Evolution cannot be proven scientifically

===== Age of the Earth ===== So my opponent's main contention against the age of the earth is that radiometric dating is "faulty". This is a common and laughable objection, and I'll be glad to tear it to shreds: >>>This method relies on the decay of minerals, or their half-lives. <<< From this statement I can tell already that the bulk, if not all, of my opponent's knowledge on radiometric dating comes from propaganda creationist sites. Already, he has his technical information wrong. Radiometric dating does NOT measure the decay of "minerals", but the amount of radioactive decay[1]. >>>One, the decay rate is not constant. <<< Ridiculous, decay rates ARE constant. This is why geologists use radiometric dating. Geologists measure this by measuring the amount of radioactive parent element and the amount of stable daughter elements. Rocks and minerals are made up of crystals, which themselves are made up of several different chemical elements. While most are stable and don't change, some DO and are the ones geochronologists[2] use. Over time, in a constant and predictable rate, the original elements (parent element) in the crystals of the rock will change into a new element (daughter element). By measuring how much parent elements in comparison to the daughter elements in a rock, geologists can determine the age of the rock. As said before, there are several elements that have naturally decaying isotopes. Therefore, there are different methods using things such as uranium, potassium, etc. The longer the half-life, the better since it gives a longer age-range. >>>Two, the original amount of the mineral is IMPOSSIBLE to know. <<< As stated before, if there is 100% parent elements, then that is the original amount. ===== Speciation ===== Since my opponent uses the video as his contention then I will refute it accordingly. I would also like to note that I find it disingenuous for my opponent to use someone else' video to as an argument in our debate. If you're just going to use someone's work to refute my entire arguments, then we shouldn't have a debate then. We should just throw links and videos at each other, but we don't do that here do we? ~Video 1 This video is currently unavailable. These type of situations can best be avoided when you TYPE YOUR OWN ARGUMENT. As such, my argument from speciation still stands. ~Video 2 This is a clip from the creationist propaganda movie Expelled. First, do you really count this as an argument? It shows a few scientists saying that they think the cell is highly complex (and probably implying that evolution can't happen because of that). Not only is that NOT an argument, but it's also a brilliant way to brainwash people by having a few scientists with credentials doubting evolution. What is funny that I recognize most of them: they are Creationists. I am willing to bet that the others I didn't recognize are likewise Creationists. Of course, if the retarded Bill Stein asked evolutionists he wouldn't get the right response he wanted for his impotent film. If you wanna have a battle over credentials and numbers, then the evolutionary community has MUCH more than those who are creationists. That being said, both your videos aren't arguments, so my speciation point still stands. Disappointing. ===== Homology ===== My opponent has already conceded this argument. The voters should take note of this. ===== Improbability ===== This is HILARIOUS. Not just because my opponent's argument is complete bogus, but because the website he links to is probably the best known and useful website on the Internet for destroying Creationist propaganda: TalkOrigins. org. It's funny, because my opponent's argument is directly copy-pasted from the website. And here we have to problems: -TalkOrigins, the cite you copy-pasted from, lays out the "argument" you use and goes on to DEFEAT IT. So all it takes is a little reading down and you'll see it be broken apart -If you were to do just a little reading of the title, you will see that it's talking about ABIOGENESIS. Abiogenesis is NOT Evolution. Evolution explains the diversity of life, while abiogenesis explains the origin of life. So in a true twist of irony, I will be using my opponent's OWN source to defeat his OWN argument. Let the bashing begin: 1. The formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, which means that these process are NOT random like any other process (evaporation, etc. ). So much for the random probability, eh? 2. These early "living" building blocks were much simpler than the ones you give as example. Most of these simple molecules (even simpler than preprotobacteria) can have subunits of only around 30-40. So much for random probability, eh? 3. Many of these early "living" molecules are capable of single self replication. So much for random probability, eh? . The problem is that Creationists have an overtly simplified and impotent view of abiogenesis. They think it's from simple chemicals and STRAIGHT to early bacteria. This is obscurely false. There were many steps between, such as the formation of polymers and protobionts. >>>This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400<<< I'm not sure where creationists get this "400 proteins" mark. Perhaps they pulled it out their behind? Nonetheless, the claim that the amino acid sequence of 400 can't be changed for the organism to be alive is false. Plain outright false. As stated in TalkOrigins, the smallest genome of a living current organism is Mycobacterium genetalium - this is perhaps where the Creationists get this claim. However, not only is further inspection realizing this number can be reduced to 256[3], but realize these are MODERN organisms. The simple celled organisms 3.5 billion years ago were MUCH different and MUCH simpler. Sot his claim should be thrown out the window. >>>. .. randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. <<< Now, if I haven't shown enough ways in which abiogenesis isn't THAT absurdly random, I'll finally end my rebuttal on this claim concerning statistics. It's so common for creationists to pull out big obtuse numbers and try to mind-freak opponent's. There are two major problems with this argument: 1. Let's say I wanna throw a coin and make it heads 4 times in a row (HHHH). The probability of this would be 1 out of 16. While this does tell me the total possible events that can take place, it does NOT tell me where it will happen. For instance, I can get HHHH in the FIRST try or the SECOND try or the LAST try. So a super high probability won't dictate that something happens in the end. However, with gigantic numbers my opponent presents it's still very difficult for us to imagine something like that happening. This is true, but there lies a major fault in the argument: 2. The creationist assumes these are SEQUENTIAL trials. For one person, like me flipping a coin, it would be sequential. But if there were 16 people including me SIMULTANEOUSLY flipping a coin at the same time, how likely is it for one of us to get a HHHH? VERY LIKELY INDEED. Now go back to the abiogenesis scene. In the early ocean, BILLIONS and BILLIONS of simultaneous trials are being conducted, how likely is it for life to arise? Much more likely than you think. And remember, life only needs to happen ONCE for abiogenesis to do it's job. ===== Conclusion ===== My opponent's argument suffers from horrible videos, copy-pasted arguments, and a poor understanding of radioactive decay (with backing evidence from an obscure website with only Creationist sources). Vote CON. ---References--- 1. . http://facstaff.gpc.edu... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3