Arguments Against Organic/Biological Evolution

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

ORGANIC EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all the different forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention.

CREATION, on the other hand, is the conclusion that the appearing of living things can only be explained by the existence of an Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the basic kinds of life upon the earth.

Obviously, there are profound differences between the theory of evolution and the Genesis creation account. Those who accept evolution contend that creation is not scientific. But in fairness, it could also be asked: Is evolution itself truly scientific? On the other hand, is Genesis just another ancient creation myth, as many contend? Or is it in harmony with the discoveries of modern science? (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? pages10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica, page 1018)

There is no evidence suggesting that humans evolved. No fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal--for instance, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.)

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." (Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)

Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]" (Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)

Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." (Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)"

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

:troll:

 

[fishy]

ORGANIC EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter.

Wrong no point in reading further. Start again.

 

[Alter2Ego]

IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS​

Definition of Scientific Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm



Definition of Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.



Definition Of Scientific Fact:
An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is ACCEPTED AS TRUE.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+fact

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Wrong no point in reading further. Start again.

Nor, I suspect, is there much point in her starting over.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't see any real arguments....just statements of objection.
An argument should show reasoning behind the claim.

 

[fishy]

Nor, I suspect, is there much point in her starting over.

Obviously got that right Jay.

 

[McBell]

I didn't see any real arguments....just statements of objection.
An argument should show reasoning behind the claim.

Really?
I don't give the OP even that much credit.

it is nothing more than a bunch of quote mining in a sad attempt at supporting their bold empty claims.

The real question, at least in my mind, happens to be: is this person so ignorant of evolution and creation that they honestly believe the nonsense they put in the OP, or are they so dishonest that they care not that the only thing they got right in the OP is the spelling of most the words?

Seems to me that neither scenario offers much in the way of honest discussion.

 

[Alter2Ego]

I didn't see any real arguments....just statements of objection.
An argument should show reasoning behind the claim.

ALTER2EGO -to- REVOLTINGEST:

I presented the first part of the argument against evolution in my opening post. It's not my problem if you didn't figure it out by reading it carefully. It's right there for all to see.

The evolution theory states that all animals in existence, including humans, evolved from a single organism. If that were the case, there would be evidence in the fossils--the bones of long-dead animals--showing one type of animal changing into a different type of animal.

I presented quotations from several paleontologists in my opening post--some of whom are evolutionists--and they've all admitted that the fossil record does not show any evidence of one animal evolving into another type of animal. Therefore, my argument is that the evolution theory is a nothing more than a myth. If you can present evidence to prove that evolution theory is fact, by all means present it for all to see.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

ALTER2EGO -to- REVOLTINGEST:

I presented the first part of the argument against evolution in my opening post. It's not my problem if you didn't figure it out by reading it carefully. It's right there for all to see.

The evolution theory states that all animals in existence, including humans, evolved from a single organism. If that were the case, there would be evidence in the fossils--the bones of long-dead animals--showing one type of animal changing into a different type of animal.

I presented quotations from several paleontologists in my opening post--some of whom are evolutionists--and they've all admitted that the fossil record does not show any evidence of one animal evolving into another type of animal. Therefore, my argument is that the evolution theory is a nothing more than a myth. If you can present evidence to prove that evolution theory is fact, by all means present it for all to see.

How does a snap-shot show change over time?

 

[Sunstone]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

ORGANIC EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all the different forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention.

CREATION, on the other hand, is the conclusion that the appearing of living things can only be explained by the existence of an Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the basic kinds of life upon the earth.

Obviously, there are profound differences between the theory of evolution and the Genesis creation account. Those who accept evolution contend that creation is not scientific. But in fairness, it could also be asked: Is evolution itself truly scientific? On the other hand, is Genesis just another ancient creation myth, as many contend? Or is it in harmony with the discoveries of modern science? (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? pages10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica, page 1018)

There is no evidence suggesting that humans evolved. No fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal--for instance, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.)

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." (Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)

Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]" (Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)

Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." (Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)"

You might be able to post something more interesting if you were to first actually learn something about evolution instead of first telling us all what you think evolution is. That you think you know it all speaks volumes.

 

[McBell]

If you can present evidence to prove that evolution theory is fact, by all means present it for all to see.

For you to ignore:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...109893-evolution-ask-your-questions-here.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/101633-evolution-evidence-redux.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...6685-theory-evolution-supported-evidence.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/94295-evolution-theory-evidence.html
​

 

[Alter2Ego]

Really?
I don't give the OP even that much credit.

it is nothing more than a bunch of quote mining in a sad attempt at supporting their bold empty claims.

The real question, at least in my mind, happens to be: is this person so ignorant of evolution and creation that they honestly believe the nonsense they put in the OP, or are they so dishonest that they care not that the only thing they got right in the OP is the spelling of most the words?

Seems to me that neither scenario offers much in the way of honest discussion.

ALTER2EGO -to- REVOLTINGEST:

The fact that you've presented no rebuttals to the evidence I presented in my opening post speaks volumes. All you've said in your post is that I'm talking nonsense. Prove it. Present your rebuttal evidence rather than stating your OPINION that I'm talking nonsense. Specifically, what do you disagree with in my opening statement and why? Present your evidence that shows my opening post is incorrect.


I WILL WAIT.

 

[fishy]

I presented quotations from several paleontologists in my opening post--some of whom are evolutionists--and they've all admitted that the fossil record does not show any evidence of one animal evolving into another type of animal. Therefore, my argument is that the evolution theory is a nothing more than a myth. If you can present evidence to prove that evolution theory is fact, by all means present it for all to see.

Own up lads, he's got us dead to rights. The TOE is just a MYTH. While all the evidence, evidence I said, points conclusively to the CREATION MYTH as being true.
C'mon hands up now, you know he's beat us. :biglaugh:

 

[fishy]

ALTER2EGO -to- REVOLTINGEST:

The fact that you've presented no rebuttals to the evidence I presented in my opening post speaks volumes. All you've said in your post is that I'm talking nonsense. Prove it. Present your rebuttal evidence rather than stating your OPINION that I'm talking nonsense. Specifically, what do you disagree with in my opening statement and why? Present your evidence that shows my opening post is incorrect.


I WILL WAIT.

Originally Posted by altergo
ORGANIC EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter.

Try that my little sunshine.
You just failed evolution 1.......................................never mind 101. :biglaugh:

 

[Sunstone]

ALTER2EGO -to- REVOLTINGEST:

The fact that you've presented no rebuttals to the evidence I presented in my opening post speaks volumes. All you've said in your post is that I'm talking nonsense. Prove it. Present your rebuttal evidence rather than stating your OPINION that I'm talking nonsense. Specifically, what do you disagree with in my opening statement and why? Present your evidence that shows my opening post is incorrect.


I WILL WAIT.

Fer Chissakes, Revoltingest and I don't even like each other, yet I have to admit he's right in this instance. And he doesn't have to rebute your nonsense. Anyone who knows anything about evolution --- which you obviously don't --- knows you are posing as someone who knows more about it than you in fact do.

 

[Alter2Ego]

You might be able to post something more interesting if you were to first actually learn someone about evolution instead of first telling us all what you think it is. That you think you know it all speaks volumes.

ALTER2EGO -to- SUNSTONE:

I presented the correct definition of "organic evolution." If you disagree with my definition, why don't you present the forum with what you think is the correct definition? Present your rebuttal definition rather than simply state your opinion that my definition is incorrect.

Several people have come on this thread complaining about what I wrote by stating their opinions. Not one single person has presented rebuttal evidence that my opening post is inaccurate.

I'm not interested in mere opinions because everybody has a different opinion based upon their personal experiences. In other words, opinions are not reliable because opinions change. The only thing that trumps an opinion is facts. Where are your facts to prove that my opening post is incorrect? You've presented none.

 

[Revoltingest]

ALTER2EGO -to- REVOLTINGEST:
The fact that you've presented no rebuttals to the evidence I presented in my opening post speaks volumes. All you've said in your post is that I'm talking nonsense.

Actually, I didn't & don't say you're posting nonsense.
My post is clear that I just don't see an argument presented.
I know you object to the TOE, but to discuss its shortcomings, we need more than you've presented.
I'm not big on debating (as opposed to discussion), so I don't offer rebuttals unless the thread inspires me. (Yeah, I'm lazy.)
Example:
In past discussions, anti-TOE types have discussed in detail the development of complex structures such as the eye.
We've looked at intermediate structures, & how new features arise from alterations to old ones. That was interesting.

 

[McBell]

ALTER2EGO -to- REVOLTINGEST:

The fact that you've presented no rebuttals to the evidence I presented in my opening post speaks volumes. All you've said in your post is that I'm talking nonsense. Prove it. Present your rebuttal evidence rather than stating your OPINION that I'm talking nonsense. Specifically, what do you disagree with in my opening statement and why? Present your evidence that shows my opening post is incorrect.


I WILL WAIT.

One: I am not Revoltingest

Two: organic evolution is the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms

three: "There is no evidence suggesting that humans evolved" is the same bold faced lie that has been pointed out and explained why to you on two other websites that I know of.

four: all of your quote mines are a quarter century old.

Five: your quote mines are quote mines

six: creation and it's AKA Intelligent Design are neither one science nor do they even come close to using the scientific method.

So yes, you are either far to ignorant of both creation and evolution to have an honest discusion about them with or you are far to dishonest about them both to have an honest discussion with.

 

[Sunstone]

ALTER2EGO -to- SUNSTONE:

I presented the correct definition of "organic evolution." If you disagree with my definition, why don't you present the forum with what you think is the correct definition? Present your rebuttal definition rather than simply state your opinion that my definition is incorrect.

Several people have come on this thread complaining about what I wrote by stating their opinions. Not one single person has presented rebuttal evidence that my opening post is inaccurate.

I'm not interested in mere opinions because everybody has a different opinion based upon their personal experiences. In other words, opinions are not reliable because opinions change. The only thing that trumps an opinion is facts. Where are your facts to prove that my opening post is incorrect? You've presented none.

You act like this is all new to us on this Forum. Everyone of us who has been here a while has seen at least 1728 idiot creationists post pretty much the same crap you've posted -- right down to the last falsehood. Get it? We've seen it all before. And it's still crap --- no matter how fresh it is to you. Save yourself -- and us -- some time: Go read anyone of the hundreds of old threads on evolution and creationism. Then you'll see you are just reposting crap.