What are the dumbest attempts to find fault in the theory of evolution you've heard?

Doh.

That works too. I wonder how I missed that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Time to stop reading those damn Enid Blyton books and get back to the real world.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So to answer your question: Feedback by death.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow, major thread necromancy!
Great job, guys. You warm this necromancer's heart.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This might seem dumb but why arent there still half ape and half human like animals...and to go further... why is there such a gap between most species why do the in between species die off but the original and the new species stay alive?

 

does anyone know why?

 

What about Belgians?

Can you cite an example?

 

i guess just start with the human ape example

 

You mean the Belgians?

 

"if evolution exists, how come evolutionists would explain the evolution of gravitation?"

"evolution can't be true because it proposes that the bigger can came from the smaller; the man coming from the amoeba, the molecule coming from the atom - the law of conservation of mass says that it is impossible" (i guess that then cited some part of the bible that can be seen as equivalent to the law of conservation of mass)

"okay that Pope JP2 accepted evolution; never the less, evolution is not yet a catholic dogma" (Catholic creationist, a rare kind... the same guy of the latter argument too)

 

Because intermediates are not as well adapted to either niche (way of living) as the other forms, so they are outcompeted and eventualy became extinct

 

Are someone really proposing that would be something other than this? :bugeye:

 

One person I met said, "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes in the world?"
...*aneurysm* :bugeye:...

If by "culled" you mean "ran over with a semi", then yes.

 

I can't beleive some of these lame explainations the creationists give. They are a result of ignorance about biology, denial, or they are attacking strawmen of thier own making. This is from a biology major, EVOLUTION IS A FACT. The way our biochemistry works REQUIRES evolution to occur, evolution is an emergent property created when you put together a genetic system that can suffer mutations and a changing enviroment that causes selective survival and reproduction. The people saying a reptile can't evolve into a bird are showing a woeful ignorance of the fossil record. The anatomy of Archeopterx is nearly identical to a skelaton of a dromaesaurid dinosaur like Velociraptor, hell, both had FEATHERS for Chrst's sake. A reptile didn't suddenly turn into Tweety Bird, it is a gradual process going back to the dinosaurs crocodile-like ancestors in the mid Triassic going until the late Cretaceous when the first modern birds appeared.

 

One of my personal favorite "excuses":

"I may believe in Creationism or I may believe in evolution. I choose to follow God."
(or some variation of the above)

It's a clear mixing of apples and bicycles:
* creationism is religious dogma.
* evolution is a scientific premise.

The first requires blind faith.

The second does not. Simple observation will suffice, if one has the patience and wit to observe the evidence. Accepting the scientific premise requires no faith at all.

...

However, I have found that the sort of folk who use this excuse, are the same sort of incurious folk that have NEVER had to discover something on their own: to them, it is ALL "faith".

Since they have never had an original thought or idea themselves, they have had to accept everything that they "know" from some authority figure: on faith.

So, I can sort of understand why they become confused.

Too bad we can't wipe out all those lying authority figures that are leading these poor, misguided sheep astray ... <heh>

...

"You can lead a man to Knowledge, but you Cannot Make him Think."

 

I have heard several creationists make the following argument....

Premise: Piltdown Man was a fake.

therfore...

Conclusion: All supporters of the theory of evolution are liars.

How this Conclusion follows from this Premise, I have no idea. But then, who ever said creationists are logical?

 

Actually this reminds me of a argument. Both creationism and "evolutionism" are premises, presuppositions assumed, and these assumptions guide the interpretations of the facts in one way or another. So would not be correct to say that X is a proof of evolution, because that would be just one possible interpretation. And no one can know for sure if evolution or creationism is true because no one was alive to witness what happened, blablabla, neither can be proven, blablabla.

But evolution is not a premise, or at least not always, but a theory. A theory is not some arbitrary chosen truth that you accept as a starting point, but a concept that can be tested wether it is valid or not, according to how it does or does not describes a fact well. If it does, at the point of the hypothesised phenomena can be considered a fact (as it is with evolution) than it can also be used as a starting point to insights in may things and other theories, but it differs enormously from being an arbitrary premise, to which creationism would bejust another equally valid option.

 

Someone said that entropy would cause constant degradation of the DNA code within living beings, thereby making evolution impossible.

We told them to shutup.

 

Why equally valid?

 

Creationists often use an argument involving the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, claiming that evolution violates it. The 2nd Law, however, is talking about a closed system where no extra energy can be introduced. The Earth is not a closed system, but get more energy from the sun continuously.

And, yes, they should shut up.

 

That´s what creationists say, so "is" equally valid because they think so.

Some argue that evolution or creationism are just arbitrarily chosen as a starting point, and then there´s no real proof for or one or another, but just interpretations of data according with the one of the arbitrarily chosen premises.

If evolution and creationisms were just arbitrarily chosen premises, it would not be wrong, I think, but prior to be a premise, evoution is a falsifiable theory.