Evidence Against (?) Evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2014, 03:41 PM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2014 06:02 AM by RedJamaX.)
Evidence Against (?) Evolution
I recently watched a debate on Youtube:

The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design [Full Debate]

I have always heard the claim that there is "evidence against evolution", but never actually heard it presented in any carefully presented argument or debate. Well, Fuz Rana does just that in this debate. Being a former Christian, I can see how great the argument actually sounds to a believer. And, I realized that I have never really heard a carefully constructed rebuttal to the claim. I've heard all of the components broken down separately, but I've never heard all of the key points brought together in one presentation to clearly refute the claim. Not to say it hasn't been done, I've just never seen/heard it before, so I decided to give it a shot...

Although this particular debate is geared toward the beginning of life, I believe that this argument works for evolution in general as well...

NO SUCH THING AS EVIDENCE "AGAINST" EVOLUTION

There is no EVIDENCE that CONTRADICTS evolution. There are only things that we do not yet understand and most of what we do not know is related to abiogenesis, NOT evolution. Anytime you ask a creationist to present the evidence you will get answers with the following structure --- scientists don't now how X happened, or how X works... scientists cannot duplicate the process of X in the lab (without direct intervention from the scientist).... scientists don't understand what X is.... --- and then they proceed to fill those gaps by saying it was done by an intelligent designer...

This is the way the creationists construct their argument...
"Of the thousands of steps it would take for chemistry and physics to create life on it's own by natural processes, scientists can only replicate a handful of these processes in the lab, and even then, they can only do it by way of direct intervention of the scientist."

[edit - they also claim that we know exactly what the environmental conditions of early earth were, AND that we have the ability to fully replicate those conditions in the lab, I've never seen that claim anywhere except from creationists]

The current requirement of direct intervention from the scientist is what is being suggested as the evidence that an intelligent designer is required. "Seems" logical right?? NO... The problem is that they are putting on their blinders and not including all prior knowledge regarding claims about an intelligent designer in all areas of science. This is how they try to avoid the "god of the gaps" argument... the problem is, just because they put on their blinders to not see the whole picture, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

Creationists will say that science should be based on the information that we have on-hand, and not what "could" be in the future. This is their defense for when scientists say --- While we can't do (or understand) X "yet", but that doesn't mean we won't be able to do (or understand) X "ever". - Again, this argument "seems" logical, right?? WRONG again. All current knowledge includes all prior knowledge and experiences from the past.

Before we understood static electricity, "God" was credited for lightning... but eventually we learned where lightning comes from, and much later after that we developed ways to recreate static electricity in the lab with an equivalent charge to a lightning bolt. Before we understood plate tectonics, volcanic eruptions were also credited to "God". But now we have a firm understanding of late tectonics and how that plays into the mechanics of volcanic eruptions. In this example we will most likely NOT ever be able to reproduce it in the lab, but that doesn't matter because we have shown that the process is entirely natural, and NOT "god". This applies to so many other things like; the majestic size of large mountain ranges; the colors of flowers; the rainbow after a storm; the stars in the sky... so on and so on... The point is that all of those prior experiences of "disproving the assumption of an intelligent designer" are part of our "current knowledge" and cannot be excluded from the assessment of an "intelligent designer" in all other applicable claims as well (including evolution and abiogenesis)... but that prior experience is exactly what the creationists are ignoring...

Almost everything that has been credited to an "intelligent designer" (ie "God"), has been shown by science to be the natural processes of our universe. And in almost every case, the process used to figure out that it wasn't due to a "designer" has been the same... via the Scientific Method of building a hypothesis and testing. First scientists study the phenomena via observation and testing based on current relative knowledge. Then they take that data and perform small experiments in the lab to understand how the process works... constantly testing based on collective data with a goal of producing similar, if not identical, results to confirm the testing. As more and more data is added to the collective through the experimentation process, each piece of the entire process is confirmed one at a time through results that are consistently reproducible. Once each piece of the process has been confirmed, the next step is to reproduce the entire process in the lab, if possible, again with consistently reproducible results. This is the way the process has worked for every other natural process which was once credited to a "god" or "intelligent designer", and it's the same process that's being used right now in the examination of evolution and abiogenesis here on earth. Based on ALL of our current knowledge, there is NO REASON to even suspect that any "god" or "intelligent designer" is part of the process because that has NEVER been proven to be the answer ever before.

Also, do not be fooled by the generic term "intelligent designer" ... they don't mean ANY intelligent designer, such as a highly advanced alien species, but ONLY their god, for which there is no real evidence to support. These leaves them with several assumptions... First, they have to prove that a god exists at all, then they still have to prove their hypothesis of design, then they have to provide evidence that particular god did indeed have a hand in the design process.


So... feedback? Did I miss anything? Did I misrepresent anything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RedJamaX's post
12-06-2014, 04:10 PM
RE: Evidence Against (?) Evolution
(12-06-2014 03:41 PM)RedJamaX Wrote:  I recently watched a debate on Youtube:

The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design [Full Debate]

I have always heard the claim that there is "evidence against evolution", but never actually heard it presented in any carefully presented argument or debate. Well, Fuz Rana does just that in this debate. Being a former Christian, I can see how great the argument actually sounds to a believer. And, I realized that I have never really heard a carefully constructed rebuttal to the claim. I've heard all of the components broken down separately, but I've never heard all of the key points brought together in one presentation to clearly refute the claim. Not to say it hasn't been done, I've just never seen/heard it before, so I decided to give it a shot...

Although this particular debate is geared toward the beginning of life, I believe that this argument works for evolution in general as well...

NO SUCH THING AS EVIDENCE "AGAINST" EVOLUTION

There is no EVIDENCE that CONTRADICTS evolution. There are only things that we do not yet understand and most of what we do not know is related to a-biogenesis, NOT evolution. Anytime you ask a creationist to preset the evidence you will get answers with the following structure --- scientists don't now how X happened, or how X works... scientists cannot duplicate the process of X in the lab (without direct intervention from the scientist).... scientists don't understand what X is.... --- and then they proceed to fill those gaps by saying it was done by an intelligent designer...

This is the way the creationists construct their argument...
"Of the thousands of steps it would take for chemistry and physics to create life on it's own by natural processes, scientists can only replicate a handful of these processes in the lab, and even then, they can only do it by way of direct intervention of the scientist."

The current requirement of direct intervention from the scientist is what is being suggested as the evidence that an intelligent designer is required. "Seems" logical right?? NO... The problem is that they are putting on their blinders and not including all prior knowledge regarding claims about an intelligent designer in all areas of science. This is how they try to avoid the "god of the gaps" argument... the problem is, just because they put on their blinders to not see the whole picture, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

Creationists will say that science should be based on the information that we have on-hand, and not what "could" be in the future. This is their defense for when scientists say --- While we can't do (or understand) X "yet", but that doesn't mean we won't be able to do (or understand) X "ever". - Again, this argument "seems" logical, right?? WRONG again. All current knowledge includes all prior knowledge and experiences from the past.

Before we understood static electricity, "God" was credited for lightning... but eventually we learned where lightning comes from, and much later after that we developed ways to recreate static electricity in the lab with an equivalent charge to a lightning bolt. Before we understood plate tectonics, volcanic eruptions were also credited to "God". But now we have a firm understanding of late tectonics and how that plays into the mechanics of volcanic eruptions. In this example we will most likely NOT ever be able to reproduce it in the lab, but that doesn't matter because we have shown that the process is entirely natural, and NOT "god". This applies to so many other things like; the majestic size of large mountain ranges; the colors of flowers; the rainbow after a storm; the stars in the sky... so on and so on... The point is that all of those prior experiences of "disproving the assumption of an intelligent designer" are part of our "current knowledge" and cannot be excluded from the assessment of an "intelligent designer" in all other applicable claims as well (including evolution and abiogenesis)... but that prior experience is exactly what the creationists are ignoring...

Almost everything that has been credited to an "intelligent designer" (ie "God"), has been shown by science to be the natural processes of our universe. And in almost every case, the process used to figure out that it wasn't due to a "designer" has been the same... via the Scientific Method of building a hypothesis and testing. First scientists study the phenomena via observation and testing based on current relative knowledge. Then they take that data and perform small experiments in the lab to understand how the process works... constantly testing based on collective data with a goal of producing similar, if not identical, results to confirm the testing. As more and more data is added to the collective through the experimentation process, each piece of the entire process is confirmed one at a time through results that are consistently reproducible. Once each piece of the process has been confirmed, the next step is to reproduce the entire process in the lab, if possible, again with consistently reproducible results. This is the way the process has worked for every other natural process which was once credited to a "god" or "intelligent designer", and it's the same process that's being used right now in the examination of evolution and a-biogenesis here on earth. Based on ALL of our current knowledge, there is NO REASON to even suspect that any "god" or "intelligent designer" is part of the process because that has NEVER been proven to be the answer ever before.

Also, do not be fooled by the generic term "intelligent designer" ... they don't mean ANY intelligent designer, such as a highly advanced alien species, but ONLY their god, for which there is no real evidence to support. These leaves them with several assumptions... First, they have to prove that a god exists at all, then they still have to prove their hypothesis of design, then they have to provide evidence that particular god did indeed have a hand in the design process.


So... feedback? Did I miss anything? Did I misrepresent anything?

Looks like you got most of it.
Though I have to nitpick on your "a-biogenesis". It's abiogenesis; no hyphen.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
12-06-2014, 06:12 PM
RE: Evidence Against (?) Evolution
(12-06-2014 03:41 PM)RedJamaX Wrote:  Of the thousands of steps it would take for chemistry and physics to create life on it's own by natural processes, scientists can only replicate a handful of these processes in the lab, and even then, they can only do it by way of direct intervention of the scientist."

Too bad for them that's entirely wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 04:23 PM
RE: Evidence Against (?) Evolution
Latest stuff from AiG:

Chromosome Tales and the Importance of a Biblical Worldview

A person very dear to me was badly hurt through a misunderstanding and miscommunication. For this, I am sorry, and he knows it. That said, any blaming me for malicious intent is for the birds. I will not wear some scarlet letter, I will not be anybody's whipping girl, and I will not lurk in silence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 02:49 PM
RE: Evidence Against (?) Evolution
(12-06-2014 03:41 PM)RedJamaX Wrote:  "Of the thousands of steps it would take for chemistry and physics to create life on it's own by natural processes, scientists can only replicate a handful of these processes in the lab, and even then, they can only do it by way of direct intervention of the scientist."
Is this a direct quote? Just wondering because I found the part that I bolded to be interesting because it sounds like an admission that it's possible even if they don't believe it actually happened. That would be new to me. Usually, I hear something more like it would be impossible for life to have come into existence without a creator.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2014, 10:45 PM
RE: Evidence Against (?) Evolution
(12-06-2014 06:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(12-06-2014 03:41 PM)RedJamaX Wrote:  Of the thousands of steps it would take for chemistry and physics to create life on it's own by natural processes, scientists can only replicate a handful of these processes in the lab, and even then, they can only do it by way of direct intervention of the scientist."

Too bad for them that's entirely wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU


This guy need a better taylor or at the very least a personal dresser. I mean, really. He's probably a smart as they come but he can't seem to buy clothes the actually fit.

"If things aren't funny anymore then they're exactly what they are and life is just one long dental appointment interrupted occasionally by something exciting like waiting or falling asleep" Jason Robards in A Thousand Clowns
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 02:47 AM
RE: Evidence Against (?) Evolution
It always pisses me off to see a creationist talk about evolution as if it's pretty much how life began. It's as if they never even bothered to do a 2 minute Google search and find out what it actually is. As far as evolution vs. creation debates go, those aren't topics that can be debated against each other at all since they deal with COMPLETELY different aspects of life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TokyoRoyalty's post
25-06-2014, 12:27 PM
RE: Evidence Against (?) Evolution
(23-06-2014 02:47 AM)TokyoRoyalty Wrote:  It always pisses me off to see a creationist talk about evolution as if it's pretty much how life began. It's as if they never even bothered to do a 2 minute Google search and find out what it actually is. As far as evolution vs. creation debates go, those aren't topics that can be debated against each other at all since they deal with COMPLETELY different aspects of life.

It only goes to show just how completely ignorant they are about science and, well, you know, Life, the Universe, and Everything.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 07:12 AM
RE: Evidence Against (?) Evolution
(12-06-2014 03:41 PM)RedJamaX Wrote:  I recently watched a debate on Youtube:

The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design [Full Debate]

I have always heard the claim that there is "evidence against evolution", but never actually heard it presented in any carefully presented argument or debate. Well, Fuz Rana does just that in this debate. Being a former Christian, I can see how great the argument actually sounds to a believer. And, I realized that I have never really heard a carefully constructed rebuttal to the claim. I've heard all of the components broken down separately, but I've never heard all of the key points brought together in one presentation to clearly refute the claim. Not to say it hasn't been done, I've just never seen/heard it before, so I decided to give it a shot...

Although this particular debate is geared toward the beginning of life, I believe that this argument works for evolution in general as well...

NO SUCH THING AS EVIDENCE "AGAINST" EVOLUTION

There is no EVIDENCE that CONTRADICTS evolution. There are only things that we do not yet understand and most of what we do not know is related to abiogenesis, NOT evolution. Anytime you ask a creationist to present the evidence you will get answers with the following structure --- scientists don't now how X happened, or how X works... scientists cannot duplicate the process of X in the lab (without direct intervention from the scientist).... scientists don't understand what X is.... --- and then they proceed to fill those gaps by saying it was done by an intelligent designer...

This is the way the creationists construct their argument...
"Of the thousands of steps it would take for chemistry and physics to create life on it's own by natural processes, scientists can only replicate a handful of these processes in the lab, and even then, they can only do it by way of direct intervention of the scientist."

[edit - they also claim that we know exactly what the environmental conditions of early earth were, AND that we have the ability to fully replicate those conditions in the lab, I've never seen that claim anywhere except from creationists]

The current requirement of direct intervention from the scientist is what is being suggested as the evidence that an intelligent designer is required. "Seems" logical right?? NO... The problem is that they are putting on their blinders and not including all prior knowledge regarding claims about an intelligent designer in all areas of science. This is how they try to avoid the "god of the gaps" argument... the problem is, just because they put on their blinders to not see the whole picture, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

Creationists will say that science should be based on the information that we have on-hand, and not what "could" be in the future. This is their defense for when scientists say --- While we can't do (or understand) X "yet", but that doesn't mean we won't be able to do (or understand) X "ever". - Again, this argument "seems" logical, right?? WRONG again. All current knowledge includes all prior knowledge and experiences from the past.

Before we understood static electricity, "God" was credited for lightning... but eventually we learned where lightning comes from, and much later after that we developed ways to recreate static electricity in the lab with an equivalent charge to a lightning bolt. Before we understood plate tectonics, volcanic eruptions were also credited to "God". But now we have a firm understanding of late tectonics and how that plays into the mechanics of volcanic eruptions. In this example we will most likely NOT ever be able to reproduce it in the lab, but that doesn't matter because we have shown that the process is entirely natural, and NOT "god". This applies to so many other things like; the majestic size of large mountain ranges; the colors of flowers; the rainbow after a storm; the stars in the sky... so on and so on... The point is that all of those prior experiences of "disproving the assumption of an intelligent designer" are part of our "current knowledge" and cannot be excluded from the assessment of an "intelligent designer" in all other applicable claims as well (including evolution and abiogenesis)... but that prior experience is exactly what the creationists are ignoring...

Almost everything that has been credited to an "intelligent designer" (ie "God"), has been shown by science to be the natural processes of our universe. And in almost every case, the process used to figure out that it wasn't due to a "designer" has been the same... via the Scientific Method of building a hypothesis and testing. First scientists study the phenomena via observation and testing based on current relative knowledge. Then they take that data and perform small experiments in the lab to understand how the process works... constantly testing based on collective data with a goal of producing similar, if not identical, results to confirm the testing. As more and more data is added to the collective through the experimentation process, each piece of the entire process is confirmed one at a time through results that are consistently reproducible. Once each piece of the process has been confirmed, the next step is to reproduce the entire process in the lab, if possible, again with consistently reproducible results. This is the way the process has worked for every other natural process which was once credited to a "god" or "intelligent designer", and it's the same process that's being used right now in the examination of evolution and abiogenesis here on earth. Based on ALL of our current knowledge, there is NO REASON to even suspect that any "god" or "intelligent designer" is part of the process because that has NEVER been proven to be the answer ever before.

Also, do not be fooled by the generic term "intelligent designer" ... they don't mean ANY intelligent designer, such as a highly advanced alien species, but ONLY their god, for which there is no real evidence to support. These leaves them with several assumptions... First, they have to prove that a god exists at all, then they still have to prove their hypothesis of design, then they have to provide evidence that particular god did indeed have a hand in the design process.


So... feedback? Did I miss anything? Did I misrepresent anything?

I think you're right. There is no objective evidence against evolution. All the so called "evidence" is just arbitrary claims about the accuracy of dating methods and flat out misrepresentations of what the theory actually says.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: