Typical, done-to-death, anti-evolution arguments - your thoughts?

[AxlDave]

Good evening.

 

I have recently been in discussion with a chap who is blindingly ignorant of evolutionary theory. In my attempts to educate this whippersnapper, I have linked him to several peer-reviewed articles regarding evolution - none of which he has read, let alone attempted to refute - and attempted to explain to him why he is so very wrong.

 

So great was his confidence in his intellect compared to that of almost every scientist on the planet that I challenged him to present his views on a moderated forum such as this, where people actually care whether the posted content is true. Predictably, he cowered away from such an option in a shower of deflections and personal attacks - yeah, this guy really knows all the tricks!

 

So, out of the kindness of my heart (by which I mean the mischievous little imp that lives in my brain), I am going to post some of his "finer" points. These will be direct copy-pasted quotes to remove any possibility of me re-wording things in my favour.

 

Here they are:

 

 

There is a difference between micro and macro evolution. Any true scientist will tell you macro evolution has no proof whatsoever, along with the fact that the law of entropy does not allow for it.

 

 

Micro-evolution adaptive changes within a species. Macro-evolution changes that make it into a new species.

 

 

You just show your own ignorance when you try to say they are the same thing. If you understood the "science" you try to defend you would see how saying they are the same thing is complete nonsense. Enjoy your pseudo-science religion but trying to defend it from an erroneous position like that makes you look even more silly. Changes within a species are not the same thing as changes into a transitional species. That is why there is are terms transitional species or missing link. lol

 

 

 

You only show your ignorance if you cannot understand the difference between changes within a species that do not change it to another species and changes that change it to another species (transitional species). Just because you are intellectually incapable of understanding a sentence or the science does not make it nonsense.
You ignorance is showing and most scientists openly admit that evolutionary theory is nonsense. Reality and science do agree with what I say and you look like a fool. lol

 

 

 

And you provide your own proof that you are no scientist and not even of average IQ. You do not even understand the difference between micro and macro evolution or even what the terms used mean.
As to experiments???
List one evolutionary proof experiment. We are talking about macro evolution when a species becomes another not minor genetic mutations that change a characteristic in a species but do not change the species itself. It doesn't exist. Again you talk nothing but nonsense. Get an education and stop trolling you silly little fool.
As to proofs against evolutionary theory, I guess you don't know how science works. The burden of proof is on the theory. But how about the law of entropy as proof that evolutionary theory is an impossibility.

 

 

 

Again you show your foolishness. to say all evolution is evolution shows complete ignorance or an attempt to ignore the real definitions to back your erroneous ideas. Breeding cattle for size is evolution but that does not make them a new species. learn your definitions. Micro-evolution: changes within a species. Macro-evolution: changes in a species that creates a new species. There is no experiment ever done that has ever created a viable breeding new species. In fact there is no evidence of any such species ever existing which is what is commonly called a transitional species.
You keep talking nonsense.
Obviously you don't even know what the law of entropy is or the other obvious fallacies in the theory of evolution. the deny the actual scientific evidence.
Learn how science works and you see that evolutionary theory is based on several assumptions from long ago that modern science show to be completely wrong. Another example: development from simple organisms to more complex, beside being against the laws of entropy it is based on the premise that single cell organisms are simple which we now know and have for some time is a complete fallacy.
Again you look more and more foolish by following your belief against all scientific evidence yet try to claim it is science. Learn some real science and not just what all the adherents to this silly pseudo-religion spout out with no hard evidence to back it. What a moron. lol
Not one of your example show anything even close to macro-evolution. I guess you don't even understand your own examples. Try reading them again and you see they show nothing close to macro-evolution, simply forced adaptation at best which is just a type of micro-evolution. You show you are more ignorant which each foolish bit of useless information you provide. Thanks for the laugh though ROFL

 

 

 

you certainly wasted your money on your "education" then. I already addressed your experiments and they in no way prove any kind of transitional species. In fact they show only forced micro-evolution, better known as adaptation, at best
Again you show a complete lack of knowledge on how the scientific method works. A theory has to provided experiments, evidence or observations that prove it. The burden of proof is completely on the theory.
The experiments provide show that either you didn't even read them or don't have the mental capability to even understand what evolutionary theory is.
You look more the fool and show such complete ignorance with each thing you say

 

 

 

Here is a html with a basic description you may be able to grasp, though I doubt it.http://www.entropylaw.com/entropy2ndlaw.html
Simply put things work towards simpler forms not more complex, thus it does not allow for evolutionary theory where things become more complex over time. Things can defy entropy with the application of an outside force...that leads to the question "What force?" to which there is no scientific answer, but only ideas that have to be taken on faith. So defend your pseudo-religion all you like but the science does not support it.
Your decent into foul language simply shows you really have completely lost and understand nothing you talk about but just try to repeat the erroneous comments of others.
A huge example was you quoting of experiments that have absolutely nothing to do with macro-evolution. You have yet to show one experiment that supports macro-evolution because any true scientist will admit they do not exist. You can attempt to extrapolate things from those experiments but the extrapolations have no scientific basis and are just wild ideas based on opinion. Science requires evidence and you have provided none but the fact that you think that it is evidence shows your ignorance,
You have been shown to be a fool and look more silly with each weak attempt to pretend you know something. Keep it coming we all can use the laughs. lol

 

 

 

 

Apparently you can't read since I explained, in simple terms so maybe you could understand, the law of entropy which is the second law of thermodynamics which is what I referred to when I said the law of entropy does not allow just one of the flawed assumptions in evolutionary theory.
I love how you keep making these silly attempts to switch subjects each time I show what a fool you are. Like asking me to explain something I did or try to get me to explain something that ha nothing to do with the subject or your list of non-applicable experiments, or trying to say macro-evolution and micro-evolution are the same thing. or not even understanding what a transitions species is or the FACT that any scientist can tell you NO transitional fossils have ever been found let alone the massive amounts Darwin said would and needed to be found since now they knew what to look for.
We are laughing hysterically at your ignorance, and silly attempts to seem like you know something when you have been so wrong over and over each step of the way. lol

 

 

 

You are funnier and funnier. I provided a link with a basic description of the second law. I refuted any "evidence" you provided so in fact you only show again your complete ignorance and resort to childish attempts at insults again. You have won nothing but maybe a comedy award if you truthfully think you have said anything.
The fact you can't even see that you ridiculous attempts to harass me and spout off like you have said anything that hasn't just shown your own ignorance further shows what a weak mind you truly have.
You keep trying to change the subject when step by step I have not only refuted your claims of "evidence", which you still have yet to show one piece, but have taken your fallacious statements and maybe you look completely the fool. lol

 

 

 

I provided a link giving a description of the law of entropy and explained how it applies as a refutation of one of the basic assumptions of evolutionary theory. I am sorry if your intellect is to weak too understand that but I tried to keep it simple. I guess you don't understand the law of entropy.
Yes my refutation included actual science. your ""examples" were science but do not apply to the subject being discussed so I doubt your knowledge since you cannot see how they do not apply even when it was explained. The none of the experiments you listed in any way showed a new species being created and certainly cannot show it happening in nature.
Each attempt you have made to use what you are calling science to back up evolutionary theory has ben show to be either not applicable or complete nonsense so yes step by step I have refuted you arguments and show them to be erroneous at best.
You cannot seem to understand you have said nothing to in any way prove evolutionary theory and have only shown you really have no idea what you are talking about.
We get more and more laughs out of your attempts to seem like you said anything and the fact that you believe you did is actually pretty sad, but still funny. You are either so tied up in your dogma or so completely stupid you cannot even see it when explained. Btw step by step as in you try spout some nonsense and I show how it is nonsense or does not apply, thus step by step.
I love how you try to focus on some minutia since you have nothing to stand on and then I get to make you a fool again by showing how petty and off topic it is. You crack me up. ROFLMAO!!!!

 

 

 

Actually I repeated what I have said but it doesn't seem to sink into your weak mind. It is so funny that you think you have said anything of any importance or anything that proves evolutionary theory in any way. You refer to my beliefs but I have stated no belief at any time. I have stated that those some "scientists" support evolutionary theory, science does not. Your belief system is the one in question here.
As I said at the beginning the burden of proof is on the theory and yet you have provided no proof whatsoever. The only one who is showing a complete lack of any knowledge of science is yourself.
Your foolishness continues to be shown and seems to be growing exponentially and it is completely hilarious.
I will put my 178 IQ against a mind that doesn't understand the difference between micro and macro-evolution (in you saying they are the same thing), and doesn't even know that no transitional species have ever been found (in you saying all fossils are transitional species). any day of the week.
I am looking for proofs to back up your assertion that evolutionary theory is correct and you provide none. To try to make it a discussion of belief systems just shows again that evolutionary theory is not science but just a pseudo-religion pretending to be science.
Keep trying to change the subject and I will bring it back. What proofs do you have that evolutionary theory is correct? everything you have tried so far is not applicable and you have no arguments against the points I brought up that show it is not correct except nonsense and silly opinions that are not science.
I am talking about the science, not opinion or belief though you keep trying to change the topic since you cannot support you assertion and you look like such a clown now the whole department is rolling. lol

 

 

 

There you go again saying nothing. You bring up the same things and try to insult people. Just more proof you have nothing to say and nothing to back you claims.
Try to remember the burden of proof is on the theory and you have provided no proof. In fact you own lack of proof is even more evident since all you do now is try to throw insults even after having all that time. You still come up with nothing but to troll a topic. What a silly little person you are. You think you have actually said something when all can see you have added nothing whatsoever

 

 

 

And again you try to go off topic because you can't back your claims with real evidence only opinions and assumptions.
Just another person who can't face when they are proven mistaken so they desperate try to do say anything.
Attempts at insults and personal attacks are not scientific proof to back evolutionary theory but I guess you don't realize that either. lol 

 

 

 

Also need to point out I have put forth no theory so you are making assumptions again. I have at no time claimed to have a scientific theory for the beginnings of life, I have only pointed out the flaws in a popular one that shows it is not scientifically proven.

You are supporting a theory so the burden of proof is on that theory. I guess you can't quite wrap you mind around that scientific principle. lol

 

 

 

40,000? then why haven't you been able to provide one. lo
lYou keep saying the same nonsense. You have provided no evidence supporting evolutionary theory. What you have tried to use as evidence has been refuted. You provide hard evidence and think it means something because I fits in your belief system.
You just can't face it that you are wrong and following a theory based o opinion and belief. Your pseudo-religion is not science though it keeps claiming to be.
You keep saying my claims? What claims are those? Oh you mean the claims that everything you claim to be evidence can only be used that way by making assumptions that are not backed by facts. What a silly person you are. It is too bad you are not intelligent enough to you have not provided one scrap of evidence that holds up to scientific scrutiny. You are free to believe whatever you want but it is not science. The fact you think it is, shows your own lack on intellect. lol

 

 

 

See again your blinded by your belief system. I refuted those. Try reading back. or reading the examples you gave again without assumptions. they in no way prove evolutionary theory or how life began. You look even more foolish by standing by something and claiming it is science to add unfounded assumptions to observations. you need to prove the assumptions but you don't seem to understand that. lol
And where did I ever say I was a theist. see you make assumptions based on nothing but opinion. the flaw in your whole argument. and you repeat again about me needing evidence when it is the theory that requires evidence and my argument is you lack of hard evidence. You really show your ignorance again and again with the same statements. lol

 

 

 

Amazing how you use so many words to say nothing and actually think you said something. this is hilarious. You have yet to provide one proof and think you did when your examples showed no proof. only some experiments that in no way prove life came about through evolution. They show some changes in specific species but do not show new species being created and that can only be read into it by making unsupported assumptions. your foolishness is gone from amusing to actually making me pity you for having such a limited mind.
You keep trying to make this into something else. Evolutionary theory has never been proven and anyone with the slightest bit of honesty will admit it. Provide one concrete proof of evolutionary theory being the basis for the beginning of life..... That is right there is none. lol 

 

 

 

There you go again, talking in circles in any attempts to feel that you are right about anything and looking more the fool for it. Changes within a species was address at the very beginning of this. That is adaptation or referred to micro-evolution and has not been denied at any point this is a discussion of macro-evolution. Trying to go back to the beginning arguments again when that has been shown to be meaningless in this conversation. This is about evolutionary theory which says species become new species and life originate through the evolutionary process. Your use of a definition of the word evolution has nothing to do with proving evolutionary theory which shows you truly do not even know what you are talking about and are only attempting to win an argument by changing the argument.

So where is this proof of evolutionary theory? You have yet to provide one because you can't. You talk about fruitfly species. where is this evidence of viable species being created.

Just spouting more nonsense and showing more ignorance and now you talk about owning people? Sorry no one owns me I am not a slave to any man. You have however shown yourself completely out of touch with anything said here and shown you tuly don't even understand what this topic is about. So sad. ROFL!!!

 

 

 

Firstly as I have said we are discussing evolutionary theory (a species becoming a new species) not adaptation (changes within a species) and you keep trying to say they are the same thing when they are not even close. You can't face you lost long ago and have become a running joke with us all. If micro and macro are the same then why no transitional species and why not one example of it. That is an assumption you are making with non proof and you can't even see it. lol
As to your experiment it even says in itself that they are two seperate species an no interbreeding has been observed so it shows nothing except that there are two different species of fruitflies in one area.
Again I just refuted your "evidence" and again you will say I didn't because you can't see beyond your religion.
You have shown absolutely nothing except a paper where someone makes the assumption that these species have a common ancestor with no definitive proof.
The fact you think you show anything scientific and keep trying to equate two different things only continues to show you ignorance and lack of mental acumen.
You don't even see how you are the one looking the fool but we keep laughing and you keep thinking you said something.
You say I lost but anyone and everyone reading tis can see you keep throwing opinion and things that prove nothing and think they are proof. You have not on a single point and have only thrown assumptions that keep being shown wrong. lol

 

 

 

You keep being proven wrong and keep trying to change the conversation, change the topic and resort to silly little attempts at insults. You have provided zero solid evidence supporting evolutionary theory now you try to link to another site because you have failed so miserably. I could link to sites that would have any people arguing many other theories too. They lack the scientific evidence as much as you do but at least most of them will admit the base it on assumptions and not pretend the assumptions are facts. lol

Too bad you can't face you have been show wrong over and over and are being laughed at.

Enjoy your assumptions, but an assumptions is not scientific proof.

 

 

So, yeah... lots of ignorant waffle there. What are people's thoughts?

[CharonY]

The forum is full of this the same kind of drivel. I would have thought that over the years they would come up with at least one single original thought. But then it may actually require to read up on the topic rather than rehashing silly assumptions over and over.

 

A quick search should show plenty of debunking. But honestly, you may do better by looking at talkorigins. Every single argument has been refuted at least once. The fact that they did not need to update their website to continue to refute these arguments pretty much shows in what horrible state the deniers are.

[Strange]

I haven't read through all of those (tl;dr) but the first few focus on the issue of speciation, as if we have never seen it hapen.

 

This page has a particularly good discussion of the problems with defining "species" and plenty of examples of observed speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (at that point, it comes down to "you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts").

 

In fact the whole Talk Origins site is a good source for refuting all the common objections.All supported with high quality refrences. I'm sure it has a section on entropy.

 

As for the entropy argument ("things work towards simpler forms not more complex") I would just point him at acorns and oak trees. (And the relevant Talk Origins pages.)

Edited February 11, 2015 by Strange

[AxlDave]

@ CharonY:

 

This isn't so much about debunking his argument - it basically does that all by itself. The reason I post this here is twofold: First, to warn everyone of the type of "thinking" that still exists today. Second, this guy has stated several times that science and scientists do not support evolution, and I just thought it would be funny to link the guy to a page full of scientists giving scientific reasons why he's talking crap.

 

 

@ Strange

 

Yeah, it is more of a buffet... don't read the whole thing, just pick a quote or two and refute the hell out of it . I actually linked him to peer-reviewed articles including one of the famous fruit fly experiments which clearly states that "All these strains mate freely with Orinocan, but show a pronounced, though incomplete, ethological isolation from strains of the Interior semispecies.". Which is exactly the evidence he asked for, but would he listen? Hah! Would he buffalo.

[Phi for All]

It's the same old garbage. We've stopped bothering with it too much here, and just link them to TalkOrigins.

 

It's a waste of time to discuss this with them. They came to their conclusions emotionally, so reason isn't going to help at all. Pointing them to evidence just makes them convinced they're right and we're covering something up. The real problem is they don't know enough to know how little they know.

 

It's a little like the Dunning-Krueger effect, but it's worse because this is a conscious choice on the part of the creationists. The data is out there, they're too afraid to read it since they've probably been arguing ignorantly for many years, and deep down they may know that if they click the link to TalkOrigins, it will knock the cards over and destroy their whole house.

 

That said, I'd rather not discuss someone's stances unless they're here to defend them. Not that this guy could, but we must stay intellectually honest when faced with this kind of absurdity.

[AxlDave]

@ Phi for All

 

I invited him to post on here, but his response was to accuse me of changing the conversation, accuse me of insults, accuse this forum of having no evidence to back your positions, and then hurriedly try to close off the conversation.

 

On second thought, it's probably a good thing he isn't here.

[Greg H.]

Arguing with a creationist is like trying to stop the tides.

 

That said, publically hanging them out for ridicule is not a great way to change their mind.

[AxlDave]

@ Greg H

 

Apparently... apparently... apparently, he's not a creationist. But even if that were true, all it would mean is that he has no alternative to evolution whatsoever, and so "debunking" evolution will get him nowhere. Personally, I think a creationist lied and didn't think it through properly. Balance of probabilities and all that.

 

Nothing is a great way to change their minds. But if lies are being told, the truth should be represented with equal vehemence. Plus I just like seeing creationists caught in their own lies.

[CharonY]

Either he is a creationist or willfully uneducated and proud of it (or both). While I do not disagree with your notion, it gets old fairly quick. If classes were derailed by debunking this nonsense, little information would actually be transmitted.

[Phi for All]

Apparently... apparently... apparently, he's not a creationist.

 

No, he's a mis-skeptic. These folks think skepticism is an eternal condition. They hide behind "I don't just take you at your word, I want proof", then never bother to look at any. They want proof, not evidence.

 

Mis-skeptics think skepticism means rejecting anything science-y, no matter how supported it is. They don't understand that a true skeptic accepts the preponderance of evidence, when it's shown to him.

 

But really, this guy is a creationist. You can tell he's lying, because he's talking.

[Greg H.]

They want proof, not evidence.

 

More to the point, they want proof that backs up their already set view of how things work - even if that view is not even wrong.

 

I garuntee you if you showed a creationist two dogs giving birth to a litter of camels, they'd claim you interfered with your heathen magic science.

 

And while they wouldn't be wrong, the point I'm trying to make is there is no evidence or proof that will satisfy them if it disagrees even slightly with their "I already drank all the Kool Aid" world view.

 

Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Greg H.

[Moontanman]

Oh yeah! If CREATIONISM isn't true why do easter bunnies lay hard boiled eggs? Answer that one!!!

[AxlDave]

Oh yeah! If CREATIONISM isn't true why do easter bunnies lay hard boiled eggs? Answer that one!!!

 

To remind us all that the true Pope should be a rabbit...

Edited February 13, 2015 by AxlDave

[Phi for All]

 

To remind us all that the true Pope should be a rabbit...

 

I think Benedict XVI used to be known as Hare Ratzinger....

[Delta1212]

I think Benedict XVI used to be known as Hare Ratzinger....

That deserves a slow clap.

[imatfaal]

That deserves a slow clap.

 

A slow clap in irons and a slow march to campo de fiore