ScottySatan
Well-Known Member
I think creationists could argue better than they do with a bit more knowledge. For example:
-Science rules more or less say that you must be able to observe something to prove it. This eliminates the creation of life and the big bang from scientific proof. We will never be able to definitively say how life started because no person was there to observe it. If abiogenesis scientists manage to create a cell out of organic materials just with old earth conditions, it would be a huge breakthrough. But, they still can't definitively say that this is how life started. The strongest wording that any scientific journal would allow is "this is probably how life started".
-Abiogenesis is evolution. Evolutionary theory does not require a thing to be alive. It just says that if a thing can replicate itself and change, it is subject to evolution. If some of those changes are successful, and it can become more prominent in the population, than it is going through natural selection. Enzymes made of protein, RNA, or DNA can do this. Evolution often asks "what did we evolve from?" what evolved into that? what evolved into that? The natural progression is "how did the first life form?". People who study abiogenesis for a living call themselves evolutionary biologists, and publish in evolution journals. A biologist with any interest at all in evolution should happily answer abiogenesis questions in an evolution debate. If you argue so strongly that abiogenesis isn't evolution, it just makes you look like you can't argue about abiogenesis because you don't know anything about it, and you would be better off just admitting that. That's what science does, after all.
-Don't talk about eyes as an example of intelligent design. Eyes are not complex, relatively. There's very little going on in there compared to...pretty much take your pick of any other organ in your body. Also, the eye is a terrible example of irreducible complexity. There are literally hundreds of degrees of complexity to the eye in other organisms as you go back to the more primitive. Microscopic parasitic flatworms have primitive eyes. Single celled algae like Chlamydomonas have eyespots, and they even look like eyes. I can't list here all of the hundreds. I would pick an eye as a prime example of how a structure evolved over billions of years, not as a counterexample. The opposite of what creationists do. If I wanted to make some kind of watchmaker parable, I wouldn't pick eyes as my example, I'd pick bones. I'd point out the microscopic anatomy of bones (more complex than you think). and how bones start in evolution fairly abruptly with the bony fish. Nothing similar to bone exists before bony fish, and most everything had bony fish-like bones afterwards. It was a rapid invention of a unique and complex structure, unlike the eye.
Hey creationists, I think I have better arguments for your cause than you do, but I still believe in evolution.
-Science rules more or less say that you must be able to observe something to prove it. This eliminates the creation of life and the big bang from scientific proof. We will never be able to definitively say how life started because no person was there to observe it. If abiogenesis scientists manage to create a cell out of organic materials just with old earth conditions, it would be a huge breakthrough. But, they still can't definitively say that this is how life started. The strongest wording that any scientific journal would allow is "this is probably how life started".
-Abiogenesis is evolution. Evolutionary theory does not require a thing to be alive. It just says that if a thing can replicate itself and change, it is subject to evolution. If some of those changes are successful, and it can become more prominent in the population, than it is going through natural selection. Enzymes made of protein, RNA, or DNA can do this. Evolution often asks "what did we evolve from?" what evolved into that? what evolved into that? The natural progression is "how did the first life form?". People who study abiogenesis for a living call themselves evolutionary biologists, and publish in evolution journals. A biologist with any interest at all in evolution should happily answer abiogenesis questions in an evolution debate. If you argue so strongly that abiogenesis isn't evolution, it just makes you look like you can't argue about abiogenesis because you don't know anything about it, and you would be better off just admitting that. That's what science does, after all.
-Don't talk about eyes as an example of intelligent design. Eyes are not complex, relatively. There's very little going on in there compared to...pretty much take your pick of any other organ in your body. Also, the eye is a terrible example of irreducible complexity. There are literally hundreds of degrees of complexity to the eye in other organisms as you go back to the more primitive. Microscopic parasitic flatworms have primitive eyes. Single celled algae like Chlamydomonas have eyespots, and they even look like eyes. I can't list here all of the hundreds. I would pick an eye as a prime example of how a structure evolved over billions of years, not as a counterexample. The opposite of what creationists do. If I wanted to make some kind of watchmaker parable, I wouldn't pick eyes as my example, I'd pick bones. I'd point out the microscopic anatomy of bones (more complex than you think). and how bones start in evolution fairly abruptly with the bony fish. Nothing similar to bone exists before bony fish, and most everything had bony fish-like bones afterwards. It was a rapid invention of a unique and complex structure, unlike the eye.
Hey creationists, I think I have better arguments for your cause than you do, but I still believe in evolution.
