (snails and sponges), and fish (marine vertebrates).
This is both false and misleading.
There are not "Gaps". We have a lot of important fossils that demonstrate the evolutionary pathway that got us to "fish". You are right about the others, but that has more to do with mud than biology.
Our only fossils of single-celled creatures is large groups of them that fossilized(i.e. algae). They aren't particularly brilliant fossils either, probably due to age and the fact that it is ALGAE.
As far as complex invertebrates, we have a very restricted source here too. Every tried to press and earthworm into a clay mold? You are more likely to squish the earthworm before you make an impression on the clay. Thanks to things like the Burgess Shale though, we have quite a bit of information about these creatures. We also know about quite a few evolutionary deadends.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4) In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, the gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (snails and sponges), and fish (marine vertebrates). |
This is both false and misleading.
There are not "Gaps". We have a lot of important fossils that demonstrate the evolutionary pathway that got us to "fish". You are right about the others, but that has more to do with mud than biology.
Our only fossils of single-celled creatures is large groups of them that fossilized(i.e. algae). They aren't particularly brilliant fossils either, probably due to age and the fact that it is ALGAE.
As far as complex invertebrates, we have a very restricted source here too. Every tried to press and earthworm into a clay mold? You are more likely to squish the earthworm before you make an impression on the clay. Thanks to things like the Burgess Shale though, we have quite a bit of information about these creatures. We also know about quite a few evolutionary deadends.
5)The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.
Hmmm?
So the fact that diversity increases with geological time is not proof of evolution?
Did God just make more animals pop up every million years or so?
QUOTE
6)Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized, unless there is already a mechanism in place to build things up. But this very same Law prevents such a mechanism from assembling by itself.
This is just false and idiotic.
The Second law of thermodynamics claims that chaos increases over time. Chaos=complexity.
The second law of thermodynamics claims that complexity increases over time.
Let me give you an example. Lets pretend that I created a perfectly smooth and round rock.
My rock is a perfect sphere. That is a very simple object, lacking any sort of complexity.
What happens if I leave it sitting in a river?
The rock will become pitted, carved, and deformed. It is now a more complex device. Why?
Because complexity increases!
DNA is what has changed via evolution. DNA increases in complexity, not in order.
Lets pretend you didn't look at organisms, just the DNA. What would you find?
You would find DNA getting longer and longer and increasing in complexity. This would be exactly with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It actually would be a field of study known as information theory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
6)Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized, unless there is already a mechanism in place to build things up. But this very same Law prevents such a mechanism from assembling by itself.
|
This is just false and idiotic.
The Second law of thermodynamics claims that chaos increases over time. Chaos=complexity.
The second law of thermodynamics claims that complexity increases over time.
Let me give you an example. Lets pretend that I created a perfectly smooth and round rock.
My rock is a perfect sphere. That is a very simple object, lacking any sort of complexity.
What happens if I leave it sitting in a river?
The rock will become pitted, carved, and deformed. It is now a more complex device. Why?
Because complexity increases!
DNA is what has changed via evolution. DNA increases in complexity, not in order.
Lets pretend you didn't look at organisms, just the DNA. What would you find?
You would find DNA getting longer and longer and increasing in complexity. This would be exactly with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It actually would be a field of study known as information theory.
7)Then theres the Law of Biogenesis that says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but raw chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the FALSE impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter.
This is just weird.
There is a Law of Biogenesis, but Pastuer was proving that meat does not turn into maggots. In fact, his experiments aren't even applicable to the realm you are trying to ascribe them.
We have, in fact, "created synthetic life". We genetically engineer organisms. We have the ability to write DNA mechanically. Currently, we have synthesized a "unique" organism, but we have synthesized organisms.
Your research is a little out of date.
Synthetic OrganismQUOTE
8)For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory such as evolution that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.
Wrong again....
Scientific "Laws" do not exist anymore. Law was a common term prior to the last 400 years.
I will prove that a scientific law can be violated.
"Newton's Laws of Motion" are incomplete and inaccurate. Relativity clearly demonstrates that they are lacking.
Yet, they are still called laws?
Why?
Because they are old.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 8)For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory such as evolution that violates two laws of science is in big trouble. |
Wrong again....
Scientific "Laws" do not exist anymore. Law was a common term prior to the last 400 years.
I will prove that a scientific law can be violated.
"Newton's Laws of Motion" are incomplete and inaccurate. Relativity clearly demonstrates that they are lacking.
Yet, they are still called laws?
Why?
Because they are old.
9)
I mean, it's sooooo stupid. Science has laws to validate theorys, guidelines if you will. When 1 law is broken the theory becomes disproven or scientifically impossible, LET ALONE 2. I have just shown that evolution breaks two laws yet, they won't say it's disproven simply for the fact that that would mean there is an intelligent creator, and THAT CANT BE. It is just ridiculous. You have an enitity that is so adimitly trying to prove a theory that it's own laws says are not possible. Thats a joke. It's a conspiracy, thats what it is.
Now this is wrong in many ways.
First, science always holds open the door for new discoveries.
We don't dismiss something because it "violates" a previous law or theory.
Science TESTS the new idea. If it violates the old idea and is found to be superior, we throw out the old ideas. This happens all the time. The argument that violation instantly dismisses something is strange and wrong.
Science will only dismiss something if it proven false via data
QUOTE
10)Evolution was based on the rantings os the psychotic atheist Darwin. God only knows what kind of drugs he delved into during his oh so important fishing trip or what effect they had on his ideas. Didn't he convert back to Christianity on his deathbed?
The basics:
Darwin was not an atheist
Darwin did not "recant on his deathbed"
Now, the more complex truth. Darwin didn't want to publish his findings. Darwin was more interested in doing research than publishing.
The only reason Darwin published his findings on evolution? Someone else was about to publish the same theory.
Also, Darwin later discovered that two other scientists(of lesser renown) had published papers similar to his paper. He made it clear that they deserved credit, though they don't get any in the history books.
In other words, Darwin's name gets attached to the theory because of his popularity. Darwin was not the first to discover, the first to publish, or the most recent voice on the topic. Science gives its accolades to certain people and ignores others.
Seriously though, if you are going to attack Darwin, you will need to attack all of the other scientists at the time who published the same theory.
Bringer-of-Light
27th June 2008 - 07:12 PM
Maybe Newton's laws were violated because the man himself was a fraud?
PuckSR
27th June 2008 - 07:16 PM
You will have to explain that.
Who was a fraud? Newton?
Bringer-of-Light
27th June 2008 - 07:21 PM
Yes. How could anyone buy that heliocentric universe business? Its just absurd.
MjolnirPants
27th June 2008 - 07:32 PM
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 27 2008, 07:21 PM)
Yes. How could anyone buy that heliocentric universe business? Its just absurd.
ROFLMAO
ROFLMAO
ROFLMAO
ROFLMAO
ROFLMAO
ROFLMAO
ROFLMAO
ROFLMAO
EDIT: Are ya gonna respond to my earlier post?
GeneSplicer
27th June 2008 - 07:35 PM
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 27 2008, 03:21 PM)
Yes. How could anyone buy that heliocentric universe business? Its just absurd.
The BoL sock puppet was fun until that “jump the shark” entry.
Your Lucifer name is one thing, but this is just too much.
Bringer-of-Light
27th June 2008 - 07:39 PM
More double talk and baseless accusation eh? Can't debate me in the issues?
GeneSplicer
27th June 2008 - 07:47 PM
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 27 2008, 03:39 PM)
More double talk and baseless accusation eh? Can't debate me in the issues?
What debate? You post one nonsensical claim after another and continually cower away from direct questions.
And my accusations are far from baseless. Bringer-of-light is the classical reference to Lucifer.
Either way, you have jumped the shark as far as I am concerned. You took your act just a bit too far.
On the slim chance you are legitimately that dense and ignorant, either address the questions posted or continue to cower away.
Still amusing considering your name, deadbeat’s absence, your claims and all.
But please keep crying foul and posting the wise musings of a juicer or two
newguy
27th June 2008 - 07:47 PM
Bringer-of-Light: Although I believe that you're a sock puppet(I could be wrong), would you mind telling me what you do for a living? Thanks.
GeneSplicer
27th June 2008 - 07:49 PM
New Guy,
He's a professional temptress perhaps?
Bringer-of-Light
27th June 2008 - 08:03 PM
I work for the city. Why does that matter? Why are you hung on this sockpuppet idea?
GSplicer- It is not me who's cowering away from debate. You accuse me of jumping the shark and various other absurdities and expect me to debate them? Why can't you defend the scientific prophet Newton? Give it up. No one is amused, least of all me. I don't like being the brunt of your jokes anymore than the next guy would.
newguy
27th June 2008 - 08:10 PM
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+)
I work for the city.
Bringer-of-Light: Humor me(not that you haven't already)...in what capacity do you "work for the city"?
buttershug
27th June 2008 - 08:21 PM
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 27 2008, 08:03 PM)
I work for the city. Why does that matter? Why are you hung on this sockpuppet idea?
GSplicer- It is not me who's cowering away from debate. You accuse me of jumping the shark and various other absurdities and expect me to debate them? Why can't you defend the scientific prophet Newton? Give it up. No one is amused, least of all me. I don't like being the brunt of your jokes anymore than the next guy would.
Newton said the earth goes around the sun. ( amoung a lot of other things.)
Is that what you are disputing?
Please be very specific as to what you are disputing.
gmilam
27th June 2008 - 08:33 PM
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 27 2008, 02:21 PM)
Yes. How could anyone buy that heliocentric universe business? Its just absurd.
I don't think anyone seriously disputes that the sun is the center of the SOLAR SYSTEM.
As for the center of the universe... I would assume that if the universe is infinite then everywhere and nowhere is the center.
Bringer-of-Light
27th June 2008 - 08:35 PM
I'm an auxiliary employee so I do whatever whenever. Why is this important? are you aiming to get some kind of laugh at my expense? I'm also attending college.
Yes buttershug that's what I'm talking about. What's the problem?
Steveo
27th June 2008 - 08:39 PM
so are you saying you do not think the earth goes around the sun?
QUOTE
I'm an auxiliary employee so I do whatever whenever. Why is this important? are you aiming to get some kind of laugh at my expense? I'm also attending college.
That explains why you can make ~100 posts a day. I find it amusing that you think gmilam is being cruel. He is about the most well mannered form poster here. Even when you think he is being cruel he is still being very nice compared to some of the posters here.
MjolnirPants
27th June 2008 - 09:31 PM
Bringer-Of-Light:
I'm still waitin fer you to respond to my post-before-last...
Gary Gaulin
27th June 2008 - 09:40 PM
QUOTE (Bringer-of-Light+Jun 27 2008, 03:14 PM)
That quote came from one of the boards at getbig.com and I would like to see you defend it.
buttershug
27th June 2008 - 10:36 PM
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.[1]"
It starts off badly. It means nothing that certain features are best explained by an intelligent cause.
Science does not explain every detail but looks at every detail.
You have to start with the conclusion and then cherry pick information.
I read it and couldn't even find the part where intelligent cause is the best explaination.
Water in a mud puddle fits the hole that was there. Does that intelligence to happen?
GeneSplicer
27th June 2008 - 10:41 PM
QUOTE (BoL+)
Why are you hung on this sockpuppet idea?
Not hung on it, it just fits you.
QUOTE
GSplicer- It is not me who's cowering away from debate.
Yes you are. Several people have posted direct questions and challenges only to watch you cower away from answering. You cry a great deal about the challenges, but you fail to address them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| GSplicer- It is not me who's cowering away from debate. |
Yes you are. Several people have posted direct questions and challenges only to watch you cower away from answering. You cry a great deal about the challenges, but you fail to address them.
You accuse me of jumping the shark and various other absurdities and expect me to debate them?
No BoL, that was not a question for you but a comment about your laughable claim.
QUOTE
Why can't you defend the scientific prophet Newton?
Prophet? See, it is flippant and retarded claims like that one that makes you sound like a troll or a sockpuppet. It is difficult o believe that someone is so ignorant and mentally challenged to call a scientist a prophet and actually mean it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why can't you defend the scientific prophet Newton? |
Prophet? See, it is flippant and retarded claims like that one that makes you sound like a troll or a sockpuppet. It is difficult o believe that someone is so ignorant and mentally challenged to call a scientist a prophet and actually mean it.
Give it up.
Give what up? You mean challenging your trollish claims?
QUOTE
No one is amused, least of all me.
I’ll let others decide of they are amused or not. As far as you go, I could frankly care less.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No one is amused, least of all me. |
I’ll let others decide of they are amused or not. As far as you go, I could frankly care less.
I don't like being the brunt of your jokes anymore than the next guy would.
I have yet to joke you. You are, however, providing enough amusement all by yourself.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
How did you do in science class? Did you even complete high school? Have you read about Darwin and the history of evolutionary thought? I don't think you have a clue about the reality and broad acceptance among the educated classes concerning the FACTS of evolution. 
Why do we have to constantly repeat ourselves for every new Christian kook who surfaces here? 
Please review several entire threads dealing with this topic and READ a science book or two.
