Darwin v. Jesus
Warning: This can be a sensitive topic, so please read with an open mind and keep any immaturity on the last web page you were on.
The age old fight between Creation and Evolution, Darwin v. Jesus and all that good stuff. The fight between these two has been going on ever since people started thinking outside the box and wanted to know if there was anything more. I personally think that neither side is concrete or in other words, sound but both do have potential. The value of each argument though, is the kicker to the winner. Both sides have good arguments that appeal to a person directly, but the arguments may not make sense logically. But I will get into that later. Logic needs to be taken into account because LOGIC IS KING!
An article that I found on a blog was picking apart a Newspaper article that was the “Five Best Arguments for Creationism” Tut, Tut, Tut. How much fun shall this be?
So here an argument quote that was present. “No evidence for evolution: There is no evidence that evolution has occurred because no transitional forms exist in fossils i.e. scientists cannot prove with fossils that fish evolved into amphibians or that amphibians evolved into reptiles, or that reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. Perhaps because of this a surprising number of contemporary scientists support the Creation theory.” WOAH BUDDY!!! There is no proof? Well let us see. Charles Darwin, an author from 1859 researched for years in the Galapagos Islands off the coast of Equator. Darwin found out that in different places on these islands, the same species had different traits. For example, a finch and its beak characteristics. One finch on one island may have a short fat beak for eating seeds and other hard shelled items. Another finch has a long thin beak for eating bugs and other small animals. So as we see, by NATURAL SELECTION, evolution of animals is very prevalent and very true. One down.
Another well thought out and very serious argument that Creationists is as follows. “Compound Eye: The eye that enables some organisms to see in the dark is so complex that no proven theories for its evolutionary development have yet been put forth. As the Creation Wiki puts it, the Compound Eye "has all of the hallmarks of intelligent design and defies attempts to explain it through natural mechanisms". Yet again, a lovely plot of how evolution is prevalent in the world. See the paragraph above for a simple argument refuting it.
Third argument =D. “Allegory: The Bible uses allegory to explain the creation of the earth. It is a story, so employs figures of speech and other literary devices to tell the story of how God created man e.g. Genesis "days" could also be read as "ages". Alright, so in philosophy there are things called fallacies. In simple terms, a fallacy is an “incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor or take advantage of social relationships between people” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia 10/27/10. So for this Creation argument, the defender of Creation is using something called Begging the Question. That means that the person is using an object that needs explaining, to explain something else. Conceder the following as an easier example; John is a psychic. He read my mind! Now the definition of a psychic is someone who can read your mind. So the statement is basically saying, John read my mind because he read my mind. That doesn’t make sense does it? Same thing with God, God is real because the bible says so, and the bible is written by God. So this argument is irrelevant just because there is no proving of anything in this scenario.
The fourth argument. History is too short:
- Creationists argue that if the world is as old as evolution claims it is there would be
- Billions more stone age skeletons than have been found
- Many more historical records like cave paintings than have been found
- A lot more sodium chloride in the sea
- A lot more sea-floor sediment
Really? All of these bullet points can be explained by the same thing; the natural movements of the Earth and its happenings. First one, fossils and preserved bodies can only form in sedimentary rocks. The other types would destroy the bones. So no every single body will be preserved in the sedimentary tocks, and therefore destroyed. Second, caves can cave in. Duh, it’s in the name. Haha. The third one, because I am not a geologist or have much knowledge about it, I will skip the third point. The fourth will also be sketchy. Basically, erosion and tide movement will sift the sediment.
And the final point; “Why?: For what purpose is all of this? Evolutionists have never offered a satisfactory explanation.” In philosophy, this is called an Appeal to Ignorance, this is another fallacy that is wrong because it is insufficient. Just because something seems far off does not mean it is. For instance, it has ALWAYS been possible to ship someone to the moon in a rocket. 1000 years ago, it was still possible but we couldn’t do it. It was still possible though. Another great example is the concept of carrying a whole library in your pocket and have it not get in the way, a smart phone was made. So just because something has not been proven doesn’t mean it cannot happen. So that argument is lacking many aspects of validity and needs help.
So there we go. 5 common Creationism theories that have been proven wrong. Tada.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6163313/Creation-film-sparks-evolution-arguments.html That link above is the original copy, But what I quoted from came from the web page, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/the_five_best_arguments_for_c...