creation v.s evolution

Thanks again. Retrograde Motion Pro hasn’t actually shown that retrograde motion contradicts the big bang in the first place. Nor has he shown it to be in connection to evolution, so it’s a complete strawman. Anyway, yes, the three planets and the moons could easily be the result of the early chaotic solar system. As David Palmer put it. How a planet rotates is related to how it was formed from the accretion of planetesimals. If more impacts occur on one side than the other, then it will tend to rotate accordingly. But the impacts are largely random. Tidal effects can also change the rotation." [1] Pro claims it’s highly unlikely, but this is a bare assertion fallacy. This shows Pro misunderstands the nebular hypothesis. It’s not like the solar system was always like ours today, it’s likely that our solar system was at first highly chaotic [2]. The big bang is an astronomical event, but evolution has nothing to do with astronomy. Pro says somehow my entire belief system doesn’t work if this isn’t true. This is yet again a bare assertion fallacy, he has not demonstrated. Genetics Pro tries to attack this argument by using an analogy with silverware. However, his fallacy here is a false analogy. Silverware cannot reproduce among themselves and they pass down no genetic code. When we reproduce, we pass down a genetic code. Let’s say creationist dad is on the TV show Maury, he is accused of sleeping with atheist women and getting her pregnant. Creationist dad goes through genetic testing and is found to be the father of the child. However, creationist dad claims just because they are genetically similar doesn’t mean they are related. Hey, forks and spoons are similar he says, so he may not be the father! He says “Perhaps we came from the same creator” We see how his objection is flawed. Pro claims without citation that a small change in the DNA can kill you. However if this were true, it doesn’t mean evolution is false. As evolution is a slow process, a million changes wouldn’t happen in one creature at once. Gene-level mutations happen all the time without harm [3]. Of course intelligent design may be true, it’s highly unlikely. Even if Dawkins went so far to accept it, this means nothing. The truth of evolution is not based on Richard Dawkins. However, Dawkins did not. The video Pro cited is edited. It is full of cuts and when examining the dialogue, Stein will ask a question and Dawkins will answer a complete different one. Youtube user Potholer54 showed how edited this video was. See the video to the right. http://www.youtube.com... Morality This is a philosophical question that has nothing to do with the science of evolution. Nor is it necessary to be an atheist and an evolutionist. Thus it’s not relevant, however I will address it. Pro quotes mass murderer Jeffrey Dahmer saying under atheism there is no morality. However, Dahmer is a mass murderer, not a philosopher. His word should hardly be taken without examination. I can find no reason for quoting him only to create a guilt by association. Atheism can have morality for a simple reason, we all have a survival instinct. It is better for us to survive in a group and in order to do that we can’t murder and rape everyone. However, what if God were to command all believers to kill babies? Would it then be morally correct to do so? If so, then you’re morality is arbitrary based on God and whatever he says is moral, even if it’s morally wrong to us. If God wouldn’t do that or if he did it wouldn’t be moral, then God is subject to a set of moral laws above him. Meaning atheists can just cut out the middle man. The moral argument fails. Pro’s arguments have been refuted, where mine stay standing. Back to Pro. [1] http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov... [2] http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://www.nature.com...