Nothing new under the sun... at least against evolution.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This thought sprung to mind on seeing the last pair of threads that got quite quickly (and rightly) shut down that... the Creationist and Intelligent Design side does not really have anything new that they can try and levy against evolution as a science.

Unless I can be proven wrong...

 

[John Lamb]

Stevie don’t wonder, Stevie knows dna cannot make itself.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Stevie don’t wonder, Stevie knows dna cannot make itself.

That's not evolution though. Evolution deals with life that already exists, not how it started.

 

[John Lamb]

That's not evolution though. Evolution deals with life that already exists, not how it started.

Life has to evolve from original dna and dna cannot create itself. Mutations cause decay in original dna within each species to give the illusion of any evolution theories.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Life has to evolve from original dna and dna cannot create itself. Mutations cause decay in original dna within each species to give the illusion of any evolution theories.

I keep seeing that claim, 'mutations cause decay in DNA', and have not once seen anyone give a single shred of evidence to back it up.

And either way, all this is is just reinforcing my point.

 

[sfs]

Life has to evolve from original dna and dna cannot create itself. Mutations cause decay in original dna within each species to give the illusion of any evolution theories.

This comes under the heading of 'not even wrong'. Why do people who know nothing about genetics try to make arguments based on genetics?

 

[AV1611VET]

This thought sprung to mind on seeing the last pair of threads that got quite quickly (and rightly) shut down that... the Creationist and Intelligent Design side does not really have anything new that they can try and levy against evolution as a science.

How may ways does it have to be wrong before it's wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not evolution though.

Yes, actually, it is.

Would you like to see the Stanford chart again?

Evolution deals with life that already exists, not how it started.

Ever heard of chemical evolution?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How may ways does it have to be wrong before it's wrong?

Before I answer, I just want some clarification: which one is wrong? Because I know that on some level you do hold umbrage with Intelligent Design in some manner but I can't remember the specifics.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, actually, it is.

Would you like to see the Stanford chart again?



Ever heard of chemical evolution?

Attempting to muddy the waters, as per your usual. It should be obvious that in this case I am talking about biological evolution, not any other form of evolution you say exists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Before I answer, I just want some clarification: which one is wrong? Because I know that on some level you do hold umbrage with Intelligent Design in some manner but I can't remember the specifics.

I was talking about your biological evolution.

How many times does your biological evolution have to be wrong before it's wrong?

Why are you stating there's no new arguments against, as if we have to come up with something new every so often?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was talking about your biological evolution.

How many times does your biological evolution have to be wrong before it's wrong?

Why are you stating there's no new arguments against, as if we have to come up with something new every so often?

The only thing that defeats your claim is that biological evolution has yet to be shown to be wrong. There's been CLAIMS that it's wrong, but not one single person has SHOWN it to be wrong.

To be shown as wrong, it only has to be shown to be wrong once and only once.

And I was saying that there's no new arguments against it because there has been no new arguments. It's just the same insipid claims and false arguments made against it. I was just slightly hoping that we would eventually see something new and novel.

 

[John Lamb]

Evolution just means ‘change’. What are you trying to prove, atheism?

 

[sfs]

Evolution just means ‘change’. What are you trying to prove, atheism?

In the context of a forum about creation and evolution, 'evolution' means biological evolution and more specifically the descent of various species from common ancestors.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolution just means ‘change’. What are you trying to prove, atheism?

Yes, evolution does mean change, that is very correct. And no, I'm not trying to prove atheism since atheism is a religious belief, or rather the lack of a religious belief. Evolution is merely the name given to the biological process of how life changes in response to environmental pressures.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Nothing new is needed, the creation account written in Genesis some 1500- 2000 B.C. is all that is needed. Now all that is needed is to wait till this deception, is shown for what it is.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

-
​

Nothing new is needed, the creation account written in Genesis some 1500- 2000 B.C. is all that is needed. Now all that is needed is to wait till this deception, is shown for what it is.

So you say.

 

[Occams Barber]

Stevie don’t wonder, Stevie knows dna cannot make itself.

Snowflakes and galaxies are the results of a natural process.

Why not DNA?

OB

 

[J_B_]

This thought sprung to mind on seeing the last pair of threads that got quite quickly (and rightly) shut down that... the Creationist and Intelligent Design side does not really have anything new that they can try and levy against evolution as a science.

Unless I can be proven wrong...

Is that your only interest for this thread? Arguments from ID/Creationism against evolution as a whole?

 

[Hans Blaster]

This thought sprung to mind on seeing the last pair of threads that got quite quickly (and rightly) shut down that... the Creationist and Intelligent Design side does not really have anything new that they can try and levy against evolution as a science.

Unless I can be proven wrong...

Though not evolution strictly speaking, but definitely under creation, there has been from my perception a renewed focus on abiogensis.

But the last "innovation" I can think of in the creationist community would be the rebranding as "intelligent design" with "specified complexity".