Arguments Against Organic/Biological Evolution

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Most people don’t realize there are two types of creationists.

1. Pure creationists believe everything resulted from God and that the different types of animals were created separately.

2. Evolutionist creationists aka theist evolutionists use God only briefly, to create the first living cell (or first animal, depending who one talks to), after which God mysteriously disappears from the picture.


Atheist evolutionists don’t believe in the existence of God, period. They claim everything happened by itself--by accident aka spontaneously, and that from this “accident,” a single cell resulted. Then this cell supposedly multiplied--by accident--and eventually turned into an animal. (Some claim the cell turned into a sea creature of some kind and then made it to land and sprouted feet. Just use your imagination folks!) From this one single animal, all other animals evolved, they claim. But there’s a serious problem with this theory. And not one single atheist evolutionist can bypass it: How could a cell come to life from non-living matter from the get-go?

In the 19th century, Louis Pasteur and other scientists proved by experiments that life can only result from previous life. This scientific evidence was a crippling blow to Charles Darwin whose evolution theory is based on abiogenesis--the belief that life resulted from non-life without the intervention of an intelligent, supernatural God.


Darwin, in a February 1, 1871, letter to his friend Joseph Dalton Hooker suggested that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."

Darwin went on to explain in that same letter that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." In other words, Darwin excluded the Creator and proposed abiogenesis (nonliving matter coming to life by itself, without the intervention of an intelligent God.)

Although Darwin, out of fear of being ridiculed by his contemporaries, did not put this statement in his book Origin of Species, we know that abiogenesis thinking motivated what he wrote by what he said in that letter to Joseph Hooker. Darwin then attempted to kick the Creator to the curb in Origin of Species by saying the Creator merely created a single life form--and from that single life form, all animals and all other life forms (including plants) evolved, as follows. (Keep your eyes on the words in red.)


DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."(Origin of Species, p. 484)


Unlike the hard core Atheist Evolutionists that completely dismiss the existence of an intelligent Designer/God, the theist evolutionists aka evolutionist creationists insert God right at the beginning--to eliminate the problem of how the first living cell came to life from non-living matter. Then according to them, this weak, ineffective god supposedly stepped aside and allowed everything to evolve into whatever it chose to evolve into--without any intelligent intervention from that point forward.

Below are a couple weblinks that explain the different types of “creationists”.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolutionist

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_theistic_evolutionists_differ_from_Creationists

 

[Father Heathen]

"Conservapedia" and "Answers in Genesis" aren't reliable, credible sources.

 

[Nakosis]

In the 19th century, Louis Pasteur and other scientists proved by experiments that life can only result from previous life. This scientific evidence was a crippling blow to Charles Darwin whose evolution theory is based on abiogenesis--the belief that life resulted from non-life without the intervention of an intelligent, supernatural God.


Darwin, in a February 1, 1871, letter to his friend Joseph Dalton Hooker suggested that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."

Darwin went on to explain in that same letter that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." In other words, Darwin excluded the Creator and proposed abiogenesis (nonliving matter coming to life by itself, without the intervention of an intelligent God.)

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_theistic_evolutionists_differ_from_Creationists

New theory is that volcanoes and lightening were involved. The environment was much different then it is today. This was over an unimaginably long period of time. Countless lost precursors to life may have been created and destroyed before something came into existence that was able to sustain itself.

Scientists are trying to recreate the conditions necessary for abiogenesis but it's hit and miss because we can only guess at the conditions necessary. It may take a few hundred years but I suspect they'll work it out.

Until then no one can prove you wrong so you are free to believe otherwise.

 

[Alter2Ego]

New theory is that volcanoes and lightening were involved. The environment was much different then it is today. This was over an unimaginably long period of time. Countless lost precursors to life may have been created and destroyed before something came into existence that was able to sustain itself.

Scientists are trying to recreate the conditions necessary for abiogenesis but it's hit and miss because we can only guess at the conditions necessary. It may take a few hundred years but I suspect they'll work it out.

Until then no one can prove you wrong so you are free to believe otherwise.

ALTER2EGO -to- NAKOSIS:

So you've finally admitted that it requires a living, intelligent person to direct the outcome--even when all the scientists are ending up with is, as you put it, "hit and miss."

You've confirmed what I've been saying all along--that intelligent design is evidence of an intelligent person guiding the outcome.

Thanks for your concession.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Conservapedia" and "Answers in Genesis" aren't reliable, credible sources.

Uncyclopedia is much better.
Creationism - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Some evidence that we didn't evolve from apes.....

 

[Skwim]

I nominate Alter2Ego for most entertaining poster on RF, and this thread as the most fun, for the year 2012.

​

 

[Nakosis]

ALTER2EGO -to- NAKOSIS:

So you've finally admitted that it requires a living, intelligent person to direct the outcome--even when all the scientists are ending up with is, as you put it, "hit and miss."

You've confirmed what I've been saying all along--that intelligent design is evidence of an intelligent person guiding the outcome.

Thanks for your concession.

Not exactly. What I'm saying is we don't have the same conditions today that occurred naturally back then. So yes it'll take some intelligence to recreate the same set of circumstances.

After that, then we can theorize about how these circumstances came to be.

 

[PolyHedral]

Not exactly. What I'm saying is we don't have the same conditions today that occurred naturally back then. So yes it'll take some intelligence to recreate the same set of circumstances.

After that, then we can theorize about how these circumstances came to be.

Interestingly, a lot of those same circumstances appear to be present in the atmosphere... of Jupiter. I think we better get looking.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Atheist evolutionists don’t believe in the existence of God, period. They claim everything happened by itself--by accident aka spontaneously, and that from this “accident,” a single cell resulted. Then this cell supposedly multiplied--by accident--and eventually turned into an animal. (Some claim the cell turned into a sea creature of some kind and then made it to land and sprouted feet. Just use your imagination folks!) From this one single animal, all other animals evolved, they claim. But there’s a serious problem with this theory. And not one single atheist evolutionist can bypass it: How could a cell come to life from non-living matter from the get-go?

It's not difficult to see that this is all extrapolation, emotive language and straw man arguments. Here are some of the problems I've noticed:

"they claim everything happened by itself" - WRONG, they claim everything happened as a result of the natural chemical processes and physical laws that already existed in the Universe. This is not the same as claiming that it happened "by itself".

"this cell supposedly multiplied--by accident" - WRONG, the cell did not multiply "by accident" but, again, because of the natural chemical processes and physical laws of the Universe. If you leg go of a ball, does it "accidentally" fall to the ground, or does gravity influence the ball to make it drop? We do not yet know the specifics of how the first cell came to exist or multiply, but you saying that we claim it happened "by itself" or "by accident" is pure and simple dishonesty and ignorance.

"some claim the cell turned into a sea creature of some kind and then made it to land and sprouted feet" - WRONG, you desperately need to look up the basics of foot evolution: How fins evolved into feet - Technology & science - Science - Mysteries of the Universe - msnbc.com
This is not a simple, sudden process in which feet simply "sprout", and using such language to describe the process shows both your failure to grasp the scientific concept and the childishness with which you conduct yourself in this debate.

"from this one single animal, all other animals evolved" - WRONG, nobody claims that all life developed from a singular land-dwelling animal. Most likely life developed from a single population of cells which divided into several populations, then those several populations evolved over time into several different populations of multi-celled lifeforms, then fish, tetrapods, etc.. The point is, there was no one singular animal that life evolved from. To make such a claim is absurd.

"And not one single atheist evolutionist can bypass it: How could a cell come to life from non-living matter from the get-go?" - Why is that relevant to evolution? The existence of questions that we cannot answer (yet) does not discredit the position.

In the 19th century, Louis Pasteur and other scientists proved by experiments that life can only result from previous life.

Total garbage. How could anyone conduct any experiment that proved life - all life, throughout all time and space - can only come from previous life? And, even if that were true, does not that also consequently make the intervention of God impossible since it disproves that very thing?

This scientific evidence was a crippling blow to Charles Darwin whose evolution theory is based on abiogenesis--the belief that life resulted from non-life without the intervention of an intelligent, supernatural God.

Evolution is not based on abiogenesis. It is thoroughly dishonest of you to claim the two are dependent on each other.

 

[Alter2Ego]

It's not difficult to see that this is all extrapolation, emotive language and straw man arguments. Here are some of the problems I've noticed:

"they claim everything happened by itself" - WRONG, they claim everything happened as a result of the natural chemical processes and physical laws that already existed in the Universe. This is not the same as claiming that it happened "by itself".

"this cell supposedly multiplied--by accident" - WRONG, the cell did not multiply "by accident" but, again, because of the natural chemical processes and physical laws of the Universe. If you leg go of a ball, does it "accidentally" fall to the ground, or does gravity influence the ball to make it drop? We do not yet know the specifics of how the first cell came to exist or multiply, but you saying that we claim it happened "by itself" or "by accident" is pure and simple dishonesty and ignorance.

"some claim the cell turned into a sea creature of some kind and then made it to land and sprouted feet" - WRONG, you desperately need to look up the basics of foot evolution: How fins evolved into feet - Technology & science - Science - Mysteries of the Universe - msnbc.com
This is not a simple, sudden process in which feet simply "sprout", and using such language to describe the process shows both your failure to grasp the scientific concept and the childishness with which you conduct yourself in this debate.

"from this one single animal, all other animals evolved" - WRONG, nobody claims that all life developed from a singular land-dwelling animal. Most likely life developed from a single population of cells which divided into several populations, then those several populations evolved over time into several different populations of multi-celled lifeforms, then fish, tetrapods, etc.. The point is, there was no one singular animal that life evolved from. To make such a claim is absurd.

"And not one single atheist evolutionist can bypass it: How could a cell come to life from non-living matter from the get-go?" - Why is that relevant to evolution? The existence of questions that we cannot answer (yet) does not discredit the position.


Total garbage. How could anyone conduct any experiment that proved life - all life, throughout all time and space - can only come from previous life? And, even if that were true, does not that also consequently make the intervention of God impossible since it disproves that very thing?


Evolution is not based on abiogenesis. It is thoroughly dishonest of you to claim the two are dependent on each other.

ALTER2EGO -to- IMMORTALFLAME

What are you getting all excited about? That's how Darwin told the tale, and that's how the tale is being told by the evolutionists in the scientific community today--as we speak. I'm simply repeating it and moving the story along by referring to the feet sprouting. I didn't say it sprouted immediately, I simply said it sprouted. If I have to do this in slow motion, starting with how the amino acids blended up in the ocean and became slime, which gradually turned into this or that, which then evolved into fins, and then feet, I could be here all day.

BTW: I notice you keep referring to "natural chemical processes and physical laws that already existed in the Universe." Pray tell, how did these "natural processes and physical laws" come into existence? You do realize that what LAW means; don't you? It's the opposite of "accident" and indicates someone intelligent directed the outcome.

And what do you mean when you say all life didn't result from a single land dwelling animal? That's what Charles Darwin claimed. That's the going theory today in 2012.


I kid you not.

 

[McBell]

Plagiarism refers to quoting someone's writings and not giving the person credit for the quotation. I clearly identified all of my sources in my Opening Post. I suggest you go to one of the online dictionaries and look up the meaning of "plagiarism."

Plagiarism is using someone elses work without giving that person credit for their work.
Thus the reason I ask if your using other peoples quote mines without giving them credit for their mining efforts is plagiarism.

You use a quote mine the Jehovah Witnesses have been waving around for years.
Yet you give them no credit what-so-ever for mining that quote.

Perhaps you should read the WHOLE definition of the word and stop ignoring the parts you dislike..?

 

[astrocometman]

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.

There is more than an intellectual investment, if indeed what some base their positions on evolution on can be viewed as intellectual. An example would be declaring something a fact when fact is evolution remains a theory. To demand that it is a theory is blasphemy. You do not say something is something that it isn't. Evolution is not a fact. There are scientists who swear by it, notwithstanding the specter of its only being a theory remains to haunt them.

If evolution were a fact it would fit into a structure where numbers certify its validity. Evolution does not resonate when numbers are applied to it. The numbers declare evolution is outlandish. No one who speaks without flinching their eye to the effect that evolution is a reality wouldn't use the numbers against it as odds in any betting they'd drop a dime to lose. The numbers say NO.

Those who have a word to explain why numbers fit every science but evolution are invited to tender a reasoned flow of thought in that regard. Lets keep in mind however, when attempting to soothe the irritation that numbers bring to evolution consider attempting to rationalize the numbers isn't what you'd do if those same numbers were aligned against you at a table with your money at certain risk to lose. Las Vegas does not disrespect numbers, folks who swear evolution is impeccable as a science have no answer to account for how brutal the numbers are in proclaiming evolution has no value where probability goes.

 

[Iti oj]

alter ego ill 1v1 debate you on Toe and ill do it with one handed one eyed and one footed while drunk

 

[Revoltingest]

There is more than an intellectual investment, if indeed what some base their positions on evolution on can be viewed as intellectual. An example would be declaring something a fact when fact is evolution remains a theory. To demand that it is a theory is blasphemy. You do not say something is something that it isn't. Evolution is not a fact.

First, welcome aboard!
Second, to call evolution a fact is a defendable position. Evolution as a physical process is something we can observe
in the fossil record, in the environment, & in the lab. As an explanation for the evolution we observe, evolution is a
theory which explains things so thoroughly & with such predictive value, that it's reasonable to argue that it rises to
the level of "fact". Mutation, reproduction & survival of the fittest (ie, evolution) is used extensively by engineers in
designing new products & solving problems. Similarly, the theory of gravity is useful & factual, although in some
circumstances it is replaced with the theory of general relativity.

The numbers declare evolution is outlandish.

The numbers have no opinion on the matter. But if you'd like to venture a probabilistic argument, please do.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Plagiarism is using someone elses work without giving that person credit for their work.
Thus the reason I ask if your using other peoples quote mines without giving them credit for their mining efforts is plagiarism.

You use a quote mine the Jehovah Witnesses have been waving around for years.
Yet you give them no credit what-so-ever for mining that quote.

Perhaps you should read the WHOLE definition of the word and stop ignoring the parts you dislike..?

The original author of any article is the copyright owner--not those who use the borrowed quotation in their books or publications. This is the last time I will respond to your foolishness on this topic. Consider yourself ignored as of now, because you're pestering me needlessly.

 

[McBell]

The original author of any article is the copyright owner--not those who use the borrowed quotation in their books or publications. This is the last time I will respond to your foolishness on this topic. Consider yourself ignored as of now, because you're pestering me needlessly.

Yes, you have a long history of ignoring people who show you that you are wrong.
I am actually flattered that you put me on that list.

Sad that you still refuse to actually learn anything.

Fly along home and claim your victory.

 

[Sunstone]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Most people don’t realize there are two types of creationists.

1. Pure creationists believe everything resulted from God and that the different types of animals were created separately.

2. Evolutionist creationists aka theist evolutionists use God only briefly, to create the first living cell (or first animal, depending who one talks to), after which God mysteriously disappears from the picture.


Atheist evolutionists don’t believe in the existence of God, period. They claim everything happened by itself--by accident aka spontaneously, and that from this “accident,” a single cell resulted. Then this cell supposedly multiplied--by accident--and eventually turned into an animal. (Some claim the cell turned into a sea creature of some kind and then made it to land and sprouted feet. Just use your imagination folks!) From this one single animal, all other animals evolved, they claim. But there’s a serious problem with this theory. And not one single atheist evolutionist can bypass it: How could a cell come to life from non-living matter from the get-go?

In the 19th century, Louis Pasteur and other scientists proved by experiments that life can only result from previous life. This scientific evidence was a crippling blow to Charles Darwin whose evolution theory is based on abiogenesis--the belief that life resulted from non-life without the intervention of an intelligent, supernatural God.


Darwin, in a February 1, 1871, letter to his friend Joseph Dalton Hooker suggested that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."

Darwin went on to explain in that same letter that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." In other words, Darwin excluded the Creator and proposed abiogenesis (nonliving matter coming to life by itself, without the intervention of an intelligent God.)

Although Darwin, out of fear of being ridiculed by his contemporaries, did not put this statement in his book Origin of Species, we know that abiogenesis thinking motivated what he wrote by what he said in that letter to Joseph Hooker. Darwin then attempted to kick the Creator to the curb in Origin of Species by saying the Creator merely created a single life form--and from that single life form, all animals and all other life forms (including plants) evolved, as follows. (Keep your eyes on the words in red.)


DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."(Origin of Species, p. 484)


Unlike the hard core Atheist Evolutionists that completely dismiss the existence of an intelligent Designer/God, the theist evolutionists aka evolutionist creationists insert God right at the beginning--to eliminate the problem of how the first living cell came to life from non-living matter. Then according to them, this weak, ineffective god supposedly stepped aside and allowed everything to evolve into whatever it chose to evolve into--without any intelligent intervention from that point forward.

Below are a couple weblinks that explain the different types of “creationists”.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolutionist

[URL="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_theistic_evolutionists_differ_from_Creationists"]http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_theistic_evolutionists_differ_from_Creationists[/URL]

Have you ever read a book on evolution? They don't say what you say they say, but they are kind of interesting. Maybe you should go read two or three before you embarrass yourself even more than you already have.

 

[Iti oj]

alter ego ill 1v1 debate you on Toe and ill do it with one handed one eyed and one footed while drunk

sooo?

 

[Sunstone]

Yes, you have a long history of ignoring people who show you that you are wrong.
I am actually flattered that you put me on that list.

Sad that you still refuse to actually learn anything.

Fly along home and claim your victory.

Just curious, Mestemia, but has there ever been a creationist on this board who understood evolution? Do you recall anyone?

 

[McBell]

Just curious, Mestemia, but has there ever been a creationist on this board who understood evolution? Do you recall anyone?

not right off the top of my head.

but it seems to me that there was one who left because of the bull **** creationists like Alter2ego flaunt.

I will see if I can find them, but it was a few years back, if memory serves, so it may take a while....