Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

[Leoreth]

Which also disproves the still widespread notion that Darwin made that all up because he hated Christianity.

 

[Trev]

This is always one of the worst points raised in this debate. The answer is simple, because one of them is a religion one of them is science. Religion has no place in the public school system, science does. If you want religious education go to a private school or educate your children at home. It is not the state's job to endorse the Christian religion over other religions.

The simple fact is one is the truth, one is a lie. Religion/Science is an irrelevance. There are many essential factors to life and its replication which we deduce from observing life today. I listed 5 of them on page 4 of this thread. None of those 5 can occur in isolation to the other 4, and the statistical probability of all 5 occurring simultaneously is zilch, absolutely zilch. So the spontaneous origion of life is a LIE. The alternative which is the TRUTH should be taught, whether it is religion or science is not relevant, all that is relevant is that it is the truth. God created the earth and all the life of the earth.

 

[kramerfan86]

The simple fact is one is the truth, one is a lie. Religion/Science is an irrelevance. There are many essential factors to life and its replication which we deduce from observing life today. I listed 5 of them on page 4 of this thread. None of those 5 can occur in isolation to the other 4, and the statistical probability of all 5 occurring simultaneously is zilch, absolutely zilch. So the spontaneous origion of life is a LIE. The alternative which is the TRUTH should be taught, whether it is religion or science is not relevant, all that is relevant is that it is the truth. God created the earth and all the life of the earth.

And billions of people on the planet think your version of creation is wrong, so even if you think creationism is right you dont get to dictate truth because your book told you your version is correct. Even within Christianity there are multiple versions of creation. its not a biology's teachers job to teach your religion which has no actual evidence behind it. Its nice you have faith, I have faith too, it has no place in the classroom.

More importantly your points are an argument against how life formed NOT evolution. Within science the formation of life and evolution are two different theories. Arguing evolution is false because the formation of life is too complicated makes as much sense are arguing gravity is incorrect because natural formation of life is "impossible"

 

[dirtyparrot]

The simple fact is one is the truth, one is a lie. Religion/Science is an irrelevance. There are many essential factors to life and its replication which we deduce from observing life today. I listed 5 of them on page 4 of this thread. None of those 5 can occur in isolation to the other 4, and the statistical probability of all 5 occurring simultaneously is zilch, absolutely zilch. So the spontaneous origion of life is a LIE. The alternative which is the TRUTH should be taught, whether it is religion or science is not relevant, all that is relevant is that it is the truth. God created the earth and all the life of the earth.

A lot of what you have posted on that page is erroneous or conjecture on your part. Case in point is that RBCs don't contain membrane-enclosed organelles (incl mitochondria), hence no ATP synthase. The main problem is that you're assuming that modern cells would ressemble early cells, hence what list of things are necessary.

 

[Trev]

The main problem is that you're assuming that modern cells would ressemble early cells, hence what list of things are necessary.

There is absolutely zero evidence for early cells which operate substantially different from modern cells. Conjecture about things for which there is absolutely no evidence should not be taught as TRUTH or as SCIENCE because it is neither.

 

[Arakhor]

I was browsing creation.com (whilst fighting a tide of increasing nausea simply by reading that site) and came across their "rebuttals" to people's answers. Apparently, everyone who disputes the Biblical creation story is an "evolutionist" and a practitioner of the "atheist faith". Are they wilfully that ignorant or obnoxious or do they simply not care that their singular viewpoint is not the only one that exists?

Trev, in response to your last post, why is the book of Genesis taught as TRUTH then? There is zero evidence for any of those stories.

 

[kramerfan86]

There is absolutely zero evidence for early cells which operate substantially different from modern cells. Conjecture about things for which there is absolutely no evidence should not be taught as TRUTH or as SCIENCE because it is neither.

So your religion is truth despite no actual hard evidence and should be taught, but non-religious predictions cant be called truth or science, even when they are relatively logical and reasonable?

 

[Abegweit]

There is absolutely zero evidence for early cells which operate substantially different from modern cells. Conjecture about things for which there is absolutely no evidence should not be taught as TRUTH or as SCIENCE because it is neither.

Classic example of the religious mindset. If we cannot find evidence of something, then it is must be proof of God.

Incidentally, the Theory of Evolution is about the FACT of Evolution. Evolution, like gravity, is both a theory and a fact.

The FACT of gravity is that, if you jump off the Empire State Building, you will almost certainly die. The THEORY of Gravity is an attempt to explain why this is, relating to attraction between masses. If you prefer say that the reason is because God doesn't like people jumping off buildings and punishes them for it, then you are welcome to do so. That is also a theory. Unlike the other one, unfortunately, it has no explanatory power and thus it is not taught in classrooms.

Similarly, evolution is a FACT. The Tree of Life is undeniable. It is proven in five or six different ways - in our DNA, in the fossil record, in morphology, among others. To deny this fact is to deny the evidence of our senses. You may argue, as some know-nothings do, that God put down fossils to test our faith but I sure ain't going there. The THEORY of Evolution, in contrast, proposes a mechanism to explain how it all happened, specifically Natural Selection. Lamarck proposed another mechanism.

You may advance the notion that there's a Great Species-Plopper in the Sky who puts down new species in the fossil record is precisely the same manner as if they transformed from one into the other and then modified their DNA to reflect this. Sounds pretty absurd to me but at least it is in accord with the FACT of evolution.

As for what happened in times for which we have no records, you are quite right to say that anything there is speculation. However, Occam's Razor leads us to believe that the mechanisms by which the world evolved (there's that nasty word again) would have been the same then as now - especially since we now have considerable understanding of the nature of the early Earth and will probably be able to evolve primitive life in the laboratory within ten years.

 

[The_J]

You may advance the notion that there's a Great Species-Plopper in the Sky who puts down new species in the fossil record is precisely the same manner as if they transformed from one into the other and then modified their DNA to reflect this. Sounds pretty absurd to me but at least it is in accord with the FACT of evolution.

To make it agree with the facts you first have to explain how Noah rescued Ebola and the pest bacterium (because he must have, else they would not be here, right?).

 

[kramerfan86]

To make it agree with the facts you first have to explain how Noah rescued Ebola and the pest bacterium (because he must have, else they would not be here, right?).

Better question would be why would a supposedly loving god make something as horrific as Ebola in the first place?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

To make it agree with the facts you first have to explain how Noah rescued Ebola and the pest bacterium (because he must have, else they would not be here, right?).

I'm not one to defend Creationists, but presumably they would be harbored in the natural hosts, i.e. apes and monkeys.

 

[Abegweit]

To make it agree with the facts you first have to explain how Noah rescued Ebola and the pest bacterium (because he must have, else they would not be here, right?).

Well, I was trying to make Creationism agree with the geological record. The Noah story doesn't accord with it (or written history for that matter) so you kinda have to slough that part off as a parable or something. Come to think about it, that's true of the entire book of Genesis.

 

[KaiserElectric]

This reminds me of why I don't like colleges. "Feel free to question authority, but don't question OUR authority."

Also, I heard of a funny story a while back about evolution. They found an Australopithecus skeleton in Indonesia, a place that disproves the idea that humans originated from Africa. The kicker? This discovery was quietly swept under the carpet. Ignoring scientific evidence because it doesn't agree with the status quo? Irony is fun!

(I'm not creationist, but I believe that we don't know enough about where we came from to say that evolution is the truth.)

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

A link would be appreciated. That sounds interesting.

 

[KaiserElectric]

Wish me luck. Like I said, is wasn't talked about much.

It was found sometime within the last year or so, if anyone wants to look for it themselves.

EDIT: It may have been this. According to the article, some scientists are suggesting it is a different species entirely. Yeah.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

Brown, P., et al. 2007 A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia. Nature 431:1055-1061.

If this is the skeleton in question, the timing of the body to the Late Pleistocene is pretty much exactly in accordance with the accepted theory of human migration and evolution.

 

[Arakhor]

If it was swept under the carpet, how did you hear about it? Generally, in science conspiracies, cover-ups tend to be better than that.

 

[kramerfan86]

When I looked I wasnt getting anything recent. Only thing I was finding was Homo floresiensis's discovery and how it had some similarities going with Australopithecus. Seems like plenty of Christian websites would have been all over this coverup if it actually existed.

 

[KaiserElectric]

It wasn't covered up, per say, it was just rarely covered as much as it should have been. My teacher told us about it last year.

And it definitely wasn't found in 2007.

 

[kramerfan86]

It wasn't covered up, per say, it was just rarely covered as much as it should have been. My teacher told us about it last year.

And it definitely wasn't found in 2007.

No offense to your teacher, but I find it highly odd they are seemingly the only person the planet who noticed this. You really think the religious media on the internet wouldnt have been all over this if true?