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

[downbeatplumb]

I mean it's a bit like defending your favorite sports-team

I don't understand this mentality either.

or pop-star, you'll try to defend them as long as you can even while overlooking some obvious facts which a neutral person can see, till it becomes totally impossible to do so. For example there are still fans who feel Gaga is a genius.

Don't dis the Gaga.

[Aoi Magi]

It's not political correctness, it's more about lowering ignorance which IS beneficial for the progress of our species. If you turn away ignorant people who are at least willing to learn, you are letting them and their ignorance prosper, which is not good for society.

---

Don't dis the Gaga.

oh? How 'bout kitty purry?

[Chas]

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,

Do you mean to Darwin, the man? Why don't you like him?

Or do you mean to some straw man version of evolution that bears no real resemblance to the actual theory?

Or do you mean that you will point out errors that Darwin made which are no longer part of the theory?

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.

If you had never come across that term, then you are not very well-read in the subject.

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.

"Kinds" is a Biblical-creationist key word. There is no scientific definition of that, nor is there even a coherent creationist definition for that term. But it marks you as a Biblical-creationist.

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.

Which only shows your ignorance and mental rigidity. As I observed in my first post, you appear to never have read a book on evolution written by an evolutionary biologist.

I really just want someone to show me that there is proof somewhere of that link in a species lineage. Any species.

Tiktaalik.

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.

Wait, you require proof for evolution but not for God?

More to the point, quit looking for proof of anything. It is about evidence.

[downbeatplumb]

It's not political correctness, it's more about lowering ignorance which IS beneficial for the progress of our species. If you turn away ignorant people who are at least willing to learn, you are letting them their ignorance prosper, which is not good for society.

The Op was not questioning he was asserting that the scientific view is wrong, then proceeded to spew forth drivel at an astounding rate.
There was no receive from him, only transmit.

[Aoi Magi]

---

It's not political correctness, it's more about lowering ignorance which IS beneficial for the progress of our species. If you turn away ignorant people who are at least willing to learn, you are letting them their ignorance prosper, which is not good for society.

---

The Op was not questioning he was asserting that the scientific view is wrong, then proceeded to spew forth drivel at an astounding rate.
There was no receive from him, only transmit.

That is how the general religious populace acts, but if we can even put a tiny crack in their beliefs, then there is hope that someday they might wake up. Besides he has a kid who might get a dose of his ignorance unless he gets some help first. So if not for him, do it for the child

[Whateverist]

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

Only if the Wright brothers' earliest attempts proved the impossibility of flight.

Even if we all became convinced that there just isn't any way to create organic materials from inorganic materials, there would still be the problem of showing a powerful invisible being did so by magic instead. Why should magic become the default belief regarding the origins of life? Logic which starts with that assumption can only go wrong.

[robvalue]

I think they should change the definition of "god" in the dictionary to "I don't know who/how/why". It would then make theists and atheists pretty much the same.

[Cyberman]

Not really. One would be "let's find out", while the other is "magic! Ok, let's all go home!"

[Brian37]

It's not political correctness, it's more about lowering ignorance which IS beneficial for the progress of our species. If you turn away ignorant people who are at least willing to learn, you are letting them and their ignorance prosper, which is not good for society.

---

Don't dis the Gaga.

oh? How 'bout kitty purry?

So true. I do not think even some atheists understand the difference between rights and claims. Rights are not the issue. The ability to demonstrate credibility of a claim is the issue. You have the right to make any claim you want, but that does not mean that claim should get blind value or be free from criticism or blasphemy.

[Esquilax]

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.

Spontaneous generation is not the same thing as abiogenesis. See, this is the problem; you complain that a lot of us are just attacking your beliefs, but then you turn around and spew what basically amounts to the uninformed creationist laymen's laziest hits collection. Literally the least factually accurate arguments they have.

Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, the idea that life spontaneously appears, but that's not what abiogenesis hypothesizes will happen. In abiogenesis, a series of chemical reactions, over time and in an environment very different to modern day earth, can give rise to simple life. We even have experimental results confirming this as possible; the Miller-Yurey experiments and John Oro's work demonstrates that in certain conditions the building blocks of life form naturally. It's not spontaneous or magic, it's simple chemical reactions in accordance with the laws of physics. Unfortunately for your argument, Pasteur has long been left behind.

Now, you asserted again in another post that we have no evidence of evolution between species, but you apparently ignored my last post to do it, where I pointed out exactly where we do have that evidence. We have plenty of evidence of ungulates evolving into whales, the evolution of fish to tetrapods, and so on. Just do a google search for Tiktaalik Rosae. Bam; your argument is done. Easy.