A well thought-out argument against anti-evolutionists

Well, I was reading a book about space, time, the big bang, etc. called "Stephen Hawkings Universe." At one point, it talked about a theory in which an infinite number of universes are created. Well, scientists argued that even if this was true, it wouldn't really mean anything, because it would mean that all possibilities will have been exploited. Well, today I had an interesting conversation with someone about evolution & creationism, and afterward I came to an interesting realization:

Creationists argue that the chance of something as complex as humans could not have possibly evolved as we our by ourselves. Well, consider this. Assuming we live in an infinite universe, it means that, like the infinite number of universes idea, all possibilities must have been exploited. Therefore, the chance that we would turn out is exacly 1/1. And even if we don't live in an infinite universe, we know that it's incredibly massive. The chance that there are other worlds that are habitible by any kind of life form is 1/1, if you consider the fact that the chance that our type of life, because it's existance is so incredibly unlikely, isn't the only type of life possible. So the idea that we are alone as life forms, or even intelligent life forms is very very low. This eliminates the need for Creationism, which is really just an excuse for what science has not yet explained. Response & ideas appreciated.

 

Well I would say the reason science cannot explain how we got here is because they have been trying to prove a theory that never happened.
This fact is finally coming home to roost because after 150 years of evolution propaganda, they were never able to present one fossile that would show trans-species. The greatest condemnation against evolution does not come from the church, but rather from scientist who now admit that the evidence for evolution is simply not to be found in the fossile record. From the Christian perspective it is interesting, because as the lack of evidence is tearing the theory of evolution apart, the Bible in recent years is being confirmed by new and amazing descoveries in the field of archaeology.

 

Great idea deadhead716, nice thoughts!
I feel that it's inconceiveable that there would be no other life in the entire universe except for what is found on earth. Belief that life exists only on earth reduces an Omnipotent God to Impotent. Similar intellectual ignorance saw the church force Galileo to retract his support of Copernicus' theory that recognized earth orbited the sun and was a globe instead of flat ~ declared heresy by the church!!

Have a think on this ~
This is an MC Escher kaleidocycle


http://www.kaleidocycles.de/

What happens is that they turn inside and through themselves (or visa versa) when twisted (animation link on page given above). It is quite amazing to see, and it is impossible to imagine it can be done until it is actually done, given they are essentially planar tetrahedra.
My point is this ~ The "universe" could simply be something like a kaleidocylcle (maybe like a donut) that continually turns inside and through itself, and while doing so it naturally reveals an infinitely unfolding continuum of possibliity, not unlike an infinite 3D fractal.

 

Ummm...that's not quite true, is it?

Do you remember that archeopteryx fossil? The dinosaur that's got the properties of birds AND reptiles? How about the lungfish? The residual leg bone stumps in snakes? There's even a one-celled organism with a light sensing organelle called the Euglena. The bones in the hands of aquatic mammals, bats, and tons of others are remarkably similar to ours. What you want as proof would be something half-man and half-fish, right? Because all the nice slow evolutionary steps that brought us to the human race have been found. You should try thinking about this stuff, and possibly even researching it, before you believe everything the bible tosses in your mouth. Thinking and research will also make you a more logical and reasonable human being.

Evolution is a fact of life. As long as time exists, evolution will exist. I'm not suggesting we'll be superhuman in the next millenium, but all we're doing to the planet right now is putting all kinds of selective pressures on the species that have to live here. Like all those two-headed and seven-legged frogs...that's evolution. Those bacteria that are now resistent to antibiotics...more evolution. But yeah, go ahead and deny it exists.

 

Ummm.... it is quite true. Evolution has a history of making great claims about these fantastic discoveries which always make front page news. As a result it is left in the minds of people that evolution is a fact. Yet if you follow the trail you will find without question that most if not all of these revelations are latter found to be hoaxs, or a misrepresentation of the facts which will never be spoken of again. I would suggest you do the research yourself, and you will find it is the supporters of evolution who are beginning to speak out about the lack of evidence. 150 years of researching the fossil record and not on trans-species has ever been found. Any other theory with this lack of evidence would of been dismissed years ago, but evolution was the only thing that atheistic science had to hang their hat on and now it is failing them. Evolution was always voodoo science, in reality it is more of a religion than a theory, or a science.

 

Campbell,



Why should any of us believe these radical statements you are making? Convince me that biblical creationism is 100% real. All I have seen from you so far are completely empty claims.

By the way, have you noticed that the east coast of South America fits almost perfectly into the west coast of Africa, like a jigsaw puzzle? It's called continental drift, driven by the mechanism of plate tectonics.

New oceanic crust is constantly being created in the form of magma rising through Mid-Ocean-Ridges. We have seen it happening. The new crust pushes the old crust outwards at a rate of 2-15 cm per year. This causes the continents to move at the same rate. NASA satellites and GPS have proven this phenomenon. It has been happening for millions of years. Thats why we find fossils of the freshwater reptile Mesosaurus on both Africa and South America. It's also why the same Archean crust and Proterozoic mountain belts (identified by their specific rock assemblages) cross these now separate continents.

 

Please point out to me where I said something untrue.

Do you wish to deny the existence of the archeopteryx? The lungfish? Mutated frogs? Antibiotic-resistant bacteria? Those are all indicators of evolution, and if you consider evolution as it is scientifically defined, basically as change in a species over time as a result of natural selection, it has to exist.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of trans-species are you looking for? Evolution is not religion at all. Know why? It's because evolution is supported by evidence and facts. It is studied using the scientific method, and because of that, it can be shown to be false. You can't falsify a religion, because when you point out a flaw, believers will say "god did it."

 

Campbell is looking for the so-called "missing link", the trans-species between what we were and what we are. In other words, he's looking for evidence of perhaps three generations (a window of 60 years that occurred between 75,000 and 500,000 years ago.) I don't think that's too much to ask, do you?

OK so I have a needle, anybody got a haystack?

 

Personally I do believe much of the 'proof' surrounding evolution is simply hype. There have been a huge amount of faked bones etc especially when looking at the link from ape to man and the missing link. People generally believe that evolution is true simply because it's considered the only alternative to the judeo-christian belief g-d created everything as it is.

To me, it is inconcievable that evolution in some way, shape or form has not occured.. In that earth has gone through massive changes, no animal is going to simply suit any climate thrown at it, they must either change with the environment or become extinct. We know, we can prove, the earth has changed massively (the 'little ice age' in europe is the only one I can think of, tectonic plates moving another) since we all came along and many species are still around. They must have changed.

But if you throw an evolutionary theory at me I'm inclined to look at it very very closely.. we all accept some things far too readily without taking later events into consideration. it is a THEORY, freakersoup, a theory being something which is either yet to be proved or unproveable. It is simply the most convenient idea which fits what we know at this time.

And can we all please get something straight- evolutionary theory is different in many ways from creationist theory- evolutionary theory covers living things (that we evolved from one celled organisms); creationist theory covers how the universe/world was created, (that everything was created in 7 days by g-d); the big bang theory (and other theories like it) cover 'scientific' concepts on how the universe was created. Evolution and creation do not meet head on.

 

lets get something straight, your a dumbass
creationists believe god created all human, animal and plant life on earth and the universe in 6 days, and those animals and plants and humans(only 2) were made as they currently are (they look the same, didnt change as a specises). and they think the world is only like 6000 years old.

 

Could people please STOP bringing religion into arguments about evolution.

Religion is the beleif of why we're here, and who made us. Evolution is a scientific theory about how humans came to be. They are completely separate and independent issues. You can't disprove science with scripture, and you can't disprove scripture with science.

I am a Christian, and that has nothing to do with my thoughts on evolution. Nowhere in The Bible does it say 'evolution is a lie', so there are no grounds to deny it based on The Bible. The Bible never mentions science at all. It never speaks about how planets and species are formed. It is not about science; that is not the purpose of The Bible! The Bible is there to tell us why we are here, and how God created the universe. Not how the universe works!

Evolution is, as Freaker pointed out, a fact of life. Evolution does happen. That doesn't necessarily mean that all species originated from the same species, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest it's true...

We know that a few million years ago there were other human-like species who walked the earth, such as neandetals, who survived up until very recently before dying out. These species were very similar to humans, but they were not human. The only logical conclusion is that we all evolved from the same original species.

And if you look at the species of today, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that many species evolved from another. All the members of the cat family have striking similarities (both physical and genetic). That is why we call groups of species 'families'. Why would such similarities exist if it was impossible for species to evolve into others? Are these things all a coincidence?

 

It's only because creationists are too willfully ignorant to see them. We give you archaeopteryx, a half bird half reptile, and you refuse to accept it. We give you the entire horse lineage, showing obvious progression, and still you won't see. We show you the well documented human lineage, replete with transitional species, and you won't look. Your arguement that there are no transitional species might have worked 100 years ago, but since then we've found many. And that (fossils) is just one line of evidence. What about genetics, morphological comparisons, embryology, artificial (domestic) selection, island species studies, molecular biology?

What I don't understand is why, when we know that everything changes in this world, that change is the driving force in life, why anyone would refuse to accept that species can change. All evolution is is a change in the genetic averages in a population. We KNOW DNA can change. We've seen changes in populations (bacteria, fruit flies, and Galapogos finches are some well known examples). Why can't you take that to it's logical conclusion that, given time (these studies are only a couple of years long), these changes could accumulate and eventually produce new species.

"Nothing is permanent but change." (Heraclitus)

And by the way, scientists are not abandoning evolution. Maybe a few nuts, but overall, it is one of the most successful theories in science, right up there with gravity.

 

Dizzyman,

I completely agree. I love religion, not because it explains science or politics to me, but because it explains me to myself. I believe that religion is above all about LOVE, and that issues which cloud this fact are products of spiritual deficiency. Ask Jesus.

 

I think 's all bout them lookin fer cracks. They ask for a transitional fossil, we give it to them. Then they wanna fossil that shows a transiton from the original form to the first transitional form. 'S like atoms n' spaces: We show them tha atoms, they show us tha spaces in between 'em. We show them tha smaller molecules that make up tha space, an they show us tha space in between those molecules. 'S a fuckin never-ending cycle.

 

Well first of all I would like to know what you consider a radical statement. Please be specific. The empty claims you say I make are either coming from evolutionist or the Bible and are documented.

I understand continental drift, and I believe in the beginning this drift was much faster than it is today. The drift started at the time of the flood when God said the fountains of the deep were opened up. The reason the fountains of the deep were opened was because the outer earths crust collapsed. An indication that the entire earth was covered by water is demonstrated by the fact that on Mount Ararat located in Turkey resarchers have discovered pillar lava at the top of the mountain. Pilar lava as you know can only be formed if the volcanic vent is below water.

 

Author Luther Sunderland formally, and in detail, interviewed five leading fossil experts from the world's major fossile museums. Face to face in a formal scientific discussion, they not only confirmed, but also enhance, what creation scientists such as Dr Duane Gish have been saying all along.
None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.
Dr Eldredge(curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum) said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup (curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago) said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson (a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History) spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.
Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. He replied to the suthor in a most candid letter as follows:
... I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?
The reason the theory of Evolution is failing is because even those who believe in evolution recognize that the evidence has never been found in the fossil record. Evolution is the most successful theory that is based on no evidence.
Those who believe in evolution have greater faith than many that put their faith in religion. For even religion has roots that can be examined. Evolution has none.

 

Well the so called missing link of trans-species should be easy to find because the evolutionist have stated that man took millions of years to become what he is today. We don't even have to look for a human trans-species. Since all mammals have evolved over millions of years, and evolutionist have been looking for evidence in the fossile record for over 150 years. We now should have in our museums 10s of thousands of fossils that demonstrate this change. And yet how many fossils do we have showing this change? Oh yeah that's right, we have zero. Believe me, it requires much more faith to believe in Evolution, than it does the Bible.

 

Neanderthal-The Neanderthal man was for many years considered one of man's ancestors. Evolutionists suggested that he lived some 80,000 years ago--the dating depends upon which book one reads. Recently it was discovered that Neanderthal is really not much different from modern man. Because the first Neanderthal skeleton found had a curvature of the spine, scientist were certain that the skeleton with a curved spine was good evidence that man did not always walk upright. Then they found skeletons of Neanderthal which stood perfectly upright. Subsequently the first skeletons with curvature of the spine were rexamined and found to have suffered from a form of arthritis.
There is enviromental adaptation, there is species inbreeding, yet this is light years from full blown evolution. If the theory of evolution is true it should be demonstrated in the fossil record. And yet after 150 years evolutionist have yet to produce one clear fossil that demonstrates trans species. For years Evolutionist have been saying they found the missing link only to come out latter in the back pages of some obscure news paper to say they were wrong. Lucy was found to be an unusual chimpanzee. Heidelberg man was built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human. Nebraska man was a hoax. Piltdown man was a hoax. Peking man was supposedly 500,000 years old, but all evidence has disapppeared. The list could go on but this is the kind of voodoo science that people imbrace. Someone once said that if you tell a lie long enought, people will finally believe it. I guess that statement is true. The greatest argument against evolution will be found by looking at their own record.
The Bible does mention science in the New Testement and states, beware of science, falsely so called.

 

Yes that is very true and Evolution or those who support it have told us that the dinosaurs died out 70 million years ago. They also tell us that it would be impossible to remove DNA from dinosaurs bones becase DNA breaks down after 10,000 years. If you were listening to the news 2 weeks ago scientest are now claiming that they have discovered DNA in a recent unearth Tyrannosaurus rex.
Scientist examined one of the creature"s thigh bones and noticed unusual features in the marrow cavity.
Dissolving the fossil mineral deposits with acid left a flexible, stretch material threaded with what appeared to be transparent and hollow blood vessels.
Dr Mary Schweitzer, from North Carolina State University in Raleigh, in the United States, who led the team, told the journal Science: ''It was totally shocking. I didn't believe it until we'd done it 17 times.
If the evolutionist are right and DNA is gone after 10,000 years then the creation scientist must be right when they state that some dinosaurs were still on the earth only 4,000 years ago. In fact, in the Bible in the book of Job it speaks of a living dinosaur, and it's great size.

 

I'm going to exit this conversation because I don't like wasting my time. But The idea that Neandertal Man was just an arthritic man suffering from rickets ceased to be even considered OVER 100 YEARS AGO. Get a fucking clue.

Yes, Piltdown man was a hoax. Guess who discovered the hoax? Scientists! Evolutionists, no less. Know how they validated that it was a hoax? Using science! Science you use to cite how foolish we are in believing this hoax, yet in another argument will totally discount (radiometric dating).

Lucy is not a chimpanzee, her feet are human, her hips are modern...Clearly she walked upright. You should find better sources for your ideas that Creationist literature; they, like with religious dogma, keep their arguments decades after they go "out of style". Interesting too, we have a bipedal ape, extremely human in the lower half, and with small canine teeth, but with a small brain and an apish skull...yet you refuse to accept it as a transitional species.

Peking man's evidence has't dissapeared; Peking man was found to be part of the species Homo erectus, of which we have much evidence.