This article is in response to http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Creation-vs-Evolution-20140708. This is not going to be a full response; I’m only going to touch on a few of the most glaring flaws. Someone is wrong in this debate and I get no enjoyment in pointing that out but I think that some of these misconceptions and outright lies do need to be pointed out.
“Let’s be realistic, if you think you came from an ape”
When all is said and done humans are apes. We are not monkeys (we have no tails) and we did not come from apes, we are still apes. Clever and complex sure but apes none the less. This statement of fact should not be taken as demoralizing or degrading in any way.
The Big Bang is our best explanation of how the universe started and all the evidence supports it. Your argument that, “It just cannot be called Scientific” is false. “It’s only realistic in the imagination,” would be a fine statement to make for creationism because creationism does not have any evidence and only relies on the imagination.
“Chemical evolution: The evolution of higher elements past Hydrogen. The periodic table does not allow for this! Cannot be called Scientific.”
Have you ever heard of nuclear fusion? This happens in suns, it is how suns get their energy and don’t collapse in on themselves. Two hydrogen atoms fuse to form helium, the difference in mass between two H and He means energy is released. This can continue inside a sun, depending on it’s size, all the way up the periodic table until iron. After iron it takes energy to fuse atoms into heavier elements; these heavier elements are made in super novas.
This bears repeating until it sinks in. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
I’m glad to see that you at least admit that there are fossils. The fossils do show how life has changed over the years, in other words evolution; the Theory of Evolution explains how that change came about. I also wrote about fossils here http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Questions-for-a-Creationist-20121008.
Micro and macro evolution is, for all intent and purpose, the same thing. The only difference between them is a matter of degree.
“Variations within kinds”
I would love someone to explain to me what is meant by kind. So a dog is dog what about a cat. Are domestic cats, lions, cheetahs ect. the same kind, a cat kind? Of cause if this is so then there could be ramifications for Christians. It would mean that we are the ape kind, so maybe your god is not some deity with a beard but an Orangutan with a banana.
“Evolution is a pointless and a dangerous religion with its only purpose being to discredit God.”
Evolution is not a religion but a scientific theory that is silent on religion. In other words it’s aim or purpose is not to discredit God.
“They go so far as to ignore some common laws of physics like, “The 2nd law of thermodynamics”, which suggests deterioration instead of bigger, better, stronger and more intelligent growth which Evolution suggests.”
You have no idea what you are talking about. Have a look at http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Evolution-and-Thermodynamics-20130117 it will explain where you are wrong. I do find it funny that you say, “I have nothing against Science, I love Science” and yet you don’t understand science.
That should about do it for now maybe one day if I get time I’ll write a complete rebuttal.