• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evolution v. Science

Upstart

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
In my study of evolution, both the gradual developement theory and the punctuated equilibrium theory, I have come to the conclusion that evolution is directly opposed to science. While Creationism is oft sneered at as the organization of closed-minds, to believe in Evolution, you must first leap into the darkness of speculation and close your mind to prevent the light of reasoning to enter in.
 

Upstart

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Here are some reasons why evolution is not scientific.

1. The support of evolution lies in fossils, but according to evolution, they cannot form. Evolutionists claim that a level of rock strata took millions of years to form, but if that was true, the bodies of the creatures fossilized would have long decayed before they could be covered.

2. No transitionary forms have been found. This is especially disrupting of evolution when you realize that for every species you see now, there should be many more species that were the transitionary forms. None have be found.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Upstart said:
Here are some reasons why evolution is not scientific.

1. The support of evolution lies in fossils, but according to evolution, they cannot form. Evolutionists claim that a level of rock strata took millions of years to form, but if that was true, the bodies of the creatures fossilized would have long decayed before they could be covered.

2. No transitionary forms have been found. This is especially disrupting of evolution when you realize that for every species you see now, there should be many more species that were the transitionary forms. None have be found.

wow man.... seriosuly.. you say ur a grad student in science?

apart from the fact that there is so much more evidence for evolution than just fossils (we've discussed this evidence billions of times in other threads if you care to read them), your analsysis of fossilization shows very little understanding of the process and science in general.

#1 which is why it is so rare. Fossils form only when decaying bodies are immersed in sediment or petrified early on. Eventually the bones (being porous) start taking in mineral deposits which act like a kind of preservative. BAsically rock replaces the organice material, and what you get is a rock version of the organism's skeleton.

#2 transitionary forms are alwasy found.... they've been found of horses, cats, whales, humans, etc. Yes they still need more for constant reevaluation of the evolutionary timeline etc. Thats why research is still being done. Today, with genetic tracing and DNA analysis, finding these ties between creatures is becoming more easier (don't have to rely only on fossils and real world observations). and shedding tons of light on the evolutionary process.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Upstart said:
In my study of evolution, both the gradual developement theory and the punctuated equilibrium theory, I have come to the conclusion that evolution is directly opposed to science. While Creationism is oft sneered at as the organization of closed-minds, to believe in Evolution, you must first leap into the darkness of speculation and close your mind to prevent the light of reasoning to enter in.
Your study sucks. Try again.
 

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
345
Location
Midland, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Upstart said:
Here are some reasons why evolution is not scientific.

1. The support of evolution lies in fossils, but according to evolution, they cannot form.
No, evolution has nothing to say on the subject of the actual formation of fossils. Evolution is about the changes in genetics that occur over time.

Upstart said:
Evolutionists claim that a level of rock strata took millions of years to form,
That would be geology, not evolution, that states that.

Upstart said:
but if that was true, the bodies of the creatures fossilized would have long decayed before they could be covered.
Formed, unless I'm mistaken, by layers of dirt or mud being compressed, along with everything in those layers.

Upstart said:
2. No transitionary forms have been found. This is especially disrupting of evolution when you realize that for every species you see now, there should be many more species that were the transitionary forms. None have be found.
No, those who believe in creationism/ID just dismiss them out-of-hand. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html explains transitional fossils, and gives dozens, if not hundreds, of examples. As I said, those who believe creationism/ID just say that they don't count, that they aren't really transitional fossils.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, those who believe in creationism/ID just dismiss them out-of-hand
I beilve that earth was created, but i definetly dont dismiss evolution.
 

oracle25

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, those who believe in creationism/ID just dismiss them out-of-hand.
We dismiss them because these "examples" are complete b******t.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html explains transitional fossils, and gives dozens, if not hundreds, of examples.
:rofl Really, do some research why don't you? There are no transitionary fossils, get over it.


As I said, those who believe creationism/ID just say that they don't count, that they aren't really transitional fossils.
Please, we say these things based on correct scientific data. We have rebutted all these supposed "transitionary" fossils. Seriously, if evolution really happened don't you think we would find at least some fossils that are not either a extinct animal/ variations of an existing animal/ or two animals fossils mixed together?

I mean don't you think we would find some lizard with half legs and half wings? Or maybe you could try to claim that archeoraptor is a legitimate find :2funny:
 

Upstart

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I knew I was going to have to get my hands dirty when I started this, so here goes.

First of all, the horse series. Long believed to be evidence of evolution, it has been dismissed by professional evolutionists, although in schools it is still shone as proof. Eohippus, the dawn horse, is not at all related to horses and is actually a type of rock rabbit which is still alive in Africa today and was first classified in Hyracotherium with the rock rabbit. Another flaw is that the ribs in the linked species are constantly changing number. In Eohippus, the rib count is 18. Orohippus has fifteen pairs, Pliohippus has 19, and Equus has 18. This shifting of rib number is a strong indication that the series is not at all a series but merely an unrelated collection. Yet another fault is the location of these creatures. One was found in India, some in Europe, and most in the United States. The final blow is that specimens of Equus, the modern horse, is found alongside and even below it's supposed ancestors; that would mean that the "modern horse" is older than it's ancestors!

The whale is another problem. According to Evolution, the whale evolved from a land creature. The transition from land to water prevents the possiblilty. The animal would first have begin to evolve flippers and flukes, but this could not survive, as a creature with partially formed flukes and flippers would be unable to walk on land and would have spinal muscles too weak to escape preditors in the water. It would have drowned, been caught by predators, or starved to death.
 

Upstart

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
nkgupta80 said:
#1 which is why it is so rare. Fossils form only when decaying bodies are immersed in sediment or petrified early on. Eventually the bones (being porous) start taking in mineral deposits which act like a kind of preservative. BAsically rock replaces the organice material, and what you get is a rock version of the organism's skeleton.
They are very abundant. Any child can find them if he knows where to look.
 

Upstart

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
i believe in tranquility said:
I beilve that earth was created, but i definetly dont dismiss evolution.
Then what do you do with the book of Genesis?
 

Upstart

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
i believe in tranquility said:
what do you mean what do I do...?
Genesis says God created not only the earth but also the plants and animals.
 

Upstart

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
i believe in tranquility said:
yea........i agree and believe that.
But you said you believe in evolution.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
yea.......what does that have to do with anything?


i beilve that God created the earth in 6 GOD days, not 6 human days (a god day could be billions for all we know).
 

Upstart

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
i believe in tranquility said:
yea.......what does that have to do with anything?


i beilve that God created the earth in 6 GOD days, not 6 human days (a god day could be billions for all we know).
God created the plants on the third day, but did not create the sun until the fourth day. How could plants survive without the sun for billions of year?

Also, God created Adam on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh day. He did not create Eve until after the last day. Adam only lived to be almost a thousand years. He would have died waiting for God to create Eve!
Another thing is this: evolution teaches that lizards (or reptiles) evolved into birds, but the Bible teaches that God created birds before reptiles.
 
Last edited:

FluffyNinja

All Warm and Fuzzy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
4,831
Reaction score
1,625
Location
Miss-uh-Sippie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Upstart said:
God created the plants on the third day, but did not create the sun until the fourth day. How could plants survive without the sun for billions of year?

Also, God created Adam on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh day. He did not create Eve until after the last day. Adam only lived to be almost a thousand years. He would have died waiting for God to create Eve!
Another thing is this: evolution teaches that lizards (or reptiles) evolved into birds, but the Bible teaches that God created birds before reptiles.
Another literal interpretation problem that I have noticed with Genesis is that there is no point of reference for the first three days! Our understanding of a "day" is one full rotation of the Earth on its axis. Early civilizations measured this phenomenon by using sun angle. If there was NO SUNfor three days, how could days have been measured?:confused:
 

oracle25

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
FluffyNinja said:
Another literal interpretation problem that I have noticed with Genesis is that there is no point of reference for the first three days! Our understanding of a "day" is one full rotation of the Earth on its axis. Early civilizations measured this phenomenon by using sun angle. If there was NO SUNfor three days, how could days have been measured?:confused:
We are not talking about human measurements. We are talking about a general amount of time in which God created. Besides, doesn't it only make sense that God would use the amount of time that would be understandable to those whom he made?
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
oracle25 said:
We are not talking about human measurements. We are talking about a general amount of time in which God created. Besides, doesn't it only make sense that God would use the amount of time that would be understandable to those whom he made?

yeah i think God should come out with a new bible.. that gets rid of all the controversy... seriosuly.
 

Upstart

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
nkgupta80 said:
yeah i think God should come out with a new bible.. that gets rid of all the controversy... seriosuly.
Okay, sure. Next time I'm talking to Him, I'll tell Him that some pea-brain thinks His Word isn't good enough and that He should come out with a new version for the style of today.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Upstart said:
Okay, sure. Next time I'm talking to Him, I'll tell Him that some pea-brain thinks His Word isn't good enough and that He should come out with a new version for the style of today.

pea-brain huh...well it seems the christian world itself has controversy over the bible's teachings etc. I'd say a lot of people would feel some relief if He'd just come out with a simple, down-to-earth, text, sans the metaphorical bullshiit. Just a suggestion.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
oracle25 said:
We are not talking about human measurements. We are talking about a general amount of time in which God created. Besides, doesn't it only make sense that God would use the amount of time that would be understandable to those whom he made?

You are right, it would make lots of sense. Of course he could have used a n even more understandable human measurement: the year. Or maybe he could have jsut been nice and layed it out flat for us. universe is umpteen billion, trillion whatever years old. That would be much more understandable to us.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Upstart said:
Okay, sure. Next time I'm talking to Him, I'll tell Him that some pea-brain thinks His Word isn't good enough and that He should come out with a new version for the style of today.
Well, the creationists ARE trying to remake the Bible to fit their political agenda, so you are probably right as far as they go.:cool:
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Upstart said:
Genesis says God created not only the earth but also the plants and animals.
I agree, but that is based on my faith, not on science.

The difference between science and faith, simply put, is that science dictates that all its laws and theories are governed by observation and experiment. Evolution is a theory because is hasnt been positively proven by observation. However, it is a theory, which is more than can be said by creationism.

Do this. Create a theory of creationism and support it with evidence. You cant. Doesnt mean that evolution is correct, but with evolution there is evidence. The evidence can be argued both ways as to what it means, but the evidence for discussion is there. It is not there with creationism. Creationism is based only on faith, and it is not science to say that something exists because you have faith that it does.
 
Top Bottom