RE: Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false
November 2, 2014 at 10:30 pm
(November 1, 2014 at 3:16 am)Rob216 Wrote: *Note: This is not a religious debate. This is a scientific debate about my opinion of Darwin's theory of evolution.Sorry but your flat wrong on this count
Most reasonable people agree on a few principles:
1. That everything has a beginning and an end.
2. That by observing repeatable occurrences the laws of physics are true.
3. That "universal logic" is applicable to determining facts (Example: I cannot exist and not exist simultaneously)
I hope that we can all agree that evolution and adaptation do exist in nature. All living creatures (animals and plants alike) can adapt to conditions over time. My argument is that Darwin's theory of evolution cannot be true because there has never been scientific proof of any one species adapting over time to be categorized as another species.
Bacteria evolves into bacteria, fish evolve into fish, primates evolve into primates, etc.
http://www.nature.com/news/yeast-suggest...ife-1.9810
Quote: Ok, I'll argue against my own statement above and say that species can evolve into other species. I'll say that humans evolved from an ape-like creature that evolved from a mammal that evolved from a reptile-like or amphibian-like creature (depending on if you believe that our origins are ocean based or land based) that evolved from bacteria that evolved from a single-cell organism. My issue with this is that 1. The single-cell organism would have had to have the ability to create itself.Um what? You do know that single-celled life wasn't really the first life first off. First life was simply sell replicating proteins.
Quote:While somewhat true it is more accurate to say that Organic life came from organic materials that originally came from inorganic material. Now organically material becoming organic material is something that has been observed and experimentally proven, again and again.
or 2. That organic life was created from inorganic materials.
Quote: Both of these statements sound illogical because in order for something to be scientifically proven the conditions have to be tested and repeatable to be agreed upon as fact.They sound illogical because you state them with very little knowledge on the topic at hand, hence your repetition sounds illogical, when the underlying facts are not.
Quote: As far as we know there is and has never been a new organism that created itself because that organism would first have to have the conscience to know that it is, in fact, creating itself.Um no it would not, I am struggling to understand why you would even that conscience intent is needed?
Quote: There has also never been any successful experiments that have proven that organic life can be created from inorganic materials.Thats because it wasn't
Quote: [/font][/size]I look forward to everybody's opinion on this. Please don't use religion bashing or science bashing as the basis for your opinion because, honestly, you'll just come off as stupid.Excuse me? Your going to come here as a christian and tell us what and what not to say?
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
