God vs. Evolution

"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3" I think you have once again misunderstand evolution. Evolution does not always lead to a more advanced life form, and it is not always in affect. If an environment changes little, the species might not change either. The change however, is not always simple to complex. Yes, over long periods of time simple processes may become more complex, and they did not start as complex, but evolution will simply move a species towards a form better fit for its environment. Let's say you have a tree who's fruit hangs high. On the ground, you have a species that jumps for its food, which are on slightly lower hanging trees. One day, a member is born with slightly better jumping genes, or perhaps it was a beneficial mutation. This member can now get an entire new food supply, so his likelyhood of surviving increases, and the species will slowly become better at jumping. Is that more complex? Not necessarily. The species just became better for its environment. And EVERYTHING is a transitional form. There is no end result to evolution. As long as natural selection can take place, as well as some of the other conditions I linked to in round 1 occur, species will continue to change. "Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there." Well, many species simply go extinct. Even without human interaction, if an environment changes too fast for a species to adapt, or an illness that too few, or no, members have resistance to enters, the species will die instead of adapting or becoming resistant. There is also mass extinction like the dinosaurs. Plus, our fossil record is not complete. We do not possess every animal in fossil form. That is why we have something called 'missing links'. However, we do have some chains partially or mostly completed, such as more recent ones like our own. [1] And I think that you are forgetting something important. Evolution predicted that we would find these fossils. When Darwin published his findings in the Galapagos and other places, it made many predictions., because that is what a scientific model should do. If evolution was true, we would see a rich fossil record, a genetic hierarchy of creatures said to be more closely related sharing more DNA. Both of these turned out to be true. Yes we are still missing fossils, and our technology in the field of genetics is not perfect as of yet, but the fact remains that the model of evolution has predicted these things. "With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes: And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5 Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that: The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6" *******Okay, this is ridiculous. You are not even on topic here. The origin of life is not a topic covered by evolution. I am running out of characters, so I will not argue against this. ******** The second law of thermodynamics is unrelated to the topic of evolution. Even if you accept your adulterated misunderstanding of the concept, if it is a slow enough process, you would not notice it, and it would not affect this place quickly enough. Entropy is simply stating that matter will tend towards a disordered state (like a fast moving gas), and require energy or force to put it in a ordered state, such as a crystal structure at 0 degrees Kelvin (This situation has an entropy of 0) Complexity and order have little to do with each other. A black hole is complex, yet it is highly disordered. Especially not evolutionary complexity, which has little to do with the order and energy of molecules, which complexity in the entropy sense refers to. Again you have shown little understanding of science. I love flashing the authority card with your Ph.d It is sooo funny. You know how many Ph.d papers I could find in favor of evolution? I think the words I was looking for was 'a lot'. And irreducible complexity is imbecilic. Pretty much every structure in the body can function with only a few of the parts. Can it function as well? No, of course not. I have a question for you though. Why does the eye flip the image multiple times? Why not just the bare minimum to get it to be upright? Evolution says this is because it evolved from a simpler form, and it was easier for the system to add new parts rather than to change old parts. Why do we have vestigial structures? Why do rabbits have to digest their food twice? Evolution says that we have things like these because they were never harmful. Since they were never detrimental, even the inefficiency of having them was never bad enough that a mutation of not having them would have widely spread. There was never a need to get rid of the tonsil. The rabbit could deal with digesting twice. I do not have a lot of space left, so I will use my remaining characters to talk about a false Dichotomy. My opponent, who has failed to argue his own position, and only argues against mine, seems to think that it is either evolution, or the Christian god. I explained why evolution is not against god in round 1, but this is false in another sense. There are many thousands of gods that humans have worshiped over the years. So even if creation is true (which my opponent has not argued for as of yet), how is my opponent certain it is his idea of creation. And evolution is only the leading scientific model best explaining and predicting the evidence we have. It could be dis-proven tomorrow, though that is unlikely. (it would take soooo little to disprove evolution, yet it has not happened. A fossil in the wrong spot, a gene that just doesn't match up) Even if it were disproven, there could be other models that match our current understanding well, (though evolution is currently the best. Much like our current model of gravity best explains our observations) and fit the new evidence. So just trying to knock down my position means nothing. You must fight for your own position. If my opponent fails to do this, then he cedes any claim to points in the category of most convincing arguments. Though the points would not necessarily go to me, they would not go to him. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...