Another false argument for evolution. Your thoughts?

Question

Evolution is obviously false to any one with common sense.

I love to refute arguments for evolution. Here is one:

"If you don't believe in evolution and you except the fossil evidence, then you must realize that not every animal got here at the same time. Humans are not as old as dinosaurs. An elephant is not as old as bacteria, for instance.

If you believe in that, then it seems that at one moment, millions of years ago, there were no elephants, an then, the next moment (due to the abscence of evolution) there was an elephant. How long that moment takes is moot, because the point is the elephant did not come out of an uterus.

If you had a time machine and you were able to find out exactly when an elephant first appeared and you went back to that time, would you honestly expect to see an elephant just form?"

Isn't that a dumb, circular argument? What if the fossil evidence is wrong? I bet you have never thought about that. Besides this argument doesn't prove anything.

Telling stories doesn't prove anything.

If I put a monkey in a cage (and he were to hypothetically live to be 1,000) he would still be a monkey!

Here's another thing, scientists say that elephants came from shrews. That's too dumb for words.

Do you agree?

Answer 1

You mean like a caterpillar just turning into a butterfly? Good lord man, please at least read enough to understand what the concept of evolution is. Whether you believe in it or not, you need to; at the very minimum, have a concept of what you are debating.

Answer 2

I am speechless at the ineptitude of your post sir.

"Evolution is obviously false to any one with common sense."
What the **** are you talking about? Maybe you will make your case later on.

"I love to refute arguments for evolution. Here is one:"
I love to refute arguments for creationism. The difference if while you creationists use the bible, a completely nonfactual reference, I use solid logical reasoning and scientific proof. You creationists are amazing eclectics who seem to draw "evidence" from all parts of the world and smash them together and pass it off as proper substantiation.

""If you don't believe in evolution and you except the fossil evidence, then you must realize that not every animal got here at the same time. Humans are not as old as dinosaurs. An elephant is not as old as bacteria, for instance.

If you believe in that, then it seems that at one moment, millions of years ago, there were no elephants, an then, the next moment (due to the absence of evolution) there was an elephant. How long that moment takes is moot, because the point is the elephant did not come out of an uterus.

If you had a time machine and you were able to find out exactly when an elephant first appeared and you went back to that time, would you honestly expect to see an elephant just form?""

Now this is not the best argument for evolution. What he is trying to say is that some animal forms are more advanced than others. This is obvious, humans are obviously more complex than bacteria. Creationism forces you to believe that the range of complexities of creatures all spontaneously came into existence rather than evolved slowly and rationally.

"Isn't that a dumb, circular argument? What if the fossil evidence is wrong? I bet you have never thought about that. Besides this argument doesn't prove anything."

No, its not a dumb circular argument? How the hell is it a dumb circular argument? Ok, what is the fossil evidence is wrong....what kind of question is that? Evidence is evidence for a reason. By definition, evidence is something that has a very high probability of being right given our current knowledge base. Yes, there is a possibility that the fossil evidence is wrong but that probability is, in my opinion, unbelievably small. Lets compare that to the bible verbatim. What is the bible is wrong? The difference between my question of your evidence and your question of my evidence is that my evidence is valid while yours is not.

"Telling stories doesn't prove anything.

If I put a monkey in a cage (and he were to hypothetically live to be 1,000) he would still be a monkey!"

True, evolution does not argue that a monkey will turn into a human. This truly shows your level of understanding of evolution. This is more like an argument for transformation....yes, obviously a monkey will still be a monkey in 1,000 years. Oh yea, this kind of helps my argument for the fossil evidence too right?

"Here's another thing, scientists say that elephants came from shrews. That's too dumb for words."

NOOO, god damn man. They don't say that at all. Evolution argues that there are branchings in the tree of life. Humans don't come from apes but rather, they share the same ancestors.

"Do you agree"

It is quite apparent that I don't.

Answer 3

First of all, if evolution is obviously false, then evolution is true. Nothing is obvious, and the word "obvious" is in fact a putdown. It suggests you think you have in your possession The Answer to everything.

Apparently you don't believe in fossil evidence. Or maybe you mean "accept" instead of "except".

Elephants evolved from large land animals with primitive trunks that look something like an elephant and something like a pig or something. And those came from creatures that are as small as rats. It is all smooth. You can no more identify an elephant appearance time than you can a time when eggs boiling on the stove become hard-boiled.

Changes in a lifetime of an animal are small, but remember that we are dealing with hundreds of millions of years. If you make a million changes in an animal, you can very well wind up with a completely different animal, even if the changes are minute.

Evolution occurs today, with life and also with non-life forms. The teddy bear has undergone evolution. Its ears are bigger than they were about 70 years ago. Google "teddy bear" and perhaps you may find out.

Evolution is what happened. Creationists need to explain how creation occurred since the sudden appearance of a species is highly improbable.

Answer 4

to quote you: telling stories doesn't prove anything.
I quite agree. Telling stories doesn't prove anything, even if they are written down in a much translated book.
Anyway, the example you cite is not an argument for evolution, but an argument against creationism. It's not quite the same thing. It may not be the best formulated argument against it, but then I don't think you'd appreciate the best one either, so it doesn't matter.

It's part of a scientist to think about what different explanations are possible for something like a fossil record, so you you lose your bet about nobody else having considered that the fossil record is wrong. In contrast to you they discarded that idea after much testing.

As for elephant phylogeny, you should first inform yourself: e.g. look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant#Evolution, before you understand the facts wrong and then think you are justified to laugh about the data.

If you had in mind to draw attention to the deficits of your current education system with this question, you succeeded admirably. My commiseration.

Answer 5

Don't know what coloring book you are using, but I suggest you evolve away from reading children literature and read some real science.

Basic falsehood: The misunderstanding that elephants some how emerged from a mouse. Same with humans coming from monkeys.

Nobody ever said man came from monkey. Nobody ever said elephants came from shrews. Get this in your skull. Humans and other higher primates had a common ancestor or perhaps several. Same is true for the elephant.

You cant, and NEVER, win any arguments if you believe a lie or a myth. When you start with nothing you get nowhere.

The FACTS are in, life on Earth evolved. The sun comes up in the east every morning.

Answer 6

The fossil record is incomplete for many terrestrial organisms (it is rather complete for shelled marine organisms, and there the evidence of evolution (transitional forms) is quite clear). Why? Think about what needs to happen for a terrestrial organsism to turn into a fossil. It has to die near water. It has to not be eaten. It has to be quickly covered by sediment. That sediment has to become covered with deep water. It has to petrify. The petrified rock then has to be rise above the water and be eroded. A palaeontologist or fossil collector has to find the fossil. As we find more and new fossils, the serious gaps in the fossl record diminish.
A second problem is that evolution might not be slow and gradual as Darwin postulated but occur in spurts (see punctuated equilibrium). These spurts (10,000 years) would be a bat of the eye in the geological record.
A third problem is that speciation often occurs in isolated islands. That is to say, islands are evolutionary hotspots. Islands, of course may be destroyed by geological processes (erosion, volcanos, etc), and we will never find the transitional fossils.

Answer 7

first of all, evolution is a nicely shown scientific theory, the comparable as relativity, gravity and all the others. identity is a suggestion, or at ultimate a hypothesis, and it has by no ability been supported with a sort, information, info, falsifiability or any of the different mandatory factors to get it to a peer overview. this means that that's conclusions have not been objectively general. So, given those info, identity has no place interior the lecture room different than as a failed hypothesis or a lesson on the thank you to no longer do technological awareness. Evolution as a shown theory ought to learn purely as we instruct different scientific theories. Granted it relatively is very obvious that faculties are no longer doing a lifelike activity, given the limited pattern set of R&S. Philosophy, to be truthful, is a lifelike workout in questioning, and it will adapt around even though technological awareness unearths after it has argued approximately it for years. Sorry, yet philosophy has a tendency to no longer locate timber interior the wooded area through leaves, bark, and roots. faith the two needs to evolve to the looking of technological awareness or that's going to a minimum of locate the thank you to maintain that's faith mutually as no longer final the minds of its followers. mutually as I understand the effects of evolution on faith, attempting to discredit evolution via via arguments that a 8th grader must be waiting to debunk or via a failed hypothesis like identity through fact it sounds lifelike, does no longer something for faith's place, nor does it help its followers.

Answer 8

"If I put a monkey in a cage (and he were to hypothetically live to be 1,000) he would still be a monkey!"

This statement means either:
A. you where home schooled or didn't show up to school for two weeks during the evolution section. This statement shows so little knowledge fo evolution, I am surprised you can spell it.
B. this is a joke.

Your argument is horrible because it doesn't actually address a real argument for evolution.

Answer 9

I can't believe you'd post this under the biology section-- none of the above is TRUE biology. You might be anti-evolution, but go take a biogeography course and that will help prove how organisms change due to isolation. You have no clue what you are talking about-- and you have NO facts to back up such a claim. Atleast those of us that are biologist have evidence to prove such a theory.

Answer 10

Several problems in your arguments (I am a creationist, but your arguments are wrong)

Elephants did not appear in one moment - they developed slowly through natural selection that selected for each of their characteristics.

The argument that they grew from shrews - no one states they grew from shrews, just that they have genetic similarities and can be called "distant cousins"

Answer 11

Yet you would have people believe that life was created from nothing at all, with ABSOLUTELY NO physical evidence to back up that assertion. That is even more ridiculous than you claim evolution is. The fact is that the Creationist Theory is based entirely on belief. So, when you Creationists get something new in your bag of tricks besides blind faith, then come knocking on the doors of Evolutionists. Until then you and your ilk will be ignored by the scientific community, and I daresay by most of the public.