Started a new topic: Arguments for evolution, and why they are wrong(33 Replies))

[quote][b]Argument 1[/b] But it's just a theory! A scientific theory, completely different thing, which means a well proven way of describing a natural phenomenon. In science a theory holds as much, if not more ground than a law. [b]Argument 2[/b] Micro evolution and macro evolution And then I ask, what's the difference? Over time, small changes(microevolution) stack up together until the creature and the original species can't breed (macroevolution) [b]Argument 3[/b] 2nd law of thermodynamics And then I ask, what does it have to do with anything? The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy(not disorder) increases over time in an isolated system. Think of it this way: Let there be 2 energy containers. If you want to move energy from 1 to the other, some of the energy will get out as light or heat. Evolution doesn't go against this, let alone earth isn't an isolated system. And also, if you make this statement, do you know the other laws of thermodynamics? No? [b]Argument 4[/b] It's not proven to be the origin of life! If course not, evolution was never intended to be the origin of life, but the origin of species. That's abiogenesis. it's not proven to be a fact, but it's proven to be possible, and probable. If you want me to further explain abiogenesis post a comment I'll reply. Any more anti evolution arguments? Post them in the comments below I'll debunk them.[/quote] 1) you're using science to establish absolute truth. You're doing it wrong since you can't directly prove evolution. 2) how can they lose the ability to breed? Proof? They're the same species with slight differences. 3) the universe is in a natural state of decay. Life is "unnatural" to it as in it couldn't pop up out of no where on its own. Life tries to adapt to survive the entropy. I don't see the application of entropy in regards to evolution either. It's better applied in the argument of the origin of life. 4) the odds of life starting on its own are so low it's absurd to assume or theorize as truth. 5) you haven't debunked much of anything.

[quote]In science a theory holds as much, if not more ground than a law.[/quote] Uhm, no? Lol. A theory has not been proven. That's why it's a theory. Laws have been proven to be true.

If there was any proof that science education really needed to be improved in America, it would be the comments in threads like this.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx "In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins" The US really needs to revamp its education system if over 40% of its populace believe in young earth creationism. Are evolution and geography not obligatory components of the US science curriculum?

The common version of theory is very damn near impossible. The lesser known version called Microevolution is more easily defended and it doesn't contradict mist religions.

[quote]In science a theory holds as much, if not more ground than a law.[/quote] You just lost all credibility.

[quote][b]Argument 1[/b] But it's just a theory! A scientific theory, completely different thing, which means a well proven way of describing a natural phenomenon. In science a theory holds as much, if not more ground than a law. ----a theory is the best explanation possible using the facts available however this doesn't make it have the same weight as law. With a theory there just isn't enough to prove it beyond a doubt. [b]Argument 2[/b] Micro evolution and macro evolution And then I ask, what's the difference? Over time, small changes(microevolution) stack up together until the creature and the original species can't breed (macroevolution) ----micro if the the theory is correct leads to the macro yes however the micro which has been proven doesn't prove the macro. [b]Argument 3[/b] 2nd law of thermodynamics And then I ask, what does it have to do with anything? The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy(not disorder) increases over time in an isolated system. Think of it this way: Let there be 2 energy containers. If you want to move energy from 1 to the other, some of the energy will get out as light or heat. Evolution doesn't go against this, let alone earth isn't an isolated system. And also, if you make this statement, do you know the other laws of thermodynamics? No? ----to be honest this part is over my head I've never seen it as an argument against evolution so let's just leave this be [b]Argument 4[/b] It's not proven to be the origin of life! If course not, evolution was never intended to be the origin of life, but the origin of species. That's abiogenesis. it's not proven to be a fact, but it's proven to be possible, and probable. If you want me to further explain abiogenesis post a comment I'll reply. ----actually the whole theory of evolution is about origin. The theory is we evolved from single celled organism this is the macro. Any more anti evolution arguments? Post them in the comments below I'll debunk them.[/quote] ---no that's pretty much it just that it's not proven so I'm going to have my faith in the lord.

God is obviously real, were do you think rainbows come from?

You can have a theory that the world is flat, but you'd be completely wrong. A theory is never a fact, but a idea that can be proven as fact if properly investigated.

I believe it is possible to be a creationist and an evolutionist. I believe that many species could have drastically, while humans were created by God and have stayed the same. What do you think about this viewpoint?

You can have your belief, but if you're saying that a theory holds as much ground as law then you are being illogical. You can theorize that there is a spaceship in the garage but it may not be true. Also, the chance of Evolution creating our universe is so small. It is about .0 (add a couple hundred more zeroes) and if you go so far as to theorize that there are multiple universes made the same way, it is impossible. Also, the cell is so complicated it is impossible to make without absolute precision. I believe God created everything (yes microevolution is possible) because there is evidence for it. But have your opinion.

Entropy = Disorder Like, that's what it is.

Yes micro evolution is real but I don't believe we came from single cell organisms, that's too far fetched imo and has little proof.

Explain to me how a prokaryote can turn into a eukaryote. A bacteria swallowing another bacteria would not cause that bacteria's offspring to also have a bacteria inside of them. Endosymbiotic theory is impossible.

[quote]which means a well proven way of describing a natural phenomenon. In science a theory holds as much, if not more ground than a law.[/quote] Stop. Please allow a more experienced poster to handle this subject. You just make those that support evolution look bad... and strengthen the resolve of those that dont.