Evolution

"Evolutionary theory provides the best possible explanation for the origin and development of life on Earth." Creationism arguably provides a better explanation. "The Earth is estimated to have formed 4.4 billion years ago..." Evidence shows the earth may be much younger. The receding moon is huge evidence for this. It means the earth should be less than 750 m.y.a. max. [1] "The first semblance of organic life began to develop." So what we have are amino acids and nitrogenous bases. That is not life and these are the only organic substances observed to have been generated from inorganic material. These experiments cannot show that life developed without intelligence either since there is a scientist behind all these experiments. The rest of this section is dedicated to hypothesis. "The building blocks of more complex organic compounds eventually arrange into proteins and nucleic acids." Now we are becoming much more complicated. Let's take the simplest protein, ribonuclease, which is made of around 127 amino acids. There are also 20 different amino acid types. The chances of this protein forming by chance are 1 in 10 to the 152nd power. Good luck. [2] Self-assembly vesicles sounds simple enough. Actually, the diagrams really dumb it down, and these membranes are pretty complicated. And inside, we have various bases and such. I'm not sure how these things evolve into cells. These "reproducing" vesicles are very complicated yet not anywhere as complicated as a real cell. "Once self-replicating and self-regulating vesicles emerged, there was no stopping the rapid diversification and growth of cellular life." This still does not give a good account on information gain. The daughter vesicle won't be any more complicated than the mother vesicle. "The transition from unicellular to multicellular life is readily visible in the diversity of life today." This is the cell colonization theory. The problem is, these aren't true multicellular organisms, but protists. A bunch of cells don't just come together and turn into a simple hydra much less a vertebrate. "Macroevolution is the cumulative effect of microevolution occurring on a grand scale over a long period of time." This is incorrect because microevolution has shown no information gain in DNA. Microevolution has not gone far enough to perform any macroevolution. "The idea that evolution has occurred... is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence." This "evidence" can be easily explained by creationism or intelligent design. Homologous structures either point to a common ancestor or common designer depending on how the evidence is interpreted. Humans use similar design structures in many different ways –– washing machines, dryers, vacuum cleaners, and dishwashers use a similar motor. One study looked for possible alternatives to the design structure of the arm in animals and humans and found none. Also, all these animals are made of the same thing, DNA. It makes sense that we see structural patterns. [3] "They also have vestigial structures" Many vestigial structures are probably not truly vestigial. Even so, I would expect some structures losing their function over time. But there is no evidence of organs coming into being, something that would be expected of evolution. "Although we have evidence of degeneration from an earlier, more optimal design, we lack evidence of a move toward a new optimal design." [4] "The similarities... are even stronger during embryonic development" The recapitulation theory is over simplified. All the specific examples break down under close examination. [5] "The uniformity of the chemical composition of life provides overwhelming evidence for common descent." I'm not overwhelmed. Again, it's how the evidence is interpreted whether to a common ancestor or common creator. What other chemicals would we be made of anyway? "The support for evolution is unbelievably immense, and as I will demonstrate in the following rounds there is a crushing rejoinder for every argument that could possibly be brought against it." I am still not convinced. I understand you cannot give us all the evidence for evolution, but the evidence you did give was unpersuasive and can just as easily be explained by Creationism. "That some people continue to reject it in favor of a traditionalist worldview that is not grounded in facts or logic is a great shame." This debate is mainly to see if evolution is as great a theory as you say it is. All my arguments are certainly based on facts and logic; let me know if they are not. My worldview is not really traditionalist. Creationism is making exceptional progress as a theory, and I'm not yet aware of any arguments that have stumped the creationists. However, let's not get sidetracked. This is about evolution, and I think there is more evidence against it than for it. It is up to the reader to weigh this evidence. [1] http://www.earthage.org... [2] http://themeliosproject.com... [3] [4] [5] Garner, Paul. The New Creationism, Evangelical Press 2009, Webster