Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution

Originally posted by RJHinds
Detailed List Of Problems:

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 sophisticated laboratory equipment.

10. Evolutionists postulate that life began eons ago in a primordial soup of organic chemicals involving an extremely complex process that culminated in the creation of a living cell. The only problem is that oxygen would have destroyed the would-be cell in its early stages of development. So evolutionists have also postulated that the earth's atmosphere once upon a time contained only methane, ammonia, and water vapor - but no free oxygen.

Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, recent scientific discoveries have proven conclusively that no such atmosphere ever existed. (See, e.g., "Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere" by Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham in the March 1982 issue of GEOLOGY.) In other words, evolution could not have even started

Again we find two allegedly different arguments are simply the same argument in different words, accompanied by some thrilling pseduo science.

The theory of evolution by natural selection says nothing whatever about the origin of life and it is not necessary for it to do so. In Darwin's day this was a matter of speculation and in our day it is still controversial, but it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution by natural selection, which merely requires that there was, initially, an origin of life. If you like, God can put it there- we don't care in this context and if you are content with your God of the Gaps (which I doubt) then he is yours to keep. However, I asume the Creationists do not wish to argue that there was never any life on Earth?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Detailed List Of Problems:

/Q/What_are_three_main_problems_of_Darwin's_theory_of_evolution

8. Evolutionists can not explain how and why there is something in the universe rather than absolute nothingness, and not even they really believe that something could spontaneously generate from nothing. By "absolute nothingness," I mean the complete absence of both energy and matter; a completely pure vacuum that is totally devoid of anything. Obviously the evolutionist faces an insurmountable challenge to his theory in this regard.

This is a topic that modern physics has a lot to say about but the theory of evolution by natural selection has nothing whatever to say about. It is not a problem with Darwin's theory so does not belong in this list.

9. One of the most basic, fundamental laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown with the passage of time, not grow more complex which would be the case if evolution were true. Obviously this law of science is most devastating to the theory of evolution, and desperate arguments which postulate that developing cells and organisms could have used the energy of the sun to overcome this tendency towards breakdown are absolutely irrelevant. Developing cells and organisms simply would not have had the ability to capture and utilize such energy in the manner that fully-developed organisms can.

While this meets the same objection as 9, it is also a totally false misrepresentation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Another poster has already tackled that so I can let it lie.

11. Over the years there have been a number of frauds and blunders perpetrated in an attempt to deceive the general public into believing there are "missing links" to be found in the fossil record. These frauds and blunders have included: .....

Another repetition of an earlier argument which I have already responded to, it adds nothing useful to the propoganda that is all this list contains. Maybe this explains the title of the link: What_are_three_main_problems_of_Darwin's_theory_of_evolution.

Goodness. That completes the list of problems with Darwin's Theory... At the end we have no problems outstanding and Darwin can rest in peace with his maker.

Originally posted by finnegan

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 sophisticated laboratory equipment.

[quote]10. Evolutionists postulate that life began eons ago in a primordial soup of organic chemicals involving an extremely complex pr ...[text shortened]... ever, I asume the Creationists do not wish to argue that there was never any life on Earth?

You say "we" don't care if God put the first life form there. This "we" does not include the Atheist evolutionist, who say there is no God or gods. So I guess you and the "we" you represent are just against the God of the Holy Bible doing it and proceeding to put boundaries on their reproduction processes. It is okay, if it was some other unknown god put the first life form on earth somehow and then just let it alone to evolve on its own. Have I got that right?

Originally posted by finnegan
[quote]8. Evolutionists can not explain how and why there is something in the universe rather than absolute nothingness, and not even they really believe that something could spontaneously generate from nothing. By "absolute nothingness," I mean the complete absence of both energy and matter; a completely pure vacuum that is totally devoid of anything. Obvi . At the end we have no problems outstanding and Darwin can rest in peace with his maker.

The idea of number 8 is that if there was nothing then evolution has no starting point and it should be required to account for why there is something for evolution, if there is such a thing, to act upon. Evolutionists just assumes a begining point without any attempt to prove that beginning point is the correct one and it could not be another beginning point, such as after all the different kinds were created by God.

In number 9 he is using the concept of entropy in the Second Law of Thermodynamics as it relates to the statistical concept of disorder. That is, in all cases observed in nature there is a tendency for a process to proceed toward a state of greater disorder if left alone and no energy is added to the process.

The final point of listing some of the frauds supported by evolutionists is to show that they are desperate to fill in those missing links. Nothing more.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The idea of number 8 is that if there was nothing then evolution has no starting point and it should be required to account for why there is something for evolution, if there is such a thing, to act upon. Evolution just assumes a begining point without any attempt to prove that beginning point is the correct one and it could not be another beginning point, ...[text shortened]... evolutionists is to show that they are desperate to fill in those missing links. Nothing more.

# 8 is bogus because we know there WAS a starting point, regardless of whether it came from nothing or some god waving its metaphorical hand. Evolution has nothing to do with the starting point of the universe. The science that deals with that is called cosmology, and another point about that, the real starting point of evolution is when a planet forms, not the universe in the first place.

It is pretty clear by watching millions of stars in the sky, we see them from being a few hundred years old to being over 10 billion years old, we get to see solar systems in various stages of their lives and we can clearly see planets being built from clouds of dust surrounding some star and we know our solar system was built along with about 1500 other stars that came from the same supernova, all more or less built at the same time and with similar properties.

Why do you keep bringing up entropy since in a closed system we know those laws but they fly out the window when we clearly have a near infinite flow of energy, that is to say near infinite in terms of time, been going on for billions of years and will go on for at least another 2 billion years. When the sun dies, then the laws of entropy will start up again but we get a huge reprieve with the energy input from the sun.

Why is that such a problem with you?

Originally posted by sonhouse
# 8 is bogus because we know there WAS a starting point, regardless of whether it came from nothing or some god waving its metaphorical hand. Evolution has nothing to do with the starting point of the universe. The science that deals with that is called cosmology, and another point about that, the real starting point of evolution is when a planet forms, not ...[text shortened]... get a huge reprieve with the energy input from the sun.

Why is that such a problem with you?

I have Biblical blinders on that keeps my eyes pointed straight at the truth. I shall win the race. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by RJHinds
The idea of number 8 is that if there was nothing then evolution has no starting point and it should be required to account for why there is something for evolution, if there is such a thing, to act upon. Evolutionists just assumes a begining point without any attempt to prove that beginning point is the correct one and it could not be another beginning poi ...[text shortened]... evolutionists is to show that they are desperate to fill in those missing links. Nothing more.

The point of my reply is that one can explain evolution without explaining the origin of life. Some Christians take the view that God created life which then evolved in acordance with the principles of Natural selection, just a special case of the idea that Creation has unfolded through the laws of nature. For this reason, argument 8 fails to have any bearing on Darwin's theory and it does not belong in a list of Darwin's alleged problems.

In argument 9, the point I clearly made is that Natural Selection makes no assumption of increasing complexity and is not affected either way by your eccentric and unscientific reading of the second Law, which is of course fallacious. There is a vast amount of chaos in the expanding universe. The temporary existence of pockets of order and complexity on our tiny planet can be easily accommodated without damage to the Second Law.

Argument 11 is not a valid argument. The primary fallacy is to argue ad-hominem but I have already answered you earlier. As regards missing links I also answered that argument, as you will find if you take the trouble to read what I took the trouble to write in response to each one of your list of 11 alleged problems with Darwin's theory...

Originally posted by RJHinds
Is there two or more evolutionary theories? Why was it necessary to change or replace them with a modern version?

This question was never answered. Check out this link for a brief and adequate reply. I only came across it today. Your future posts would be far more interesting if you read this and followed related links to topics of interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

Originally posted by Penguin
I have just wasted significant time that I can't afford going about this the wrong way. I found about 50 threads that RJ started and was going through them each, looking at the thread, whether it was an attack on Evolution or science in general, whether it contained logical fallacies, whether his points were refuted, whether he had acknowledged the refutatio any evidence to support my evaluation of RJ's (or anyone else's) behaviour.

--- Penguin

I suggest you simply go to his personal profile and check out his public posts. They will all be listed in reverse order, starting with the most recent. Your suspicions will be confirmed without requiring you to set up a data base.

You will notice his excellent chess grade (2280 and rising). Reminiscent of Bobby Fisher and his religious beliefs. It just shows you maybe can be rational and have these beliefs. Or maybe chess is not rational. I dunno. I'm not that good so can't say.

Originally posted by finnegan
The point of my reply is that one can explain evolution without explaining the origin of life. Some Christians take the view that God created life which then evolved in acordance with the principles of Natural selection, just a special case of the idea that Creation has unfolded through the laws of nature. For this reason, argument 8 fails to have any bear ...[text shortened]... to write in response to each one of your list of 11 alleged problems with Darwin's theory...

You have just discounted the Theory of evolution then. Darwin's book on origins of the species was only an attempt to explain ADAPTATION.
Creationists agree that God provided a means for His creatures to ADAPT to changing condition to allow for better survival. What we disagree with is all that other stuff you just discounted, like a worm or some other creature changing into a man if given enough time, for example.

Originally posted by finnegan
This question was never answered. Check out this link for a brief and adequate reply. I only came across it today. Your future posts would be far more interesting if you read this and followed related links to topics of interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

Okay, I read your link and if you agree with all of this, then you can not discount all of those previous points which you claim have nothing to do with the theory of evoultion. Which is it then?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay, I read your link and if you agree with all of this, then you can not discount all of those previous points which you claim have nothing to do with the theory of evoultion. Which is it then?

Your thread is enitled "Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution." I have fairly consistently refered to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection or to Darwin's theory and pointed out that there are other theories of evolution. Indeed, I have consisently complained at your ignorance about them and supplied a lionik to help remedy your deficiencies.

There are theories which have been debunked or rejected along the line. One prominent example is Herbert Spencer, who believed that evolution represents a steady path of improvement culminating not only in Man but in the type of man represented by a Victorian English gentleman. He was of course not a scientist, but rather a Victorian English gentleman. As you would expect of any scientific theory, there has been a steady process of investigation, hypothesis forming and rejection, including heated argument and debate about aspects of the emerging theory. Without doubt, any scientist proposing a flawed hypothesis (especially if it included any falsification or wishful thinking) has been thorougly criticised and debunked by other scientists. Sadly, Creationists are not scientists and have been unable to debunk anything much.

Darwin has not been debunked or rejected although there are specific things he suggested or believed that have been put aside, without harming his theory. His account remains both the classical and the most informative introduction to the topic. What has happened is that his theories have been enhanced and refined to accommodate new scientific evidence including Mendel's work and the discovery of the gene. A whole field of work which would not have been available to Darwin has been in the study of micro-organisms, which demonstrate evolution by natural selection in very short timescales. Darwin was an original and exquisitely careful scientist. He was not a prophet and did not have or claim divine inspiration. His theory survives only because it has been tested without failing the test, not because it is accepted uncritically.

To say I agree with all of this, in respect of modern evolutionary theory, would be to accuse me of blindly following a camp in a campaign. No I don't and I have a lot of reservations about various evolutionary theories. I am especially critical of social theories riding under the flag of evolution. Besides it would be impossible to agree with "all of this" since "all of this" includes arguments for and against specific opinions. All of this is an ongoing discussion.You are too blinkered by your closed set of opinions to even begin to have anything interesting to say about the enormous field of work that this debate. You are too limited by your lack of basic education even to understand the material you do look at.

You clearly have not read and understood the link given. I suggest you go back to it and try harder.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You have just discounted the Theory of evolution then. Darwin's book on origins of the species was only an attempt to explain [b]ADAPTATION.
Creationists agree that God provided a means for His creatures to ADAPT to changing condition to allow for better survival. What we disagree with is all that other stuff you just discounted, like a worm or some other creature changing into a man if given enough time, for example.[/b]

So Creationists agree that species adapt to their environment do they? Excellent news. How do Creationists see this happening - by a series of little miracles whenever a sparrow falls perhaps?

Darwin never suggested that worms transform into man given enough time. That is ludicrous. He did suggest that worms and man share a common ancestor but even if - for argument's sake - you place a worm on the direct line of ancestry leading to humans, and that is not something I have endorsed remember, the number of intermediate creatures and the timescale involved more than resolves the type of idiotic concern you express.

Originally posted by finnegan
Your thread is enitled "Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution." I have fairly consistently refered to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection or to Darwin's theory and pointed out that there are other theories of evolution. Indeed, I have consisently complained at your ignorance about them and supplied a lionik to help remedy your deficiencies. ve not read and understood the link given. I suggest you go back to it and try harder.

I have 2+ years of college which is more than most people. I also have life experience education for living 68 years on this planet which is more than most people. So I do not see how you can say I have a lack of basic education.

The problem you have with me is that I understand more than the average person that you confront and can easily pull the wool over their eyes. I do not fall for it that easily. As I said before adaptation by natural selection is not evolution and I do not believe even Darwin said it was. He invisioned evolution as every variety of life we see on Earth as coming from one common ancestor, a single cell organism. That is what evolution is and you are talking about adaption and I am not falling for your moving the goal post tactic and making it out to be something else.

P.S. Average level of education by country.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_ave_yea_of_sch_of_adu-education-average-years-schooling-adults

Originally posted by finnegan
So Creationists agree that species adapt to their environment do they? Excellent news. How do Creationists see this happening - by a series of little miracles whenever a sparrow falls perhaps?

Darwin never suggested that worms transform into man given enough time. That is ludicrous. He did suggest that worms and man share a common ancestor but even if - ...[text shortened]... reatures and the timescale involved more than resolves the type of idiotic concern you express.

You wouild have to move the goal post of time again for there is not enough time for even a bacteria to change into another kind much less change into a worm. Read the last chapter of Darwin's Origin of the Species to see what he said about a common ancestor. You can find it on the web.