Evolution cannot be proven scientifically

>>>Since my opponent is against using arguments from an outside source, I will cite no sources. I don't understand his logic since he did himself, but I guess he just mis-typed?<<< I never stated I was against sources. I stated that I was against people who refute entire arguments of mine by using OTHER people's work (videos, articles, etc.). Using a source as a citation does not mean one posts just videos, copy-paste entire arguments, etc. It's okay to use video to supplement your argument, and perhaps you can copy-paste some statistics, a quote, or a formula. But not ENTIRE arguments. I just found it disingenuous. ===== Age of the Earth ===== >>>He did not respond to my example of the lava flow. This has been tested many times with numerous methods, and ALL proved faulty.<<< I didn't because of two reasons. One, I had no character limits left. Two, the reason I decided to not refute it was because I HAD NO LINK/SOURCE to check it. If you use hard evidence (facts, statistics, etc.), then you need to attach a source so I can check it out. >>>The first of these is the method used. He says that it is not correct. For your information, there are several methods, which all give roughly the same answer.<<< I simply pointed out that you had your facts wrong (i.e. the BASICS of radiometric dating). >>>The fact of the matter is: Radiometric dating assumes that radioisotope decay rates are constant, but this assumption is not supported.<<< Uh, I beg to differ. For example, here is one of the more simpler formula for radioactive decay[1]. Further reading int he article will present more formulas, etc.: P(now) = P(org) X 2[-age/half life] * Pnow - The quantity of the parent isotope that remains now. This is measured directly. * Porig - The quantity of the parent isotope that was originally present. This is computed from the current quantity of parent isotope plus the accumulated quantity of daughter isotope. * halflife - The half-life of the parent isotope. Standard values are used, based on direct measurements. (Constancy of decay rate is covered in the Age of the Earth FAQ.) * age - The value computed from the equation and the other three quantities, is the amount of time which has passed. >>>All processes in nature vary according to different factors, and we should not expect radioactivity to be different.<<< Many processes abide by scientific laws. Gravity, evaporation, etc. Radioactive decay is no different. This is a hilarious argument, because it's the exact claim that is posted on the TalkOrigins webstie (and then refuted accordingly). My opponent seriously doesn't know what he's doing. >>>HOW DO WE KNOW? How can we possibly know how much there was originally? We cannot. Plain and simple, just the way i like it. ;)<<< Parent elements are basically the original elements. So if you find chemical elements such as iron, and in the rock/mineral it's 100% iron, then TADA. That's how we know. ===== Sepeciation ===== You shouldn't on entire videos to press your arguments, especially in the case where you didn't make it and I might not be able to view it. The second video is a propaganda video, because not only does it have no arguments, but it adds the fallacy from personal incredulity along with the impression that "hey, we got some scientists to say evolution is wrong. So there, ha!". >>>While this can explain the accumulation of various traits, it cannot explain how traits with no solitary advantage can be selected, and then assembled into new, functioning systems.<<< Functioning systems are not a on-or-off thing. Parts of an animal don't just SPRING into existence by evolution. A commonly cited creationist argument is the argument from irreducible complexity. Basically, your argument is saying that if a "piece" is removed, then it can't work and function. This is false. While it may not serve it's original purpose, it can CHANGE the function of the organ or body part. Take the example of the mousetrap. Creationists say that if you remove one piece, it won't work as a mousetrap. True, but if you remove one piece, you can perhaps make a paper weight or a tie clip from it. Less/diff rent arrangement of pieces, and yet new different function. For example, the function of gliding was what preceded flying. ===== Homology ===== My opponent has already conceded this point, and yet he tries to play it off as nothing. So is it just a coincidence that animals who are evolutionary linked share the same homology to varying levels of degrees? By Occam's Razor, we can explain this phenomenon. ===== Improbability ===== >>>I know that how they interpret the data is contradictory to my own interpretation. This is irrelevant. What are relevant are the cold, hard facts. The data.<<< And yet you don't have the open-mindedness to even read TalkOrigins arguments. Because if you glanced at it, you would realize that your abiogenesis-improbability argument is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. >>>. We are not talking about evaporation, or any other similar functions. We are talking about the formation of new organelles, organs, and species. HE DOES NOT ADDRESS THIS.<<< What a red herring. If you went back to what my first "attack" was directed towards, it was his statement about the supposed randomness of polymers/proteins/amino acids/etc. forming. He takes my quote of context when he doesn't realize that it is his ARGUMENT that is irrelevant to the debate (evolution, if you forgot). >>>What evidence do we have of any "earlier living building blocks"? Of course they are not around today, so how do we know they even existed? WE CAN'T!<<< Fossils of early prokaryotes were found to be 3 billion years old[2]. Similarly so, the conditions for life back then and the new arrival of life would mean small chains of only 30-40. >>>We are not addressing this, but the formation of new organelles, organs, and species. Just because something replicates doesn't mean it will morph into something else.<<< AGAIN, A RED HERRING. This was a rebuttal your abiogenesis-improbability argument. YOU are the one out of context. >>>Even if this were plausible, it would take a horrendously long time. As I have shown, we don't know how old the Earth is. This debate is on scientific proof. If we don't have the facts, then you must vote PRO.<<< I've stated that the Earth's early oceans were filled with BILLIONS and BILLIONS of simultaneous "trials". And no, you haven't disproved Earth's age. ===== Conclusion ===== My opponent's argument has been utterly horrendous. His argument against radioactive decay reveals his lack of knowledge in chemistry, and I have given one of the formula's for the constant rate of decay. His second argument against speciation relies on the refuted argument of irreducible complexity. His third argument against homology is nonexistent, and he laughs it off despite not knowing the implications of homology. His fourth argument is completely irrelevant (though I refuted it) because it described ABIOGENESIS. NOT EVOLUTION. My opponent has not only been disingenuous with his videos, but has shown his failure at researching. When you cite an argument that becomes abruptly defeated from the website you cited, then you need to scroll down Google a few more pages. VOTE CON. ---References--- 1. http://www.gizlen.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...