Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false

[Aoi Magi]

I wonder if we scared him away?

[Surgenator]

I hope not. That wouldn't give me a chance to participate in a scientific debate where no science is presented.

[Aoi Magi]

I hope not. That wouldn't give me a chance to participate in a scientific debate where no science is presented.

He did mention "evolution", that is kinda science-y, I think.

[Minimalist]

I always love how these fuckheads who claim to know so much about "Darwin" don't seem to know that he was a creationist.

Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity.

--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, Chapter 14

Of course, Darwin was writing in 1860 and can be forgiven for being a creatard. Modern creatards get no such dispensation!

[LastPoet]

I wonder if we scared him away?

As much as that would make us badass, no. We call these, "shit & run" posters. Or pigeons on a chessboard, if you prefer.

[Rob216]

I like how this post has turned into, for the most part, people just telling me how stupid I am. Also, as I stated in the original post, this was not meant to be a religious debate yet somehow my beliefs are being attacked even though nobody here actually knows what my beliefs are. If you disagree with what I said or think that I'm not educated enough on the topic that's fine because the point of debating is to bring arguments to the conversation to enlighten your opponents. Yet somehow this has turned into the classic "You don't believe what I believe so you're stupid" party. Thanks to the few people on here that actually made good points so I can continue to expand my knowledge on the topic.

---

I wonder if we scared him away?

As much as that would make us badass, no. We call these, "shit & run" posters. Or pigeons on a chessboard, if you prefer.

Actually I have a 7 week old son and a full time job so I don't have 24 hours a day to keep checking posts.

[Minimalist]

We're still waiting for evidence and not your opinion.

Why don't you get the chip off your shoulder and cut to the chase?

You have already made a lousy first impression.

[Alex K]

I like how this post has turned into, for the most part, people just telling me how stupid I am. Also, as I stated in the original post, this was not meant to be a religious debate yet somehow my beliefs are being attacked even though nobody here actually knows what my beliefs are. If you disagree with what I said or think that I'm not educated enough on the topic that's fine because the point of debating is to bring arguments to the conversation to enlighten your opponents. Yet somehow this has turned into the classic "You don't believe what I believe so you're stupid" party. Thanks to the few people on here that actually made good points so I can continue to expand my knowledge on the topic.

---

As much as that would make us badass, no. We call these, "shit & run" posters. Or pigeons on a chessboard, if you prefer.

Actually I have a 7 week old son and a full time job so I don't have 24 hours a day to keep checking posts.

Sincere congrats for both! So if you have time, what do you think about the scientific objections to your assertion?

[Rob216]

We're still waiting for evidence and not your opinion.

Why don't you get the chip off your shoulder and cut to the chase?

You have already made a lousy first impression.

Well you already called me a fuckhead so I'm not quite clear on why my opinion or any evidence I could possibly bring up would be worth a damn to you anyways. Plus, I'm not a fan of feeding trolls.

---

I like how this post has turned into, for the most part, people just telling me how stupid I am. Also, as I stated in the original post, this was not meant to be a religious debate yet somehow my beliefs are being attacked even though nobody here actually knows what my beliefs are. If you disagree with what I said or think that I'm not educated enough on the topic that's fine because the point of debating is to bring arguments to the conversation to enlighten your opponents. Yet somehow this has turned into the classic "You don't believe what I believe so you're stupid" party. Thanks to the few people on here that actually made good points so I can continue to expand my knowledge on the topic.

---

Actually I have a 7 week old son and a full time job so I don't have 24 hours a day to keep checking posts.

Sincere congrats for both! So if you have time, what do you think about the scientific objections to your assertion?

I'm not trying to minimize my response so I apologize for being vague but I estimate that I literally have about 5 minutes to get this response in. In general, I love opposing views so I'm not gonna slam anyone for their objections. I think a lot of people got off track because I do believe that evolution occurs in all species. I thought my objections were to Darwin, but perhaps I need to do some more research on Biogenesis because honestly this post was the first time that I've heard that term. Also, going back and reading my original post, I did a poor job in wording what I was actually trying to say. What I meant to say in a nutshell is that there is no evidence of species changing kinds. By which I mean in the lineage of any species there is no link (that I know of anyways) over the timeline of a species existence that shows that it could've changed from bacteria to fish to a amphibian etc etc that it has just been theorized. I really just want someone to show me that there is proof somewhere of that link in a species lineage. Any species. If somebody did and I accidentally passed it up then I apologize but I'll go back and read all the posts when I have time. But I really do want proof I'm not just saying that to poke at people. I'm not gonna stand in the face of something tangible and choose not to believe it just because I believe in God. My belief is that I should be open to believing everything.

Oh, and thanks for the congrats!

[Rob216]

Louis Pasteur is popularly known as the "father of microbiology". He is responsible for crushing the doctrine of spontaneous generation. He performed experiments that showed that without contamination, microorganisms could not develop. Under the auspices of theFrench Academy of Sciences, he demonstrated that in sterilized and sealed flasks nothing ever developed, and in sterilized but open flasks microorganism could grow.
Research career

Share

Louis Pasteur

Written by Agnes Ullmann

Louis Pasteur,  (born December 27, 1822, Dole, France—died September 28, 1895, Saint-Cloud), French chemist and microbiologist who was one of the most important founders of medical microbiology. Pasteur’s contributions to science,technology, and medicine are nearly without precedent. He pioneered the study of molecular asymmetry; discovered that microorganisms cause fermentation and disease; originated the process ofpasteurization; saved the beer, wine, and silkindustries in France; and developedvaccines against anthrax and rabies.

Pasteur’s academic positions were numerous, and his scientific accomplishments earned him France’s highest decoration, the Legion of Honour, as well as election to the Académie des Sciences and many other distinctions. Today there are some 30 institutes and an impressive number of hospitals, schools, buildings, and streets that bear his name—a set of honours bestowed on few scientists.

Spontaneous generation

Fermentation and putrefaction were often perceived as being spontaneous phenomena, a perception stemming from the ancient belief that life could generate spontaneously. During the 18th century the debate was pursued by the English naturalist and Roman Catholic divine John Turberville Needham and the French naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc, count de Buffon. While both supported the idea ofspontaneous generation, Italian abbot and physiologist Lazzaro Spallanzani maintained that life could never spontaneously generate from dead matter. In 1859, the year English naturalist Charles Darwin published his On the Origin of Species, Pasteur decided to settle this dispute. He was convinced that his germ theory could not be firmly substantiated as long as belief in spontaneous generation persisted. Pasteur attacked the problem by using a simple experimental procedure. He showed that beef broth could be sterilized by boiling it in a “swan-neck” flask, which has a long bending neck that traps dust particles and other contaminants before they reach the body of the flask. However, if the broth was boiled and the neck of the flask was broken off following boiling, the broth, being reexposed to air, eventually became cloudy, indicating microbial contamination. These experiments proved that there was no spontaneous generation, since the boiled broth, if never reexposed to air, remained sterile. This not only settled the philosophical problem of the origin of life at the time but also placed on solid ground the new science of bacteriology, which relied on proven techniques of sterilization and aseptic manipulation.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...is-Pasteur

Lastly, the theory of biogenesis was created by the ancient Greeks (but they didn't coin that term). They believed that living things could spontaneously come into being from nonliving matter, and that the goddess Gaia could make life arise spontaneously from stones – a process known as Generatio spontanea. 


So it has been proven that life can not be created from things that are not already living.