Originally posted by: Genesys
f*cking hell. im NOT trying to prove creationism, dolt. im trying to show you that evolution is flawed [thus my disbelief] and that the theorey of evolution [as it pretains as to how life was 'created'] takes as much faith as creationism. damn. now thats not hard, is it? im NOT trying to sway you towrds creationism because I know you, like religious fareing people, are so set in your beliefs that you arent going to change.
damn, im not sure why it is you guys think im trying to prove creationism. if you read earlier, i was saying that creationsm and evolution are equally WEAK. they both have no substance to them. the only difference is that evolution has been brought up on assumptions, and based on those assumptions, the is now "evidence" or "proof" that these assumptions are correct. so, your "evidence" and "proof" are flawed, but because you guys are so blind and dont want your precious faith in evolution as an explination rocked, you remain blind because anything else jeapordizes your faith [sounds familiar, doesnt it?].
get a clue, do some reading, think about it, use a process of logical reasoning, then come back to this thread.
edit
you guys still havet bothered to try and refute those 7 assumptions. all your doing now is trying to attack my intelligence or deny credability to what ive presented to challenge your precious 'proven' faith. stop trying to avoid answering these assumptions, just try and do.
or here, let me play to your egos. just humor an ignorant bastard.
These assumptions ? :
Taken from Implications of Evolution by G.A. Kerkut:
There are seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only consider the seventh. The assumptions are as follows:
1) non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.
2) spontaneous generation occurred only once
3) viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related
4) protozoa gave rise to metazoa
5) various invertabrate phyla are interrelated
6) invertabrates gave rise to vertabrates
7) within vertabrates, the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles, the reptiles to birds and mammals.
Sounds like fun.
1) non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.
First off, evolution
does not propose spontaneous generation. Evolution proposes to explain changes over time of existing living species. It says nothing of the origin of life.
However, if we were to address the origin of life, there is no evidence anywhere of spontaneous generation and there is no scientist (well-regarded, anyway) who is asserting that life began spontaneously in the "primordial soup" of which the current model of our planet's evolution is based. There are many supporters of the theory that life began within said "primordial soup" starting with the creation of amino acids through chance. The theory then goes on to purport that life eventually develops as the building blocks of life are slowly constructed over many years.
In other words, evolution
never supported spontaneous generation.
2) spontaneous generation occurred only once
Spontaneous generation is not supported by any field of biology I can remember. However, even if it were, this assumption is fundamentally flawed by the scientific method. The scientific method itself relies on the assumption of repeatability. A scientific theory is assumed to be true if it can be experimentally verified not only once, but forever at any time and place assuming changing time and place do not change the parameters being tested. So if you want to verify the theory that water boils at 100C at sea level, then you can verify it experimentally at any time and place as long as you maintain constant pressure, no outside interference, purity of water, etc.
Therefore, even if evolution were to assume spontaneous generation, it would automatically assume that spontaneous generation can occur more than once simply because otherwise, the theory is no longer verifiable. If it is not verifiable, it is not a valid scientific theory, so evolution would be thoroughly debunked and relegated to the halls of magic.
3) viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related
This assumption is also flawed. Evolution purports only that current species evolved from previous species if and only if the evolution brings an ecological advantage. Crocodiles are given as an example of a species which has not evolved much (or not at all) over a few million years. Any evolution in the part of the crocodile must allow it to survive, otherwise the evolved trait dies out. Evolution would therefore state that any evolution of the crocodile resulted in the death of the new crocodile or the creation of a new species which inhabited a differing ecology.
Therefore, the assumption is not relevant to evolution, but is merely a proposed side effect of evolution theory. Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals
do not need to share a common ancestor according to evolution. The idea of a common ancestor stems from the incredulity of trying to propose that multiple single-celled lifeforms arose at different (or the same) time throughout the planet. Heck, for all we know, the idea that aliens crash landed a few millenia ago and sparked human evolution is equally valid. As stated before, the Theory of Evolution does not state anything about the origin of life nor does it need to in order to provide a valid foundation.
4) protozoa gave rise to metazoa
Unfortunately, this is beyond me. Discussing this point would require more knowledge than I have. The most I can say is I believe the assumption is that single-celled life forms eventually gave rise to multi-cellular life forms with speciallized cell structures. To be honest, this assumption is too far off from impossible from my point of view. One need only look to animal reproduction to see multitudes of exact copies of cells suddenly differentiating based on location. Not exactly the best evidence, but then, I'm no biologist.
5) various invertabrate phyla are interrelated
The assumption is based upon fossil records and DNA analysis. Since the book from which you're taking these assumptions is dated 1960, I'm assuming that the DNA record is sorely lacking. Yet, one needs only direct one's attention to the evolution of diseases in the laboratory. The changes in certain virii and bacteria over time and under various conditions have been carefully recorded and show a pretty wide range of mutation. Emperical evidence in nature has supported the theory that evolution of existing pathogens creates new species. Several diseases which originated in other animals have made the jump to humans. From what I hear, the protein structure of human and other animal DNA is different enough to warrant a different parasitic species in order to even cause an effect on the body. For that reason, diseases which affect one animal but not the other are different than diseases which affect the other animal but not the first.
This is the best supporting evidence I know of evolution of new species. Any assumption of existing life being interrelated to other life is, of course, merely an assumption since nobody was around years ago to record the process. However, that does not mean that species which we have observed are not related to new species we discover.
6) invertabrates gave rise to vertabrates
This one's a bit difficult for me to even process, since I don't even know the theory to which this assumption refers. All I can say is that
7) within vertabrates, the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles, the reptiles to birds and mammals.
This is probably the current accepted gross evolution of vertebrate life. This does not mean it cannot be debunked later on. However, this is not a direct result of evolution. It is a result of applying evolution in order to explain the various discrepencies in the fossil record. This assumption does not prove evolution, it merely puts forth a proposed solution to the origin of life based on evolutionary theory.
Man, the last biology course I had was about seven years ago. We're getting into details beyond my knowledge base.
However, most of these assumptions listed are easily seen as inapplicable to any attempt at disproving evolution. If I were to try countering evolution, I would start with the scientific method. The inductive method Darwin used to propose his Theory of Evolution is flawed in one respect : There always exists the possibility it could be wrong. Of course, deduction has the same problem and Creationists aren't free of it as well. There always exists the possibility that Scripture is either misinterpreted or written incorrectly.
The next point of attack would be the scope of the Theory. Evolution has been observed with single-celled life, but it has not been recorded with multi-cellular life. At least, not that I can remember. Dogs are pretty close in that inbreading has produced distinctly different animals based on lineage, but the fact that any two dogs can produce offspring is still a barrier to completely new species. As such, it can be said that evolution only applies to simple life forms because of the lack of "hard" evidence at any other level. However, note that this argument is related to the previous argument in that it attacks the inductive method.
Any theory has its holes and if you look hard enough, you'll find them. Even Newton's great Theory of Relativity has holes large enough to drive a truck thrugh. Yet, to say that the Theory of Evolution is about as valid as the Theory of Creation is a weak assumption in itself. The Theory of Evolution has more data, and verifiability. The Theory of Creation has a Bible, all the holes in Evolution, and no capability for experimental verification. The Theory of Evolution may eventually be debunked and proven wrong in some respects, but that can only be done by introducting a new, better, theory to replace it. The Theory of Creation ultimately relies upon Scripture and any problems with Evolution. As the Theory of Evolution evolves (no pun intended), the holes disappear leaving Creation on shaky ground. For that reason, the Theory of Evolution currently holds more salt than the Theory of Creation.
Facebook
Twitter