Jump to content


Photo

List Of Strong And Weak Arguments Against Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
31 replies to this topic

#1 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 02 January 2012 - 02:21 AM

I'd like to compile a list of strong and weak arguments against Evolution. With evolution being mud to man line of ancestry. The arguments can be from an natural science or from logic/philosophy of science.

#2 TheBibleSender

TheBibleSender

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 02 January 2012 - 01:34 PM

That would be good. I am trying to come up with some strong ones to add to my video I am working on

#3 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 02 January 2012 - 03:43 PM

I will expand my response to fit counterarguments to naturalistic materialism, not just evolution, although evolution will be included.

Holes in Big Bang Theories.

Abiogenesis. Although it is not exactly evolution, it is the only string of faith holding up the belief in a godless naturalism believed by the Humanists and atheists. Generous statistics and logic shows that it cannot happen, especially given the time it is said to have happened in. We are supposed to believe it happened because we exist (circular reasoning).

Presuppositional Apologetics.

Examining mathematically, how many positive mutations and giant leaps in "evolution" (single cell to multi cell, prokaryote to eukaryote) it would take to get from abiogenesis to a human being. (its impossible given even a generous positive mutation rate)

Genetic entropy

Lack of fossil record support

Theres a start, off the top of my head. I am sure I could come up with more. I am not an expert in all of these subjects, but I could give more detail if prodded. I'm sure others here could as well.

#4 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 02 January 2012 - 06:42 PM

Finches varying in beak sizes. :)

#5 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 03 January 2012 - 04:39 PM

Weak arguments are anything which don't relate to the theory of evolution.

Anything that attacks the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Dinosaur soft tissue et all. They have nothing to do with the theory of evolution and whilst they are worthy of discussion on their own grounds, they do have no place when talking about evolution

Quotemining. When reading a quote from an "evolutionist" that appears to cast doubt on the theory, ask yourself this. Why am I seeing this quote? Stephan J Gould is often quoted in Creationist circles, but do you not think it odd that you only ever see one or two quotes from a man who studied evolution for decades?

#6 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 03 January 2012 - 05:26 PM

Gould was honest, thats why his quotes are revealing.

#7 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 03 January 2012 - 05:27 PM

How much of Goulds work can you honestly cite?

#8 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 04 January 2012 - 04:42 AM

so the soft tissues that are found in the hadrosaur fossils and the t-rex dont matter. no need to examine and compare dna to see if evolution did occur?


or the fact that dem bones cant be that old as no fossil would have soft tissue over a million years.

#9 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 04 January 2012 - 04:53 AM

or the fact that dem bones cant be that old as no fossil would have soft tissue over a million years.



This is my point. The Theory of Evolution makes no claim about how long soft tissue can survive. It makes no claim about fossilisation at all.

The animal in question could have died last week and it would have no bearing on evolutionary theory.

#10 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 04 January 2012 - 05:08 AM

makes no claims. so they dont claim this?



http://www.pbs.org/w...4/l_034_01.html

the fossil record suggests. and un the thread on that subject it was assumed that bones wouldnt have any tissue in them.

they make claims all the time on that.if the tissue and the scientist admit that evolution cant happen because all the soft tissues we have found seems to be so different that were are forced to say that macroevolution didnt happen.

dna tests have to be done and the theory checked or its not science at all.

i do hope your admission isnt denying this reality.

#11 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 04 January 2012 - 05:12 AM

Scientists now view Archaeopteryx, which lived about 150 million years ago, as the earliest known (or most basal) member of the lineage of modern birds, but it still retained many features of small dinosaurs. These small, two-legged dinosaurs called theropods scurried around something like today's roadrunners. Many characteristics that typify birds were present in the theropods before birds evolved, including hollow bones, a wishbone, a backward-pointing pelvis, and a three-toed foot. In the course of theropod evolution, the forelimbs and hands became progressively longer. In some theropods, the bones of the wrist took on a shape that allowed the joint to flex sideways. This would have allowed these animals to whip their long hands forward in a swift snatching motion, perhaps to catch prey. The wishbone in theropods served to anchor the muscles that pulled the forelimb forward in this grabbing movement -- a motion that functional analysis shows to be almost identical to the flight stroke of modern birds. Theropods, though, probably remained largely on the ground


from that link , the claim has been made that the archy lived a 150 million years ago and dinosaurs died out at least 68 mya by others

so if that isnt a statement of a claim then do show me what a claim is.

#12 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 04 January 2012 - 05:59 AM

the claim has been made that the archy lived a 150 million years ago and dinosaurs died out at least 68 mya by others



It IS a claim. It is a claim of PALAEONTOLOGY not EVOLUTION.

#13 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 January 2012 - 07:09 AM

Weak arguments are anything which don't relate to the theory of evolution.


Oh my gosh, a evolutionist finally admits to that? Geez, I need to mark this down on my calender.

In case you don;t get it. I have been saying here for a while that evolution is nothing but an idea based in conformism. Saying that: Anything that does not relate to evolution is weak is a conformism statement.

This is my point. The Theory of Evolution makes no claim about how long soft tissue can survive. It makes no claim about fossilisation at all.

The animal in question could have died last week and it would have no bearing on evolutionary theory.


Claiming innocence does not get you out of having no explantion.

It IS a claim. It is a claim of PALAEONTOLOGY not EVOLUTION


So we can remove all the evidence from palaeontology that supports evolution because it's not evolution?... Separating the areas of science at will just because there are problems that you don't want associated with evolution does no will the problem to go away.

Maybe the next time you post math to counter a creationist idea I'll say: It's math not creation. Would you accept that statement or would you say I was coping out to keep from having to answer it?
.

#14 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 04 January 2012 - 09:34 AM

This is my point. The Theory of Evolution makes no claim about how long soft tissue can survive. It makes no claim about fossilisation at all.


They do or have to do. To let the theory sound more plausible (not that it really gets) they depend on long ages and for that they have to attribute animals to ages long time ago. Evolutionists would face a major problem if the fossils from the cretaceous turned out to be thousands and not millions of years old.

So the point remains issues from different fields then evolutionary biology may still bear on Evolution, if it has relevance to the plausibility of the theory (or philosophy behind it).

I could address the other points, but at the moment I think we should still do brain storming and collect.

#15 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 04 January 2012 - 11:12 AM

Oh my gosh, a evolutionist finally admits to that? Geez, I need to mark this down on my calender.



That does not really address what I said.

If you claim "short period comets disprove evolution" You are wrong. You are not making an argument against evolutionary theory, thus it is a strawman. That is my point.

Claiming innocence does not get you out of having no explantion.



The theory of gravity cannot explain this either, nor can germ theory, atomic theory, the theory of electricity, plate tectonic theory etc. Soft dinosaur tissue has no more affect on evolutionary theory than it does on cosmology.

So we can remove all the evidence from palaeontology that supports evolution because it's not evolution?... Separating the areas of science at will just because there are problems that you don't want associated with evolution does no will the problem to go away.



The OP asked for arguments against EVOLUTION. Seperating the areas of science is therefore vital. Soft dino tissue is nothing to do with gravity, so would you use it to argue against Newtonian Mecahnics?

Maybe the next time you post math to counter a creationist idea I'll say: It's math not creation. Would you accept that statement or would you say I was coping out to keep from having to answer it?



What if I used maths to disprove somehting that Creationists didn't claim? What I I proved mathematically that Shiva didn't exist, therefore
.

#16 Legion22

Legion22

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 34
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • England

Posted 04 January 2012 - 11:14 AM

I could address the other points, but at the moment I think we should still do brain storming and collect.



This is an important point though, the timeframe of dinosaur existence is not relevant to evolution.

#17 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 04 January 2012 - 09:19 PM

I would have to list genetics as the best evidence against evolution beginning with the history of it until the present.

Mendel's law of heredity falsified Darwin's pangenesis hypothesis 4 years after the release of his book "The Origin of Species." Although, Mendel sent over 100 copies of his paper to libraries and leading biologists all across Europe, his science was ignored for the money to be made by Darwin's new and intriguing idea.

http://www.weloennig.de/mendel02.htm

Genetic entropy is an empirical observation made by hundreds of experiments.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=74637

Then, there is empirical experiments with fruit flies. With over 600 generations and more than 688,000 SNP's (single nucleotide polymorhisms) not a single beneficial allele has been observed to reach fixation in a population.

http://www.nature.co...ature09352.html

This proves that Haldane was stacking the deck in favor of evolution, and with a 688,000:1 ratio of mutations, it is conclusive that no species has been around long enough to endure that many mutations.



Enjoy.

#18 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 05 January 2012 - 03:12 AM

[/font][/color]

This is an important point though, the timeframe of dinosaur existence is not relevant to evolution.

No it is, the time frames are part and parcle of gradual evolution from mud to man. You are here to ADD to that lists and not to argue for subtraction.

#19 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 05 January 2012 - 04:02 AM

lol, if the evolution of the dinosaurs to birds occured that fast(within millenia not eons) then also man would have to quickly evolve and we would have histories of struggles of the different species as each of them would have left some trail.

conformism indeed.

#20 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 05 January 2012 - 12:25 PM

I would have to list genetics as the best evidence against evolution beginning with the history of it until the present.

Mendel's law of heredity falsified Darwin's pangenesis hypothesis 4 years after the release of his book "The Origin of Species." Although, Mendel sent over 100 copies of his paper to libraries and leading biologists all across Europe, his science was ignored for the money to be made by Darwin's new and intriguing idea.

http://www.weloennig.de/mendel02.htm

Genetic entropy is an empirical observation made by hundreds of experiments.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=74637

Then, there is empirical experiments with fruit flies. With over 600 generations and more than 688,000 SNP's (single nucleotide polymorhisms) not a single beneficial allele has been observed to reach fixation in a population.

http://www.nature.co...ature09352.html

This proves that Haldane was stacking the deck in favor of evolution, and with a 688,000:1 ratio of mutations, it is conclusive that no species has been around long enough to endure that many mutations.

Enjoy.


I agree. Other than the Word of God itself genetics is the very best approach to attack evolution. They simply cannot (1) observe evolution of one organism into another organism, nor (2) they simply cannot cause one organism to successfully transform into another organism no matter what method they use nor how much of a time frame they use to obtain observable results. example:

Posted Image

50 million yrs of 'evolution'. But which one of these organisms is not classified as fly?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users