How would you debate against the following points that evolution IS NOT real

Question

*Carbon dating has once dated a living mollusk to be 3000 years old

*Explosives (Big Bang) are NEVER productive but only destructive.

*Cell's are to complex to happen by luck

*Scientist have even admitted that their is no proof of evolution.

*But what about mutations? Well as we know mutations are variations within a species..and NOT a new species

*Oh yes the mule of course. The mule is sterile and cannot breed so it could not have a new species occur..because the genetic abnormality is sterile.

*Nothing in Nature goes from disorder into order..the opposite..is actually the case (second Law of thermodynamics)

----

What would you say in an actual debate. Please nothing unproffesional / immature

Answer 1

for explosives it imploded

Answer 2

The problems with your points are that:

a) The first two have nothing to do with evolution at all.

b) Many of them are refuting claims that no scientist is making;

c) Many of them show a complete lack of understanding of the terms they are using (like what the Big Bang is, or what the Second Law of Thermodynamics actually says);

d) The remainder are just easily refuted.

Details:

>*Carbon dating has once dated a living mollusk to be 3000 years old"

Carbon dating IS accurate when used within the correct range known by scientists!

They know that things less than 200 years old will not date correctly because the Carbon production in our atmosphere has been completely whacked out since humans started burning fossils fuels in the Industrial Revolution.  Scoffing at carbon dating because it can't measure the age of a living molusk is like scoffing at a desk ruler because it can't measure the width of a hair.

And things more than 60,000 years old will not date correctly because carbon has too short a half-life.  ... Which is why carbon dating is not, and never has been, used for dating fossils millions of years old ... or rocks billions of years old ... which are the objects relevant to evolution!

So Creationists who bring up this argument miss the mark in TWO respects:

a) Bringing up anecdotal cases where carbon dating is "inaccurate" because it was used on objects for which it was never intended;

b) Thinking that the theory of evolution somehow depends in any way on the accuracy of carbon dating!

>* Explosives (Big Bang) are NEVER productive but only destructive.

a) The Big Bang is not an "explosive".  Never was.   People who say this have absolutely ZERO understanding of the Big Bang.

b) The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with evolution.   So once again your counter-arguments to evolution are completely missing the mark!

>*Cell's are to complex to happen by luck*

a) Evolution is not "luck".  It is natural selection, which is NOT luck.

b) How do you measure "too complex"?

>*Scientist have even admitted that their is no proof of evolution."

a) No they haven't.  

b) Scientists never *claimed* that there is "proof" of evolution ... or ANYTHING AT ALL IN SCIENCE!   Science deals in "evidence", not "proof."

c) There is EVIDENCE of evolution.  Evidence in spades!  

>*But what about mutations? Well as we know mutations are variations within a species..and NOT a new species"

a) Nobody *claims* that a mutation is a "new species."  So once again, you are trying to refute a claim that no scientist is making!

b) Mutations are changes.  Natural selection keeps only the "good changes" and discards the bad.   The result, after millions of years, is the accumulation of so many "good changes" that you indeed have a different species than the one you started with.

>*Oh yes the mule of course. The mule is sterile and cannot breed so it could not have a new species occur..because the genetic abnormality is sterile."

a) One example does not prove that *ALL* genetic abnormalities are sterile.

b) Nobody ever said that evolution proceeds through cross-breeding between species.

c) It is the very fact that cross-breeding between species (hybrids) usually *doesn't* work that explains why there are no intermediate species between existing species.  The reason there are no half-humans/half-apes is that humans and apes cannot interbreed.  So your "mule" point actually supports evolution.

>*Nothing in Nature goes from disorder into order..the opposite..is actually the case (second Law of thermodynamics)"

Wrong.  Apparently you have never heard of a snowflake.   That is a crystal of water molecules that has gone from "disorder into order."   Why is there no violation of the second Law of Thermodynamics ... because there is an outside source of *energy* that caused the water vapor that froze into a snowflake.

Those Creationist web sites that feed you the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics" argument always fail to understand the role of an energy source, which is why they show a complete lack of understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics!

They are trying to deceive you ... and they have succeeded.

>"But what I don't understand is when scientist come up with evo. people start believing it. But when they reliazed it is not true you contiune to belive thier blunder?"

Where did you read that scientists "realized it is not true"?

Why on earth would you believe that?

Scientists are still, overwhelmingly convinced of the validity of evolution.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is flat-out lying to you.

Answer 3

Sorry, but it  is silly to argue that evolution is not real.

Answer 4

1. the fact that a mollusk was alive at 3000 years old is not an argument against evolution.

2. the big bang was not an explosion in the sense we think of. it was not like dynamite exploding. it was a sudden, rapid expansion. most importantly, the big bang is completely unrelated to evolution.

3. i think you meant "too"...

cells did not come into existence by "luck". they evolved. there is a difference; look it up.

4. enough variations in a species create a new species. those who claim that micro-evolution, as it's called, is true, while macro-evolution is not true, are extremely ignorant.

5. the mule is the offspring of a horse and a donkey, not another mule.

6. the second law of thermodynamics does not refute evolution. look it up.  

Answer 5

OMG exactly! Those exact points are what I always tell Evolutionists, but I'm too lazy to list them. XD

Answer 6

Look up "Intelligent Design"

Answer 7

My response to the last statement made by the asker to Wise Duck is that science will abandon evolution when there is overwhelming evidence that it is not true.  At the moment all of the physical evidence supports biological evolution.  There are new scientific papers every day that add to the physical evidence for evolution.  Therefore, for science to abandon evolution, a much larger amount of physical evidence against evolution must be presented.  So far, there is no physical evidence against evolution.  

Answer 8

*drink*

> Carbon dating has once dated a living mollusk to be 3000 years old

a) An aquatic snail living in a stream downstream from a limestone cave will always be dated as real real old.  That's because some of the carbon in its environment comes from the limestone -- old carbon.

b) We've bollixed things in recent years by putting a lot of "fossil" carbon into the air by burning fossil fuels.  Moral of the story:  don't use carbon dating to date organisms that have died after 1700 A.D.

> Explosives (Big Bang) are NEVER productive but only destructive.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution... and it was destructive.  It destroyed whatever there was "before" the Big Bang, which might have had a really nifty structure.  Makes you think -- you're living in the remnants of junk flying away from an explosion.

> Cells are to complex to happen by luck

They sure are.  It required natural selection, too.  Differential reproduction success led to the biodiversity we see today.

> Scientists have even admitted that there is no proof of evolution.

What's your standard of proof?  If it's a "preponderance of evidence" then yes, we have that.  If it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" then yes, we have that too.  So, in any court of law, there's enough "proof" of evolution for evolution to win.

> But what about mutations? Well as we know mutations are variations within a species..and NOT a new species

What's your point?  Consider the possibility that an accumulation of ENOUGH mutations would cause us to classify one population as a distinct species from another.  Consider:  the mini-dachshund.  If we didn't have all those other dogs around we would not classify the mini-dachshund as the same species as the gray wolf.

> Oh yes the mule of course. The mule is sterile and cannot breed

So what?  The mule is a hybrid between a donkey and a horse.  No one's saying it's a new species.

> Nothing in Nature goes from disorder into order

Completely false.  Consider the icemaker on your freezer.  It turns water into ice.  The crystalline structure of ice (solid) is more ordered than the structure of liquid water.  Things in one place can become more ordered -- when they are coupled with disordering things elsewhere.  In the case of your refrigerator, it takes energy to make ice.  In the case of life, it takes energy from sunlight.

Answer 9

*Source?  Carbon dating has uses, but is still limited, being able to only date something back about 50,000 years..  Other radioisotopes are used in conjunction with each other to date rocks.  Most people neglect other dating methods.  This also has little to do with evolution.

*The Big Bang was not an explosion, it was the expansion of the universe. It had nothing to destroy, since all matter at the time was hydrogen and helium.  Large atoms were made in stars that formed from the gravitational collapse of the clouds of hydrogen.   It also has nothing to do with evolution.  I

*Ask any cell biologist.  These system clearly evolved.  There is also no luck to evolution, natural selection is not random.

*Non sequitur. Science does not deal with proof, only supporting evidence, and evolution could not be more supported.

*Wrong.  Speciation has been observed many times.

*Non sequitur again.  Hybrids have very little to do with evolution, with the exception of plants.

*The 2nd LoT only applies to a closed system.  The Earth is an open system.  We have the sun provided large amounts of enthalpy (free energy).  The Earth can easily decrease in entropy as long as the Earth-Sun system increases, which it does.

The only true closed system is the universe, which is running down its energy.  The end result is the heat death of the universe, the ultimate triumph of entropy, which will happen in a few trillion years.

Your points are trivial and ignore the actual fossil and genetic evidence that overwhelmingly support evolution.

Edit: Again, carbon dating is meaningless to evolution, its primary use is in archeology, not biology, and your statement has no evidence to back it up.  Provide a source.

Edit2: What blunder?  It is very clearly the reality.  Besides the overwhelming evidence, it provides accurate results.  

There is no greater test of a scientific theory than the accuracy of its predictions, and evolution has proven itself time and time again,

Answer 10

*Carbon dating has once dated a living mollusk to be 3000 years old

You once misspelled "unprofessional" as "unproffesional", therefore we must conclude that everything you wrote is spelled wrong.  Right?  Because that's the argument you're making here.  Sorry, but one error is meaningless in proving a fundamental and common flaw.  Carbon dating verifiably works very well when used correctly.

Besides, you know that multiple methods of dating are used to double-check these things, right?  No?  Hmmm... maybe you need to do more research on the subject.

*Explosives (Big Bang) are NEVER productive but only destructive.

The Big Bang wasn't an "explosion" (or an "implosion") it was an "expansion".  Furthermore, explosions (not that the Big Bang was one) are often VERY productive.  Your car wouldn't work without them!

Furthermore, that's just an assumption on your part, not evidence.  You can't prove that they NEVER produce anything.

Also, the Big Bang predates life on Earth by several billion years, so it's not particularly relevant to proving or disproving evolution.

*Cell's are to complex to happen by luck

And your proof is...?  Do you even know how simple the simplest cell can be?  Do you know how chemicals tend to form some basic organic compounds, including lipid membranes?  Do you know how many opportunities for a reproducing chemical there were on the entire Earth for a period of about billion years before life began?

Nobody knows the answers to the second and fourth questions yet, so it's impossible to say it definitely can't happen.

*Scientist have even admitted that their is no proof of evolution.

There's no absolute proof of gravity either.  Does that mean gravity isn't real?  Evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the evidence.  You don't have anything that even comes close to a better answer.

*But what about mutations? Well as we know mutations are variations within a species..and NOT a new species

One mutation?  Yes.  Thousands of mutations accumulated over millions of generations throughout an entire species?  Uh... that's exactly what creates new species.

*Oh yes the mule of course. The mule is sterile and cannot breed so it could not have a new species occur..because the genetic abnormality is sterile.

WTF?  A mule is the offspring of a donkey and a horse.  It's alive because the donkey and horse have a recent common ancestor.  It's sterile because the donkey and horse have evolved into different species and cannot produce fertile offspring.  As the donkey and horse continue to evolve they may one day be unable to produce mules anymore.

All in all, mules are good evidence _supporting_ evolution.

*Nothing in Nature goes from disorder into order..the opposite..is actually the case (second Law of thermodynamics)

So you've disproved the theory that babies grow up?!?  Seriously, do yourself a favor and learn what you're talking about before you attempt to use it to support your argument.  The second law of thermodynamics talks about the overall state of closed systems, and the Earth is not a closed system.  It doesn't prevent local increases of order within such a system either.

*But what I don't understand is when scientist come up with evo. people start believing it. But when they reliazed it is not true you contiune to belive thier blunder?

People believe it because there is strong objective evidence for it from numerous scientific fields.  Anyone who "realized it is not true" did so for religious reasons, not due to scientific facts.

You appear to be laboring under several misconceptions about what science says.  I recommend you take a look at these:

"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-a...

"Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions"

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life...

"Evidence of common descent"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of...

I hope that helps clear up some misunderstandings.  :-)