Welcome to Gaia! ::

* readers be aware the following may contain in-properly worded information as many people have pointed out
* the arguments are not original, they are a collection of commonly raised confusions in science
* not all evolution theories are wrong, micro-evolution is a fact
* this topic has nothing to do with Scientology, stop using that word
* the argument is not targeting at the latest theory of Cosmic Evolution etc, it is refering to all possible understandings developed over time through out the history even those that is already proven wrong
* I did not write "therefore Intelligent Design is the answer", this is not an argument supporting Creation Theory
I understand half of the Gaia Community will attack this topic anyway but before you unleash your attacks please read the following!

In many ways, we came across endless debates that dis-encourage The Creation Theory. Therefore it is greatly appreciated to even have someone to sit on the other side of the table and challenge Science.

1. Stella and Planetary Evolution. We see stars evolve, blow up from time to time it's called Nova or Super Nova, there are enough stars that people living on Earth could each own 2,000,000,000,000 of them. However, no one has ever seen a star or planet form. Certainly there are theories how stars are being born but actually no one has seen it. It is true, 2000 years is tiny compare to life of a star or planet but there are so many stars and planets out there... it's scientifically impossible to not observe even one unless it will no longer happen or never have happened. Every 30 years astronomer observe a star "dies" and explodes, if the universe is billions of years old, how come there are only 300 or so dead stars, there should be more than that. Is the Universe really that old? or God created the universe like the bible teaches.

2. Big Bang, nothing exploded and created everything? That is not science is it. Where did the matter and energy come from? We don't know! Where did the Universal Laws come from? It's just the way it is, scientist ignore this question. Matter had to spread across the universe faster than the speed of light? This is more like a science fiction. Why isn't matter and anti-matter evenly scattered across the universe? We don't know. Universe began from a single dot spinning faster and faster and it exploded, by conservation of angular momentum all the objects released from the center should spin in the same direction while they move away from each other; but why is Earth and Venus spinning in opposite directions? So does some other planets and their moons. There must be some logical reason why this is the case but it is interesting to take notice. Sometimes scientist do take advantage of Newton and other proven facts, trying to start a religion themselves.

3. Earth was a hot molten mass until it cools down and years of torrential rain created this pre-biotic "soup" and life must have started in this "soup" by itself. Progress from complex molecules to even the simplest living organism was a very long process. However, there is no record of the event this is not a fact it's an assumption, there is no proof. Have scientists ever produced life in the lab? No one came close to it. It's like saying kids we know what happened but there is no proof.

4. Darwin's theory is vague. There are no in-between mutated species alive today, or found in fossil. Macro-Evolution, defines change from one kind of animal into another. Micro-Evolution, defines variation within kinds. Only micro evolution has been observed but that doesn't mean macro evolution is true. The absence of evidence for intermediary stages has been a persistent problem because evolution could not have happened so fast and not be preserved. Common anatomy structure are used to prove evolution chains, but is that true? says who? One bone structure is similar to another bone structure doesn't mean one evolve into another. It's only a theory, there is no evidence, key links between evolution from one type of animal to another was never found. Saying every living being once had a common ancestor is vague. Animal looks similar probably because they have the same "creator".

5. Scientist determine the age of the rock obtained from certain layer of the earth by the type of fossil contained in the rock. The age of the fossil were determined by content of the radioactive isotopes created under the influence of ultraviolet light during their time and their radioactive decay. However, the flaw in this was that whether the amount of Carbon-14 for example, was at equilibrium stage across the years? There is no way to determine the index amount of Carbon-14 because even today the amount of Carbon-14 in earth's atmosphere is not at equilibrium. There are more C-14 in the atmosphere than there is 10 years ago. This can be under the influence of industrial evolution, scientist takes that as an excuse to assume the amount of Carbon-14 is roughly stable in the prehistoric ages. But was the assumption of the amount of Carbon-14 created back then accurate? This is the first problem. Second problem is whether another assumption, estimating amount of carbon-14 present in each species before they die accurate. The amount of Carbon-14 can be measured, the rate of decay can be determined but the original amount, present in each different species varies greatly even within its own kind. In a way living snails' shells contain as little carbon-14 they can be carbon dated as being 27000 years old. It is a very inaccurate process. Samples from know age radioisotope dating doesn't work. So why samples of unknown age radioisotope dating is assumed to work? Ridiculous ages for fossils and rocks were suggested back then but modern science now proves them inaccurate.

6. Vestigial structures, were suggested as proof of evolution. The greatest example in the theory was on how whales used to live on land for they used to have legs as tiny leg bones were found in their bone structure. That is too big as an assumption. Those bones are now proven essential to hold muscles that support the reproductive system. That has nothing to do with walking on land it's just author trying to push a theory. Imagine a whale walking on land with those tiny legs, it doesn't work, no fossil evident exist of a whale with slightly bigger legs either. There is a missing link in this theory. Another author claimed the small bone at the end of the human vertebral column has no present function. It is thought to be the remainder of bones that once occupied the long tail of a tree living ancestor. That is not true, there are 9 little muscle attached to the little tail bone that without them human will experience a hard time producing excrement.

7. Natural selection, mutation does not add new information that's a fact, it only scramble information in the DNA. How likely will beneficial mutation exist? Nobody has ever seen a good mutation. It doesn't get along with how species evolve at all. It is only a conservative process that removes defective organisms and keeps the species strong it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs. Natural selection is like a quality control it does not help an animal evolve. Survival of the fittest does not explain arrival of the fittest. Making a bone stronger, making a bird's wings bigger that's all it can do.

Great few of major theories were written or suggested a long time ago, they are all big assumptions and they are very inaccurate.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is not suppose to be a Evolution Vs Creation debate, it's just a discussion on all kinds of confusions in every aspect of Evolution theories raised across the centuries. Obviously my writing wasn't at all scientific nor professional, neither am I an expert in anything. Thanks to all the Gaians who shared their knowledge and views, especially those who didn't act like a language teacher picking out every misleading words from all the generalized statements I made.


This is Christians' understanding. God is almighty, there is nothing beyond God, there is no why. As human created by God, we have to love everything he does. Yes, he punished Jesus that's because he is also JUST. By punishing Jesus he forgives everyone who sinned and will sin.


What evolution? Cross breeding dogs to get a Chiwawa that is totally useless? It's still a dog, a totally screwed up dog that people think it's cute. The point I am discussing here that is against evolution is that you can't add on new information to the DNA you can only scramble information. Cancer is scrambled information it's not evolution.


Darwin's theory is vague in terms of scientific values. It's a great claim with materialized concepts people could easily accept and explore further. However in his days he doesn't even know how complicated a single cell is. He actually used the word "difficulty" in finding evident to support his claim.


In one stage they did use fossil to date the rock layers. On the other hand, when they use Potassium-Argon Dating on New Zealand & Hawaii volcano rocks, if lava can only be a little more than 200 years old, they are actually 465000 years old dated with K-Ar method? I'll say that's highly unreliable.


I agree with most of the things you said. Man has been seriously studying for only a couple of centuries. Let me also point out how I do my maths, man has been worshiping God since history began. Before Jesus, and after Jesus. Do you celebrate Christmas? Christmas is a religious holiday. Do you celebrate Easter? Easter is a religious holiday. Do you celebrate your Sunday? Sunday is a religious holy day for rest ... it was so long ago our history is lost!


Might also end up as a neutron star. Well, it's in favor of neither argument...


I just had to bring this point up to make my topic more interesting (hahhah). After all this topic is for entertainment purpose only when debate is over the world will still be the way it is.


Micro-evolution is proven. Macro-evolution is not. All the changes in micro-evolution makes a specie strong, it makes our bone stronger, it makes wings bigger, however, it will not add another pair of legs or wings for it to become a different specie. Quiet confusing


Need expert to define the word Mutation here. I wasn't using it properly in my text as well.


My bad for not writing a full sentence, I was referring to how scientists never produced life in the lab from non-living matter.


All the embryo development pictures were hand drawn. Again, there are no absolute evidents to support human evolve from ancient sea creatures (fish).


I am not convinced, that's all I can say. It's still a mystery. Will read more about whales definitely.


He excluded oxygen from his experiment to prevent oxidation that will stop evolution. However, the ozone layer is full of oxygen which stops ultra violet light from destroying his amino acids. He failed.


I've done my research in Christianity to answer that. Before the fall, ie Adam took the apple from tree of knowledge, Adam and Eve are to live forever with no disease nor aging. When he sin, he became mortal which is Satan's doing. Although he still lives for hundreds of years. I know what many people will say, how you know that where are the evidents, well, ask scholars how they came to knowing all this and how they find scriptures from the ancient world.


This is important. It allows the possibility that Dinosaurs existed in the age of Noah.


It will not turn into a new specie. Dogs will only give birth to dogs, horses will give birth to horse, and will always be its own kind.


Blaming the victim again, it is incorrect statements like this that made all other people believe god is a joke. Who trashed the society anyway? Ask yourself this question.


I've heard about this argument somewhere once, the reply was they lost something and gained something, just happen to be lucky becoming immune to malaria. However, it's good.


Very interesting what you've just said, I'll look it up later.




There are people who cut animal open and examine from bone to bone to prove that line can't be drawn. Sure many species look alike.


Best Arguments:

Page 2, 3 Comment from Vryko Lakas
Thank you for providing many hyperlinks.

Page 8 Comment from AliceInCyberland

Page 15, 16, 18 Comments from Meggsie & VoijaRisa
Great stuff

Page 19, Whole page of friendly insightful comments,
except the last 4 jerks

Page 21, 28, 29 VoijaRisa, Wippit Guud, MyxineDamion, Steampunk Patashu, MinozakeR

Page 30 GENUINE i m i t a t i o n

And finally Page 30 VoijaRisa
MUST READ, cleared a lot of stuff up

Listen, I'll just post the link to talkorigins, okay?

http://www.talkorigins.org

Here.

Now shut up until you find an original argument.

Why?

Try taking a biology class for you lack of knowlege on evolution, and a geology class for you lack of knowlege of the earth creation theroies.

You hold as proof that scientist have never observed a star or planet born. What, do you think that type of celstial event just happens? *click* a star is born? This type of things take hundreds, or thousands of years. How long have we been seriously looking at the sky? Plus, lets not mention that even today, new species are being discovered every single day. Now, compare the earth to space. Lets be generous and say we'll just compare it to the size of our galaxy. Man has been exploring this planet for thousands of years and still hasn't found everything it contains. MAn has been seriously studying an area billions of times larger for only a couple fo centuries. Do the math. God did not flick a switch that created the universe, he did not place fossils as some sort of cosmic joke, and though I'm happy to leave the belief of God to whomever wants to beleive in him, I could just as easily say that the Universe was create by Nyx and her gold egg, or we are all begat by Ymir, the first living creature, or any other creation myth.

It takles an incredibly long time for that sort of information to reach planet Earth. Half the stars in the sky can be long dead, we just haven't recieved the light from the Nova.


This isn't evolution so much as abiogenesis, and I don'tknow much about that. The only thing I can comment about are the directions celestial bodies move in: Large objects in space can effect the rotation of other objects, especially if they smack into each other. There's no reason to assume all objects cleanly left the big bang during the explosion, assuming that's what it was (again, I don'tknow s**t about abiogenesis). Also, planets and suns were created later in nebulas.


Again, abiogenesis.


There are missing links because of the difficulty in creating a fossil in the first place. However, not all evolution needs to be preserved in bone: Bacteria constantly evolve to kep a step ahead of antibacterial medication. Peppered moths evolved to match the pollution-marred trees so they wouldn't stand out to predators. Imagine an animal species going through small changes like this repeatedly- eventually, you end up with a new animal.


From whatI understand, carbon dating doesn't rely on how much carbon is in something, but how many half-lifes that carbon has gone through.


Again, fossil creation is a rare occurance. Also, why can't a muscle have multiple uses, or have it's use changed over time?


Peppered moths. That's a beneficial mutation right there. Although realistically most mutations are detremental, or at least not overtly useful.


Evolution would not be a scientific theory if it did not have mountains of evidence in it's favor. Gravity is a theory, but people generally accept that as fact. Granted, gravity is easier to swallow: you let go of something, it drops. Evolution is not so easily observed.