Jump to content


Aig's 12 Arguments That Evolutionists Should Avoid


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_cms13ca_*

Guest_cms13ca_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2010 - 04:19 PM

Answers In Genesis has an article about 12 arguments that evolutionists should avoid:

http://www.answersin...s-evolutionists

What do you agree these arguments are relevant to evolution and should not be used?

#2 Guest_cms13ca_*

Guest_cms13ca_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2010 - 04:49 PM

Argument 1: Evolution is a fact

Biological evolution, which I believe is what being talked about here, is defined as a change in a gene pool over time and the common ancestry of all living things and how those living things changed over time.

Argument 2: Only the uneducated reject evolution

Agree, but those who reject evolution are erroneous in their reasoning or have irrational emotional fears.

Argument 3: Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution

Just because people changed their views about the best way to explain the facts does not mean that the new explanation is false.

Argument 4: Doubting Evolution is Like Doubting Gravity

Their argument is faulty, since evolution is testable and has been tested.

Argument 5: Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

I would disagree about the Bible stating the world is. Isaiah 40:22 describes the earth as a circle (not a sphere) even though the Hebrews had a word for sphere. Job 26:10 (KJV) simply says "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end."

Argument 6: It’s here, so it must have evolved

The same can be applied saying it must have been created.

Argument 7: Natural selection is evolution

Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution (a change in the gene pool) occurs. It is the primary mechanism used to explain the differences that have accumulated in different species since their last common ancestor.

Argument 8: Common design means common ancestry

Some types of commonalities (like vestigial structures, non-coding DNA) are evidence for evolution over creation, and, more importantly, evolution can predict not only the types of similarities we see in organisms, but also the differences.

Argument 9: Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

Any who believes the earth is old could make this claim, whether they accept evolution or not. So this argument does not apply to evolution.

Argument 10: Mutations Drive Evolution

Mutations can produce "new information".

Argument 11: The Scopes Trial

The Scopes Trial really has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of evolution.

Argument 12: Science vs. religion

The commentary says that "science" doesn't oppose religion, yet it states that there would be no reason to do science if we didn't live in a God created universe. Many religions are subject to proof/disproof by what we observe in the world. The proof/disproof only puts it in conflict with science when it makes predicitions which turn out false.

#3 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2010 - 09:18 PM

Biology teachers should use the patterns of phylogeny and the distribution of species across the continents in support of their presentation of evolution. Fossils make for interesting secondary evidence but are not essential.

The issue of the age of the Earth can be left for physical geography class.

#4 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 27 June 2010 - 06:40 AM

How many of these are used?

I've never heard any evolutionist argue the Scopes trial.

How many are not anything to do with the theory of evolution?

Science vs evolution and geological layers.

How many are only used by people on forums rather than the scientists?

Only the uneducated reject evolution, Doubting Evolution is Like Doubting Gravity, Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

That’s six out of twelve.

One of these I agree with is argument 6, It’s here, so it must have evolved. That is a tautology


Now which ones are used?

Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution – it does. Which leads to Evolution is a fact.

Evolution = mutation + Natural selection. Which covers natural selection and mutation driving evolution. Natural selection is the mechanism via which evolution works, so it isn’t evolution on it’s own and mutations increase variation which is what the NS works on.

This one is an example of something where more detail is required:

Common design means common ancestry

In this case, it is not just a case of saying it is so, but the particular details of the evidence. A soundbite like this doesn’t cover the point well enough. The devil is in the detail, as they say.

#5 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 June 2010 - 09:45 AM

Common design means common ancestry

In this case, it is not just a case of saying it is so, but the particular details of the evidence.


You finally said something that we both can agree upon. One hypothesis should have more evidence in favor of it than the other. In common descents favor we have the hypothesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs, in which case we should be able to look at the fossil record and find a dinosaur that fits the nested hierarchy. In fact, a recently discovered fossil fits the bill as the ancestor of parrots.


Macaw next to a skull of Psittacosaurus gobiensis.
Posted Image

This is precisely what evolution would predict, but what about creations prediction that a common designer would use similar components in a different kind of organism? If creation is true, then a beak could be found in a completely different kind of organism that doesn't fit the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution. And as predicted, the beak can also be found in Cephlapods. :rolleyes:

Posted Image

So here the details of the evidence is much more strongly in favor of creation and has evolution scrambling to explain common design by chance as "convergent evolution".

Posted Image


Posted Image




Enjoy.

#6 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 June 2010 - 01:16 AM

Oh, so you now think convergent evolution is evidence if creation?

It's in the careful examination that we see the difference.

Shall we look at the actual details, rather than the superficial similarities.

Bats and birds superficially look the same, but close examination shows that they are subject to convergent evolution. Same with marsupials and mammals. Evolution predicts particular forms of evidence.

Creationism doesn't predict anything, it just looks at what is there and says "God obviously did it that way" in a post hoc rationalisation. Obviously, if I am wrong tell me. Where within creationism is it stated that the creator will use similar things when creating completely different organisms?

Evolution has to have that detail or it fails. Creationism doesn't. If the creator had built marsupials completely differently (for example, like insects with mammalian fur) you would encompass that into creation. n fact, whatever evidence there is in whatever form, creationists can just say, well that is what the creator did.

Evolutionists do not have that chance. Obviously if creationiwsm is right then the creator has made it look just like evolution happend and has set it up so that people like me will be deceived.

#7 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 June 2010 - 09:39 AM

Creationism doesn't predict anything, it just looks at what is there and says "God obviously did it that way" in a post hoc rationalisation.


It predicts a pattern of similarity in completely different created kinds. Forensic scientists can see the signature of a culprit in crimes that are committed by the same criminal. Evolution predicts the opposite, but was forced by the evidence to explain things by convergent evolution. the eye evolving over 20 different times is a perfect example.

If the creator had built marsupials completely differently (for example, like insects with mammalian fur) you would encompass that into creation.


That would be the result of a retarded designer, something that blind random mutations would do.

Evolutionists do not have that chance. Obviously if creationism is right then the creator has made it look just like evolution happened and has set it up so that people like me will be deceived.


The eye evolving 20 different times already falsifies common descent, but you prefer deceiving yourself. It's not his fault you reject the truth.

#8 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2010 - 11:25 AM

The eye evolving 20 different times already falsifies common descent...

View Post


No actually it reaffirms it. You can predict which eyes will be found along different lines of descent. A better question would be why are their so many different eye designs. Why not design one perfect all-encompassing eye instead of many with strengths and weaknesses.

#9 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 June 2010 - 11:44 AM

No actually it reaffirms it. You can predict which eyes will be found along different lines of descent. A better question would be why are their so many different eye designs. Why not design one perfect all-encompassing eye instead of many with strengths and weaknesses.


Along 20 different lines of descent? Evolution predicts common ancestory, not different created kinds.

#10 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 28 June 2010 - 11:44 AM

No actually it reaffirms it.  You can predict which eyes will be found along different lines of descent.  A better question would be why are their so many different eye designs.  Why not design one perfect all-encompassing eye instead of many with strengths and weaknesses.

View Post

Why not create a population of robots? :blink:

How much would you appreciate the world if everything was the same:
trees
flowers
dogs
fruit
vegetables
etc...

1st person: Hi Adam, your tree looks great today.
2nd person: Hi Adam, your tree looks great also - how is Eve?

I suppose we could all live in SIM-world, that would be fun - NOT!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

#11 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 28 June 2010 - 02:29 PM

This is precisely what evolution would predict, but what about creations prediction that a common designer would use similar components in a different kind of organism? If creation is true, then a beak could be found in a completely different kind of organism that doesn't fit the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution. And as predicted, the beak can also be found in Cephlapods. :blink:

Posted Image

View Post


Compare that to a ducks beak:

Posted Image

They are both called beaks, but they are hardly the same thing are they?

#12 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 28 June 2010 - 02:29 PM

Thanks Boba for your valuable input :blink: :lol: :lol:

The intersting thing about the eye is the way that, for example, the invertebrate eye in cephalopods is of pone design but the mammalian eye is of a completely different design. One of these is better than the other, but both are found.

Its another case where the detail is very important.

Embryologically mammals are built in a particular way. That way cannot be changed because it has evolved. If mammals had been created then the embryo's could be built differently. The peculiar way that mammalian embryo's are built has left a permanent scar in our eyes. Cephalapods have eyes so much like ours except this defect is missing. This is because the embryo's of cephalopods evolved differently.

Evolution has a 'make do and mend' approach. It has to or organisms would die. Creation is not like that. Creation is a fresh start every time, with each kind designed seperately. We know that, because we are told that different groups are not related, they are specially created.

The particular details are crucial again. It always comes back to the evidence, and the evidence points to relationships that cannot be denied.

#13 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 June 2010 - 08:41 PM

Compare that to a ducks beak:


Compare the ducks bill to this:

Posted Image

Once again, a similar design being used in a completely different kind of organism.

#14 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 29 June 2010 - 01:22 AM

Exactly, this is like the bats' wing vs the birds' wing. Convergent evolution.

There are particular signatures that show convergent evolution. Check the evidence in detail.

#15 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 June 2010 - 10:45 AM

No actually it reaffirms it. You can predict which eyes will be found along different lines of descent. A better question would be why are their so many different eye designs. Why not design one perfect all-encompassing eye instead of many with strengths and weaknesses.


Along 20 different lines of descent? Evolution predicts common ancestory, not different created kinds.

View Post


So you're saying it's impossible for an eye to evolve separately along different lineages??? Because that's actually how it appears to have happened.

How much would you appreciate the world if everything was the same:
trees
flowers
dogs
fruit
vegetables
etc...

1st person: Hi Adam, your tree looks great today.
2nd person: Hi Adam, your tree looks great also - how is Eve?

I suppose we could all live in SIM-world, that would be fun - NOT!

I'm not saying design everything the same. Surely an all powerful designer would not need to compromise on eye design. Instead, it appears that first triploblasts diverged from each other then each lineage developed eyes separately.

#16 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 June 2010 - 11:07 AM

So you're saying it's impossible for an eye to evolve separately along different lineages??? Because that's actually how it appears to have happened.


I said that evolution predicts common descent and creation doesn't. If creation is true, then the different created kinds should be impossible to be produced by gradual slight modifications and when it was tested it was proven that there are at least 20 different eyes that couldn't have shared a common ancestor.

Whether eye evolution is possible or not or the probibility of completely different mutations producing the same type of sensory organ by chance is a seperate issue.

Posted Image

I'm not saying design everything the same. Surely an all powerful designer would not need to compromise on eye design.


How many times does the bible use the term "after their kind" ? And how many times do we have to say that it is testable and already proven that those different kinds couldn't have shared a common ancestor.

Evolution is the theory that says different kinds don't exist, rather they are nothing more than successive slight modifications of a common ancestor. And if one eye couldn't have came from another in the way that the theory predicts, then why keep the theory?



"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species



Enjoy.

#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 June 2010 - 11:22 AM

Good point Jason the probability of one specific mutation occuring is pretty much impossible, however as you said it is another topic ;)

I like the pic too :D

#18 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 June 2010 - 02:38 PM

I said that evolution predicts common descent and creation doesn't. If creation is true, then the different created kinds should be impossible to be produced by gradual slight modifications and when it was tested it was proven that there are at least 20 different eyes that couldn't have shared a common ancestor.

Whether eye evolution is possible or not or the probibility of completely different mutations producing the same type of sensory organ by chance is a seperate issue.

View Post


Evolution does not say everything with an eye shares a common ancestor with the first organism with an eye. Nobody would ever say that. Eyes have evolved independently along separate lineages.

How many times does the bible use the term "after their kind" ? And how many times do we have to say that it is testable and already proven that those different kinds couldn't have shared a common ancestor.


Then why has no creationist ever proven it. The evidence for common ancestry has been shown repeatedly. The evidence for common design is vague and convoluted. This is why I get confused when anyone who accepts evolution gets all up in arms on this board or over on youtube. Evolution has won, and it did so decades ago. There's no reason to get mad, but whatever, that's a different discussion.

#19 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 29 June 2010 - 04:20 PM

Evolution does not say everything with an eye shares a common ancestor with the first organism with an eye.  Nobody would ever say that.  Eyes have evolved independently along separate lineages. 

Then why has no creationist ever proven it.  The evidence for common ancestry has been shown repeatedly.  The evidence for common design is vague and convoluted.  This is why I get confused when anyone who accepts evolution gets all up in arms on this board or over on youtube.  Evolution has won, and it did so decades ago.  There's no reason to get mad, but whatever, that's a different discussion.

View Post

My confusion stems from the exact opposite viewpoint, common design is so simple to understand:
two eyes
- does anything exist that has more? less?
- if evolution were true, I would think there would be many examples with one, others with three, four or five.

And the various eyes?
One eye evolving is so far out of the realm of possibility that to think that all the different eyes were not designed with purpose is just beyond comprehension!

Why is it that ALL mobile creatures have eyes?
(I'm talking about walking, running, type creatures - not worms, slugs.)

Why aren't there any fish with real arms?
(and not the so-called "handfish", those are still just fins)

Why aren't there some clawed horses?

When there are similarities, it is so simple to realize that God used same/similar features in various creatures.

Who has kids that play with Lego's?
Who has played with Lego's theirself?
I have!

You might have 2 or 3 Lego kits, so you build those items following the directions. But then you disassemble the items and build your own stuff, using pieces/parts from other kits.

The big difference is that God didn't have to disassemble anything, He had unlimited resources.

It's logical. It's rational. It makes perfect sense.

#20 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 June 2010 - 08:31 PM

Evolution does not say everything with an eye shares a common ancestor with the first organism with an eye. Nobody would ever say that.


They did before it was proven that they didn't.

Then why has no creationist ever proven it.


Now you don't believe the eye had to evolve at least 20 different times?

The evolution of the eye has been a subject of significant study, as a distinctive example of a homologous organ present in a wide variety of taxa. Certain components of the eye, such as the visual pigments, appear to have a common ancestry – that is, they evolved once, before the animals radiated. However, complex, image-forming eyes evolved some 50 to 100 times – using many of the same proteins and genetic toolkits in their construction.


The evidence for common ancestry has been shown repeatedly.


50 to 100 times?

Evolution has won, and it did so decades ago.


I wasn't aware that truth was some kind of competition. In that case, it is easy to see why empiricism is no longer a part of evolution - there isn't anything left to test and falsify.

My confusion stems from the exact opposite viewpoint, common design is so simple to understand:
two eyes
- does anything exist that has more? less?
- if evolution were true, I would think there would be many examples with one, others with three, four or five.


Spiders have numerous eyes.

Posted Image






Enjoy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users