Arguments against evolution

[vz71]

In science theories are greater than facts.

No, they are not. You are mistaken.

Facts are then a penny, theories bring the facts together. In essence a theory is an explanation of the facts. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.

Here is where you appear to be mistaken.
A theory is simply something that explains the facts as they are.
Macro-evolution is not a fact, it is a theory based upon the physical evidence and facts that we have.
Theories can be wrong and often are. They are also subject to change as new facts are discovered that alter how we view the current ones.

The position that a “theory” can be proved making it a “fact” shows a lack of understanding of even the most basic science.
This goes some way to explaining why you reject evolution, you simply don’t understand it, or sceince. This is not a bad thing most people don’t ubderstand it, but in order to debate the subject one should have a basic understanding of it.

Wow.
I am impressed.
You have taken a nuetral argument and labelled it as a rejection of evolution, and you have also taken a swipe of my knowledge of science and casually dismissed me as too ignorant to debate the topic.
All in three sentences.

Well, not to taint your ivory tower too much, I have not rejected or accepted the theory.
As for the lack of basic understanding of even the most basic ‘sceince’…careful.
You do not know enough to draw the conclusion with any degree of accuracy. And that explains much.

 

[Dharles_Carwin]

Majority of Britons say creationism SHOULD be taught in schools

"The Mori poll, which questioned nearly **1,000 Britons **as part of a worldwide study of 10,000 people, was published by the British Council as as part of its Darwin Now programme, marking 150 years since the publication of Charles Darwin’s work On The Origin of Species.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...reationism-science-classes.html#ixzz0Vu266qHi"

Not sure what part of the uk the questioned. But believe me, im from the UK and i don’t know anyone that wants creationism in school.

I honestly didn’t even know what creationism was, i never even heard of it until i joined some american chat forums.

 

[Dharles_Carwin]

Science proves theory through certain **chosen **facts…

I can stop you there, science “proves” nothing. Like i said facts don’t prove theories, theories explain facts.

 

[buffalo]

If it were fact, couldn’t it then be proven without doubt?

The idea that evolution is any more then theory is dubious at best.

It is a philosophy.

 

[buffalo]

More than a theory you say? You mean like the Theory of Gravity?

In science, a “theory” isn’t a doubtful claim made with little evidence, it is a well-tested explanation for a set of facts. As others on this forum have said, it’s the highest level of scientific achievement. There are no greater certainties in science than theories (except perhaps individual laws). So when anyone says “just a theory,” implying that there is anything beyond a theory, it shows that they know nothing of science.

Let’s see:

If I go into a lab and I drop an apple it falls.

If I go into space lab and I let go of the apple it doesn’t fall.

It is testable, repeatable and predictable. That is empirical science.

 

[buffalo]

I take it you failed to understand his response. In science theories are greater than facts. Facts are then a penny, theories bring the facts together. In essence a theory is an explanation of the facts. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.

The position that a “theory” can be proved making it a “fact” shows a lack of understanding of even the most basic science. This goes some way to explaining why you reject evolution, you simply don’t understand it, or sceince. This is not a bad thing most people don’t ubderstand it, but in order to debate the subject one should have a basic understanding of it.

The sign of a theory in its death throes that only a few can understand it.

 

[Dharles_Carwin]

No, they are not. You are mistaken.

To a scientist they are.

Here is where you appear to be mistaken.
A theory is simply something that explains the facts as they are.
Macro-evolution is not a fact, it is a theory based upon the physical evidence and facts that we have.
Theories can be wrong and often are. They are also subject to change as new facts are discovered that alter how we view the current ones.

Fact - Animals reproduce with variation
Fact - More animals are born than the ecosystem can support
Fact - Some animals are more suited to there environment than others
Fact - All life get its instruction form the same molecule
Fact - Hereditary can be traced through DNA
Fact - EVR’s can be traced through DNA
Fact - chromosome fusions can be observed
Fact - All animals fit perfectly (never once broken by ANY animal) into nested hierarchies based on unique character combinations
Fact - The fossils can be traces through stratas (never breaking the layers, or the above hierarchies)
Fact - The earth is 4.5 billion years old
Fact - gene pools can become isolated
Fact - given enough variation isolated gene pools can no longer interbreed (speciation)

Theory - Evolution

The above is not even scratching the surface of the facts that evolutions explains. Tell me how could creationism even begin to explain some of the above.

Like Nested Hierarchies? Why was god bound to nested hierarchies when creating life?

Wow.
I am impressed.
You have taken a neutral argument and labeled it as a rejection of evolution, and you have also taken a swipe of my knowledge of science and casually dismissed me as too ignorant to debate the topic.
All in three sentences.

Well, not to taint your ivory tower too much, I have not rejected or accepted the theory.
As for the lack of basic understanding of even the most basic ‘sceince’…careful.
You do not know enough to draw the conclusion with any degree of accuracy. And that explains much.

Sorry but when you don’t even understand basic science can you blame me?

 

[buffalo]

To a scientist they are.

Fact - Animals reproduce with variation
Fact - More animals are born than the ecosystem can support
Fact - Some animals are more suited to there environment than others
Fact - All life get its instruction form the same molecule
Fact - Hereditary can be traced through DNA
Fact - EVR’s can be traced through DNA
Fact - chromosome fusions can be observed
Fact - All animals fit perfectly (never once broken by ANY animal) into nested hierarchies based on unique character combinations
Fact - The fossils can be traces through stratas (never breaking the layers, of the above hierarchies)
Fact - The earth is 4.5 billion years old
Fact - gene pools can become isolated
Fact - given enough variation isolated gene pools can no longer interbreed (speciation)

Theory - Evolution

The above is not even scratching the surface of the facts that evolutions explains. Tell me how could creationism even begin to explain some of the above.

Like Nested Hierarchies? Why was god bound to nested hierarchies when creating life?

Sorry but when you don’t even understand basic science can you blame me?

IDvolution - all of the above. The fantastic language of DNA set forth in the"kinds" fits quite well.

 

[Dharles_Carwin]

IDvolution - all of the above. The fantastic language of DNA set forth in the"kinds" fits quite well.

Fair enough, you agree with evolution but, evolution as directed by god. I have no issue with anyone believing that, however as it is not a testable hypothesis it is not science and therefore has no place in the science class room.

 

[buffalo]

Fair enough, you agree with evolution but, evolution as directed by god. I have no issue with anyone believing that, however as it is not a testable hypothesis it is not science and therefore has no place in the science class room.

Well no - I am not a theistic evolutionist.

Evolution = change. No argument there.

In the science class - nothing but testable, repeatable and predictable. I propose mandatory philosophy and metaphysics courses.

 

[Dharles_Carwin]

Well no - I am not a theistic evolutionist.

Evolution = change. No argument there.

In the science class - nothing but testable, repeatable and predictable. I propose mandatory philosophy and metaphysics courses.

My apologies, i was referring to the biology class.

 

[reggieM]

"Not sure what part of the uk the questioned. But believe me, im from the UK and i don’t know anyone that wants creationism in school.

What part of the UK did you say you were from, Chuck? I think you said you’re from Scotland. When determining a sample size for the survey, the polling organization will look at margin of error and determine how many surveys are needed to draw conclusions which are statistically significant.

 

[rossum]

Let’s see:

If I go into a lab and I drop an apple it falls.

If I go into space lab and I let go of the apple it doesn’t fall.

It is testable, repeatable and predictable. That is empirical science.

That only tests the facts of gravity. The theory of gravity is still provisional. It has been replaced in the past and it will be replaced in the future.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Fair enough, you agree with evolution but, evolution as directed by god. I have no issue with anyone believing that, however as it is not a testable hypothesis it is not science and therefore has no place in the science class room.

Many post here that certain parts of the Bible need to be reinterpreted to fit their anti-theist worldview. They have no place here to discuss such things because they are not testable, according to science. It is important, critically important, that Catholics realize that the current version of evolution is not compatible with Catholic teaching. If a similar process occurred, God guided it infallibly.

My fellow Catholics - Do not accept any information about evolution posted here uncritically. First, we had two individual parents. We are not the accidental results of an accidental process. Finally, we are subject to death and a life to come, as opposed to nothing. Beware of evolutionary-atheist evangelism posing as science.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Fact - Some animals are more suited to there environment than others

I think this is the best evolutionary fact of them all.
Some animals are more suited. Some are less suited.
This fact is proven by looking at animals and seeing that some appear to be suited and others do not.
Evolution then makes this claim:
The animals that are suited or not, might either change or not.

Tell me how could creationism even begin to explain some of the above.

How could creationism explain an ambiguous statement about how some things might be more adaptive or not? There’s no need to explain that.

Like Nested Hierarchies? Why was god bound to nested hierarchies when creating life?

Nested hierarchies are a classification system that depend on how one defines a hierarchial order.

The brain of the humpback whale contains “human” neurons

Can evolution make things less complicated?

 

[vz71]

Fact - Animals reproduce with variation

Agreed.

Fact - More animals are born than the ecosystem can support

Nope, theory. The support given by an ecosystem is dependent on too many factors for our science to be able to keep track of at this time.

Fact - Some animals are more suited to there environment than others

Agreed.

Fact - All life get its instruction form the same molecule

Nope, theory. We do not know even know all of the life on this planet, we cannot speak in absolutes like that and be credible. There can well be life somewhere that is different.

Fact - Hereditary can be traced through DNA

Nope, theory. While it is true that heredity of some animals can be traced through DNA, it may not be the case for others. As written, it is theory. If you restrict it to humans or higher life forms that utilize DNA as we know it, then it can be fact.

Fact - EVR’s can be traced through DNA

Actually, I don’t know. You can claim it fact, but I haven’t the knowledge of ‘EVR’ to say one way or the other.

Fact - chromosome fusions can be observed

Agreed.

Fact - All animals fit perfectly (never once broken by ANY animal) into nested hierarchies based on unique character combinations

Nope, theory. Again you are speaking absolutes. All animals that we know of, yes. But ALL…no, that is a theory and may well be proven otherwise in the future.

Fact - The fossils can be traces through stratas (never breaking the layers, or the above hierarchies)

Nope, theory. The fossils that we have found may meet this criteria, but that is certainly not all of the fossils, and there may well prove to be an oddball out there somewhere.

Fact - The earth is 4.5 billion years old

Nope, theory. We have evidence to support this, but we may well be wrong.
And if you still believe it fact…why isn’t it 4.5 billion and 1 years old?

Fact - gene pools can become isolated

agreed

Fact - given enough variation isolated gene pools can no longer interbreed (speciation)

Nope, theory. There has never been a case of species to species change witnessed.
There are examples of what are called transitional fossils, but they do not prove much other then an animal existing that had traits of two different species.

Theory - Evolution

agreed.

The above is not even scratching the surface of the facts that evolutions explains. Tell me how could creationism even begin to explain some of the above.

I’m sure.
But there seem to be significant issues discerning fact from theory.
Facts are testable, repeatable, and provable.
Theories are not.
As to creationism explaining the above…well, God can use whatever means he wishes to attain his ends.
Consider, without the earth forming the way it did, without the animals living and dying in the past as they did, without the plant life living as it did…we would not be here as we are right now. It all came together perfectly to suit us.

Like Nested Hierarchies? Why was god bound to nested hierarchies when creating life?

God is not limited to anything.
Our observations of what is do not limit God at all, but bring us closer to an understanding and appreciation of God.

 

[vz71]

That only tests the facts of gravity. The theory of gravity is still provisional. It has been replaced in the past and it will be replaced in the future.

rossum

right.
And I believe there is still dispute over what exactly gravity is.

 

[tjm190]

First, we had two individual parents. We are not the accidental results of an accidental process. Finally, we are subject to death and a life to come, as opposed to nothing. Beware of evolutionary-atheist evangelism posing as science.

Peace,
Ed

a- The Church has yet to even take a firm stance against poligenism, let alone multiple human parents. I also don’t believe the weather is a result of an accidental process but rather God’s will, but I can understand the mechanism without invoking the supernatural. Evolution makes no statements on what happens after death.

Beware of dangerous amounts of fear mongering from anti-evolutionists.

 

[tjm190]

Well no - I am not a theistic evolutionist.

Evolution = change. No argument there.

In the science class - nothing but testable, repeatable and predictable. I propose mandatory philosophy and metaphysics courses.

Then it would be called the ‘emprical science class’- however, we include things such as astronomy, geology, and evolution since they’re a compilation of scientific knowledge rather than methods in and of themselves.

 

[tjm190]

right.
And I believe there is still dispute over what exactly gravity is.

But as I recall, we don’t reject the parts of gravity we have firmly proved for the sake of those we have not.