In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2043
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
First I will state the following: I have never looked more into it than what I was forced to from a science book so I am not up to date or even close, so feel free to provide refutable evidence. Nonetheless, it is indeed a scientific theory whether I believe it or not, and like all scientific theories it must be tested over and over again to be proven true. It must agree with all other proven facts, if it disagrees with one then it is certainly false.
I have found a site(From a Christian, so I know you will probably not even read it, but try to) that makes 50 arguements against evolition.I figure that as often as possible we could dissect each of these arguments(One a day) to see our own conclusions based of the writers work, and other evidence each of you bring on. What say you?
University of Alabama: The high mark of college football since 1892
nm; old messages use weird language
This post was edited by CockAtLaw 14 months ago
You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#
Read argument point one, then refute it. Provide evidence for the rebuttal
Not getting in the middle of this conversation again just to have the thread locked. (Not saying you did) just don't wanna waste my time.
Why So Serious?
Sweet brown autotune
Made by Theparodyfactory1
Not my mix :) Enjoy
I didn't say they had to read it all at once, or that one person had to refute all 50 arguments. I just want to see the opposing sides argument for some points(All if they are willing to put in the effort)
First of all the author is simply a terrible writer.
Secondly, I could not get through the first section of this opinion piece as it is just filled with error.
Third, I am a clinical researcher.
Go down to the argument one, and see what you think of that.
We aren't here to debate his writing skills.
Evolution is scientific fact.
It may not correlate convienently with a book of allegories, written and translated hundreds of years after the death of a guy named Jesus, a book which states that the world was built in six days, but at least you found a link on the Internet that conforms to your belief structure.
Read argument one, provide a rebuttal.
Until you have done that, I will not argue with you
"The teaching of evolution promotes atheism and is a tool in the hands of communistic agitators in some of our great schools. This presents a clarion call to reach young people with the truth before they become irretrievably ensnared."
This treatise has been eviscerated countless times by actual scientists and mathematicians.
Google "How Anti-Evolutionists abuse Mathematics" by Jason Rosenhouse
So the OP is trying to tell us god is real ? Im confused
fsufsu said... I've got about 10 great stories on Lane but all you need to know is he will never be a loser, that's for sure.
I am gonna have to just be honest. I get some of what this dude is saying, but dang if half of that stuff isn't to complex for me to get without being wholly concentrated on it and having someone explain some of it to me. Could you try and give me a better explanation, I couldn't really get past page 4 lol
I believe that, but no, not in this thread im not lol. I am just wanting to see if these arguments against evolution hold up or are plausible
They aren't, I don't even need to read it to know that much
And Im not on either side really, I don't know if god is real or not.... but I do think Evolution is proven fact and anybody that writes about it not being fact is a total asshole with a brain that is not working correctly
Nah man we are on the same page. A lot of it I can easily see as preposterous (some of the quotes are priceless), but there's just as much I couldn't refute without an ass load of time and some help with the math.
But it's been done. Just by a quick goog search I can find credible sources making a mockery of his conclusions. Especially in terms of the mathematics.
cool story bro, God doesn't exist DEAL WITH IT.
An argument presented in a legible manner is how science is performed.
Not this gibberish.
I would not spend 10 minutes reviewing this paper if were sent to me to review.
I would not and do not expect someone that does not have a good grasp of writing to understand mathematics, a theory regarding evolution or how to examine something objectively.
However, populations do not continuously grow linearly nor does evolution.
So using this same method, If you can't tell time does that mean you burn everything you put in the oven?
The Future Is Bright! Hotty Toddy
It is not a method, it is my opinion on the thought process of certain persons.
But yes, my wife can not keep track of time to save her life and she cooks terribly.
But for those who want to know why argument 1 has a lot of issues and do not accept my one line answer of population growth.
Look at what the gentlemen wrote.
1. The Berlin Census: I have no idea what this is, however, to base a scientific argument off a singular data point (and end-point at that) is pure folly. It is critically flawed and non-representative of a data-set.
Think of it this way, 4 years after the end of WWI you think someone in Berlin took an accurate census of the world population? Do you think that is a fair representation of how the world has been moving forward over time? No, it is not.
2. The "math" is self-loaded. Other than the previous point, look at where he derives these numbers from. 6K years ago. He is setting numbers up from a predetermined point that fits his model.
I'm just saying that just because you aren't good at one particular thing doesn't mean you suck at everything else involved.
The Earth can't possibly be more than about 6,000 years old, because if people had been around for a million or more years, as the evolutionists claim, there would be way more people than there are now. The Earth would have been totally overpopulated long ago, and we wouldn't even be here, because our ancestors would have died of starvation after 10,000 years or so of normal human reproduction. So there. That proves that evolution isn't true.
As a matter of fact, if you begin at the time of the biblical Flood (as calculated by most creationists), and figure a steady reproduction rate and the resulting geometric growth of the human population, you can end up with a figure for this year in the several-billions. With just a little fiddling with average number of kids per couple, average lifespan, etc., it's not difficult to end up with a population figure for this year that's right on the money. How much more proof could anyone want that humans have only been populating the Earth for a few thousand years?
Sorry, but it just ain't so. The math may be all right, but the basic assumptions behind it are totally wrong. The creationist date for the beginning of humanity works out only if we assume that the population has been growing steadily from a small beginning a few thousand years ago. Fine. Let's assume that. That would be true for other animals as well, wouldn't it? Their populations would have steadily grown since those rescued pairs walked, flew, or slithered off the Ark, just like the human population. No fair to start throwing in all sorts of qualifications to limit the growth of an animal population, because we didn't do that for people--did we?
Try rabbits. Let's work up a few numbers. We'll be very conservative (since creationists seem to have taken up the "conservative" banner). Start with the one pair that hopped off the Ark (not seven, since, if I'm not mistaken, rabbits are "unclean"). Assume that pair had only four kits in the first year (very conservative for rabbits). It's been a long time since I raised bunnies, but I think it would be fair to say that by one year of age, each pair of kits has produced a 4-kit litter of its own. Continue adding rabbits at that rate each year. Rabbits do die, though, so assume every pair of rabbits dies after its third year, after having produced three litters of four, for a total of 12 offspring. Conservative enough so far? At this ludicrously slow rate of reproduction (for rabbits), one year after the waters receded there would be six: the original pair that Ham, Shem, or Japheth herded in, plus four kits (we're even assuming Mr. Rabbit did not "know" his wife, in the King James Version sense, while aboard the Ark). Those six pair up, male and female, and populate the Earth after their kind, and a year later we have eighteen. And so on. The simplest computer spreadsheet will do all the math for us in a snap. We'll even remember to have all rabbits die after reaching three years of age. Keep this up for a few years. After five years we have 432 rabbits (nothing to worry about, right?). After ten years we're up to 85,512. By the twentieth year we're up to 3,349,845,900 -- a lot of bunnies, but hey, it's a big world. And let's throw in another astoundingly conservative assumption: that they only weigh a pound each.
Time to cut to the bottom line -- and we reach it in a hurry: at this very modest rate of rabbits' being fruitful and multiplying, by the fifty-third year there would be 1.669619x1024 rabbits, more or less, and they would outweigh the entire Earth (1.32x1024 lbs.)! That's after a mere fifty-three years of the same kind of reproduction the creationist assumes when he calculates the human population to be just about right for growth since the Flood! (Feel free to check my math.)
Obviously the rabbit population never exploded like that in any 53 year period, even after their catastrophic introduction to Australia a few years back. Anybody, regardless of his beliefs about evolution, can tell you why: the rabbit population is kept in check by predators, disease, and if nothing else, by outright starvation if it outgrows its food resources. Equally obviously, those population pressures and constraints apply to all other animals. And surely anyone can see that they must also apply to people. Would people be the only creatures on Earth to experience a steady, unconstrained, geometric growth rate?
Anyone who thinks so has an awfully simple-minded view of human history. Sticking strictly with historical times (since creationists don't admit there even was a prehistory), during most centuries, in most places, the human population has remained relatively stable, rather than steadily increasing. There were notable periods when populations decreased, due to social collapse and chaos, disease, failure of agriculture due to overfarming, etc. During the 1300's the population of Europe decreased by at least 1/4 (bubonic plague). From the 1500's through the 1800's, populations of Amerindians declined, in many places by 90%; in some places the extermination was total (mostly from "white men's diseases," to which they had evolved no resistance, but also from enslavement and purposeful genocide). There are no more Carib Indians--at all. In many parts of the industrialized world, including Western Europe and the US, the population has essentially stopped growing, and even turned slightly negative, due to the availability of effective contraceptives and personal choice to limit family size. In some places the only increase in population comes from immigration from other countries.
Then how come the world population has grown and continues to grow? Easy: because we're so smart. We have invented better medicines, better crops, better living conditions, and an industrialized world in which the same amount of land can feed many times the number of people it could 2,000 years ago. Only in the past few centuries, with the rise of industrialization and modern science, has the world population "skyrocketted" in the way that creationists would have us believe it has been doing all along. Won't it continue to grow geometrically? No. The growth rate is already slowing in most places, as education, contraception, and desire for smaller families spread through the developing world. In places where social pressures and rising expectations don't limit population before it overwhelms its food supply, there could very well be mass starvations (as, of course there have already been, in the past and in our own century). Just like the rabbits.
Why is it that there is just about the population you would expect if people had been multiplying steadily since the Flood? Mere coincidence (and a little adjustment of figures to make it come out right). We just saw that it doesn't work at all for any animal with a faster reproduction than ours (which is nearly all other animals). Their populations don't grow at a steady rate, and neither has ours.
Truth in Math
For a little mathematical fun, try other population-growth-since-the-Flood experiments with other species. In general, the smaller the animal is, the sooner it will overwhelm the Earth! I haven't run the numbers, but I'll bet mice would do it in less than a decade. How long would it take a single bacterium (you don't even need a pair!)--assuming, as the creationists do with people, no restraints on its population growth rate--to fill up the galaxy with its progeny?
beginning pair 2
1 year @ 4 kits/pair 6
2 years 18
3 years (including death of 3 yr. olds) 52
4 yrs. 150
5 yrs. 432
6 yrs. 1244
7 yrs. 3582
8 yrs. 10314
9 yrs. 29698
10 yrs. 85512
11 yrs. 246222
12 yrs. 708968
13 yrs. 2041392
14 yrs. 5877954
15 yrs. 16924894
16 yrs. 48733290
17 yrs. 140321916
18 yrs. 404040854
19 yrs. 1163389272
20 yrs. 3349845900
21 yrs. 9645496846
22 yrs. 27773101266
23 yrs. 79969457898
24 yrs. 230262876848
25 yrs. 663015529278
26 yrs. 1909077129936
27 yrs. 5496968512960
28 yrs. 15827890009602
29 yrs. 45574592898870
30 yrs. 131226810183650
31 yrs. 377852540541348
32 yrs. 1.08798302872517e+15
33 yrs. 3.13272227599187e+15
34 yrs. 9.02031428743426e+15
35 yrs. 2.59729598335776e+16
36 yrs. 7.4786157224741e+16
37 yrs. 2.15338157386788e+17
38 yrs. 6.20041512326788e+17
40 yrs. 1.78533837975562e+18
41 yrs. 5.14067698188008e+18
42 yrs. 1.48019894333134e+19
43 yrs. 4.26206299201847e+19
44 yrs. 1.22721212778674e+20
45 yrs. 3.53361648902709e+20
46 yrs. 1.01746431678794e+21
47 yrs. 2.92967173758515e+21
48 yrs. 8.43565356385275e+21
49 yrs. 2.42894963747703e+22
50 yrs. 6.99388173867258e+22
51 yrs. 2.01380798596324e+23
52 yrs. 5.79852899414203e+23
53 yrs. 1.66961988085588e+24
Very good, thanks for giving a very well thought out reply.
You make some very accurate points all throughout the post. I don't really have a problem with any of it either.
One of the more ridiculous, fundamentalist rightist write ups I've read in two months I bet. And I watch Foxnews sometimes.
Something that I don't think is discussed often enough is believing in both God and evolution. I believe evolution is absolutely scientific fact. I also believe in God (I'm not super religious by any means, but I believe in a higher power). I think that the "big bang theory" is accurate. I believe that the Big Bang was whatever deity that exists snapping his/her fingers and setting things in motion. Evolution is absolutely real, but humans were the desired end result. It is said that a million years to god is a second to us. Perhaps to God, all the evolution that occurred from the Big Bang up to present day humans was part of the eventual plan. Not plan in the sense of having no free will or predestination or anything like that. Just the idea that evolution was supposed to produce humans with higher thinking. Humans can reach god in any number of ways, whether it's through nature, meditation, or organized religion. Anyway, I'm not sure how much of the population believes as I do, but I think it's a reasonable idea.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports