Evolution! Gimme all you got! (771 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalRating: 0.5 on 11 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Ralph Master Nator (View user info) at 2003-12-14 11:10:25 EST
In a few months I'll have turn in my final scripture (Don't know if this is a word in English, what I mean could be concluded as an elaborate scientific essay) to graduate. The subject that was semi-enforced upon me is Biology, and so I chose to try and defend the theory of evolution against the most common (scientific) arguments people have against it. The problem is that I'm having trouble finding any *scientific* arguments against evolution (except for three or four really old ones). Try a search on evolution and most of the sites you'll find belong to Creationist hacks that quote the Bible for scientific reference.
Anyway, if you got a *good*, cohesive argument against it, be my guest and post it in your reply! It would really help me out. You probably won't receive a rebuttal untill after february though, as that's the final date to turn in my paper.
(PS: Any literary recommendations would be really helpful as well.)
User Reviews
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-01-13 10:42:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't know if this will help you (or if help is still needed) but I saw this post on Uber.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/22602
No I don't have anything to do with this post, just trying to be helpful by bringing it to your attention.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-01-11 12:42:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm a little deeper into me thesis now. I'm really fuct. But the whole 'life' from 'non-life' thing is easier then you'd think. You see, it's not the answer that's the problem, it's the question. Try to define life. Viruses are life. And they are simply reproducing strands of D.N.A. nothing more. We can explain how organic substances like D.N.A. came into existence from inorganic substances. The word 'life' just implies there's something inherently specific about a piece of matter, which is in my eyes less specific then often assumed.
Submitted by Phinch (user info) at 2003-12-14 18:20:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
clayton aka smokey seems to be an intellegent man who may beable to help you. Here is is reply to my question on his thoughts of evolution:
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=107055794044888529#287939
he mentions some books and other sources.
Submitted by hcp28 (user info) at 2003-12-14 16:02:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes I would agree you are quite thouroughly fuct. On a lighter note maybe you could make up your own crazy theory instead of asking others. It took my two seconds to find that site I gave you I'm sure if I looked harder I would have found... nothing.
Ordering books is all well and good but you have to read them too.
Submitted by jimbobjoe (user info) at 2003-12-14 15:55:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I have to agree with loki on this one. The reason the theory of evolution is strongly
defended and so widely accepted is the very fact that there a few scientific arguments
against it, and those that do exist are not very convincing are sound. You are fuct.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-12-14 15:48:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
There are not any good, scientific arguments against it - you and your paper are fuct.
Submitted by isaac (user info) at 2003-12-14 14:40:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
hcp28: The site you linked to doesn't have "scientific" arguments against evolution. Instead the arguments on the site are typical of the creationist pseudo-scientific sophisms present in most attempts by the religeous right to decieve the ignorant masses.
I'm trying very hard to stop myself from picking the arguments on the website apart one by one. It would be an exercise in futility as the arguments contain mostly debator's tricks rather than actual statements. Anyway.
1) "...have concluded that the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance are so astronomical as to be virtually impossible." >> This is just silly. Evolution is meant to provide a natural mechanism that WOULD result in the incredible organized complexity of our biological world. That's the whole point.
2) Mudskipper is a famous example of an in-between life form. The creatures that occupied a now-defunct branch of the evolutionary tree are not somehow different from normal organisms. They were fully developed creatures in their own right, they were simply rendered obsolete by a more radically evolved form.
Shit I'm going point by point. Shit! OK, OK, skip the shitty points. Pick one that is an example of the crooked logic inherent in the page and go out strong.
7) "Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and extremely sophisticated laboratory equipment." This is ridiculous, a thinly-veiled attack on scientific practice. It's also redundant. Take out the parts that simply restate the main point, and you have: "Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life." Spontaneous, who said anything about spontaneous? Spontaneous generation is a theory that was disproved way back in the days of Louis Pasteur. Restate the statement again: "Evolutionists can not explain how life could generate from non-life."
Well, they can't, I guess. What's that argument on where God came from again? He was always there? Ah. Yeah. Fine, let's change that statement one more time: "We can not explain how life could generate from non-life."
I'm not really bothered by that statement.
Look, evolution is a mechanism to try and explain why the animals in the galapogos are so weird, and why lakes in New Mexico that had every kind of fish in them killed except one variety eventually had a bunch of very specialized versions of that single species who refused to breed with each other. It's a very limted, very physical, very observation-driven theory, and it doesn't have shit to do with your God.
Evolutionists are not the ones saying that evolution disproves God. Creationists are. And I hate to say it but I believe in evolution more strongly than God, so on the weight of arguments alone if YOU are going to say that evolution and God are mutually exclusive then fine, it's God that gets the short end of the stick. And that's too bad, because I like religeon.
Religeon is great. It's wonderful. It gives you a definite moral code to live by, provides you with a moral compass to orient your life. In fact, a life without religeon is wretched and empty, and everything you do turns to shit in the face of adversity unless you have something bigger than yourself to rely on.
But religeon has fuck-all to do with science and if you don't get your stupid creationist heads out of your collective ass and understand that evolution is not something you should be fucking with, the strength of the scientific arguments will make your whole belief structure crumble.
-Isaac
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-12-14 12:28:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I know a lot about the subject. That's why I chose it.
I've also ordered the following books "Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy" and the "Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2003-12-14 12:12:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Try going to the library, genius. You know, that place with all the books?
Submitted by hcp28 (user info) at 2003-12-14 12:08:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
http://www.frankcaw.com/science.html
Here is a website for some arguments against evolution. I do this not because i like you, in fact I think I dispise you. How could you pick a topic you know nothing about? Did you think it was easy? No I do this because I found your picture humorous... haha monkeys.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2003-12-14 11:25:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I was going to post an argument that I read before.... but then I remembered there's websites that offer arguments against evolution and defend them... Maybe I'll post it later...