Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution

Originally posted by sonhouse
Intelligent design is only reputable within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist community. It seems to me just humans designing god, that is where the intelligent design comes from. You can stake out whatever claim you want on the man made god of your choice. There are less and less of you fundies left as time goes by so enjoy it while you can.

I sure will. It looks like I am on the winning side. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Intelligent design is very credible except for people like you who believe only in the creation and not the Creator.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the c ...[text shortened]... erved the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.

(Romans 1:18-23, 25 NKJV)

Intelligent design is very credible except for people like you

Other than to the ignorant and the stupid, how can it be “credible” when the scientific evidence consistently proves it totally false?

His invisible attributes are clearly seen,

that is a contradiction.

Originally posted by humy

Intelligent design is very credible except for people like you

Other than to the ignorant and the stupid, how can it be “credible” when the scientific evidence consistently proves it totally false?

His invisible attributes are clearly seen,

that is a contradiction.

Speculation, conjecture, and opinion is not scientific proof.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Speculation, conjecture, and opinion is not scientific proof.

Right, and the vast mountain for evolution is.

Originally posted by humy
Right, and the vast mountain for evolution is.

I only see evidence against evolution starting with the law of biogenesis.

The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I only see evidence against evolution starting with the law of biogenesis.

T[b]he Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.[/b]

the law of biogenesis simply does not apply to the conditions of the early-Earth because those conductions, unlike modern conditions, would have made the formation of protocells virtually inevitable.

In any case, this would not be evidence against evolution because there is no logical contradiction in there being BOTH always life with no abiogenesis AND life evolving.
What you are failing to take into account here is that evolution is NOT a theory of the origin of the first life thus evolution doesn't even have to have a starting point!

If life always existed and there was never any abiogenesis, exactly WHAT is the logical contradiction in that life having always evolved?

Originally posted by humy
the law of biogenesis simply does not apply to the conditions of the early-Earth because those conductions, unlike modern conditions, would have made the formation of protocells virtually inevitable.

in any case, this would not be evidence against evolution because there is no logical contradiction in there being BOTH always life with no [b]abiogenesis A ...[text shortened]... r any abiogenesis, exactly WHAT is the logical contradiction in that life having always evolved?[/b]

So are you saying the right conditions are not available for biogenesis today and therefore the right condition may not be available for evolution to occur today either? That is, a worm can no longer evolve into a man like it could under earlier conditions?

Originally posted by RJHinds
So are you saying the right conditions are not available for biogenesis today and therefore the right condition may not be available for evolution to occur today either? That is, a worm can no longer evolve into a man like it could under earlier conditions?

Do you believe that a worm could just change into a man? Is that how you think evolution works?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Do you believe that a worm could just change into a man? Is that how you think evolution works?

No not directly. I just left out all the stages for I do not know what they would be. But I am sure you are knowledgeable enough to fill me in. But the main idea of my question was can that type of evolution that resulted from us evolving from a bacteria or what ever the first life form still able to happen under the conditions of today?

Originally posted by RJHinds
No not directly. I just left out all the stages for I do not know what they would be. But I am sure you are knowledgeable enough to fill me in. But the main idea of my question was can that type of evolution that resulted from us evolving from a bacteria or what ever the first life form still able to happen under the conditions of today?

Life evolved on this planet in the distant past, continues to evolve on this planet here and now today, and will continue to evolve on this planet long into the future.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Life evolved on this planet in the distant past, continues to evolve on this planet here and now today, and will continue to evolve on this planet long into the future.

So you don't believe the conditons of the atmosphere anything like had any effect on how life begin or evolved on the planet; and the same organism that eventually evolved into man in the distant past could still start doing it today and by a few million years a man will be formed?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Scientist have not improved on evolution because evolution is just a figment of the imagination.

...

Originally posted by humy
Scientist have not improved on evolution because there really isn't a credible alternative.

yes they have. i said improve not find another theory.

modern evolutionism is different than darwinism, and better.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you don't believe the conditons of the atmosphere anything like had any effect on how life begin or evolved on the planet; and the same organism that eventually evolved into man in the distant past could still start doing it today and by a few million years a man will be formed?

The conditions on the earth 3 billion years ago were very different from today, if you were transported back there you'd be dead very quickly. I believe the environment and the way life is 'shaped' are intrinsically linked, no doubt the conditions of the early earth played a role in forming the first life.

Worm to man took a billion years or two not a few million. Could it happen again? Who knows?

Originally posted by RJHinds
So are you saying the right conditions are not available for biogenesis today and therefore the right condition may not be available for evolution to occur today either? That is, a worm can no longer evolve into a man like it could under earlier conditions?

So are you saying the right conditions are not available for biogenesis today

don't you mean “Abiogenesis” and not “biogenesis”?
One thing I clearly implied is that conditions are NOT available for Abiogenesis today.
I did NOT say/imply that the right conditions are not available for biogenesis today.

and therefore the right condition may not be available for evolution to occur today either?

what?
First you spoke of “Abiogenesis” or “biogenesis” ( not sure which you meant ) then you suddenly speak of evolution within the latter part of that sentence and I fail to see how you relate the two with the word “therefore” above.
The conditions ARE right for evolution today.

That is, a worm can no longer evolve into a man like it could under earlier conditions?

that is correct although I didn't actually say/imply that in my post.

Now I have answered your questions, what about:

If life always existed and there was never any abiogenesis, exactly WHAT is the logical contradiction in that life having always evolved?

-do you believe such a contradiction exists?
The reason why this question is relevant is because if there is no such contradiction then even if, hypothetically, you could somehow PROVE that abiogenesis could not happen, this would not disprove evolution like you appear to think.
So I don't understand why you keep referring to abiogenesis when you try and argue against evolution.