Debunking Evolution Part # 1 Variations in species

Debunking Evolution one step at a time with logic and reason. I will continue this series as far as I can. Enjoy! For more information please go to www.thenightwatchman.biz

• Category

  Education

[MaximusMcc]

Well the dictionary disagrees with you. What you seem to be speaking here of is biogenesis the production of living organisms from other living organisms.

[MaximusMcc]

Yes I am familiar but there is an agent, the plant which is alive organically in the first place.

[MaximusMcc]

Does abiogenesis ring a bell? This is a debunked theory by even those on your side but you are still promoting it like it happened, are you not? Well I can see how I could of misinterpreted the above allegation but telling me that if science don't prove it your not going to believe it is a lie. You seem to think that the only truth comes from science and that is a fallacy and that is precisely my mission to expose such nonsense.

[MaximusMcc]

Funny that I agree with Richard Dawkins on the one. Evolution is the only game in town for atheist so endorsing it is imperative. I am sure the culture gap has a bearing on what is understood by me. I will try to be more sensitive linguistically and in grammar. Some of my hero's believe in Evolution like William Lane Craig that does not mean that I agree with him. I see too much evidence against evolution therefore I reject it. I can go into them if you like.

[MaximusMcc]

@GreedyCapybara7 LOL @ testing for a soul. That's funny!

[MaximusMcc]

Never-mind about the chicken brain its stale. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Everything is ID take your pick molecules, planets suns and stars, systems, adaptation etc we can detect design in everything.

[MaximusMcc]

Dancing with words is something that I am not enthused about and I am not about to go into a detailed conversation about mockery and how it works. Cetacea: "order of marine mammals containing whales," 1830, Mod.L., from L. cetus, from Gk. ketos "a whale." Hence cetology "the study of whales," first attested 1851 in "Moby Dick."Ambulocetus don't look like Moby Dick. Rodhocetus looks more like Ambulocetus but still a different creature altogether.No ancestor proof

[MaximusMcc]

This is still pseudo science no matter how you slice the cheese. There is too many variables and there are too many assumptions that come into play. I am not doubting that these are the readings that you get from radiometric dating, the rate of decay but comparing 2 isotopes and firing particles at one to make it match the other ones condition then saying give or take a couple million years is hardly science observable and tested.

[GreedyCapybara7]

If your talking about getting organic chemicals from non-oganic chemicals that is actually the easy bit, plants do this with CO2 and H2O (both non-organic)to make glucose-a (organic), this happens in almost any polar solution such as water and some oils when carbon in any state, N2 and oxygen + hydrogen either as water of as a gas...getting organic molecules is quick and relatively easy getting life from this is the hard part.

[GreedyCapybara7]

not nobody, there are always people reviewing old work to see where an experiment could have gone wrong, but for the most part the "soul" hypothesis has gone the same way as the "flat earth" hypothesis, "elemental theory" and "Newtonian Gravity".

Other than that something untestable does not mean that it does not exist, for example there may or may not be a soul in humans/ animals/ all life, but until evidence appears to point to such a conclusion then we cannot say it's true.