4. Dawin's legacy was that he created a world without need for a divine creator. However we don't have proof of his world so we're going to need to change how we think. — hachit

Darwin's theory is just about the way organisms adapt genetically, and diverge into different species, via evolution....this may or may not involve a divine creator...what may be needed for life to start is some kind of supernatural force to create the first single celled organisms...but Darwin's theory wasn't about that,.

but Darwin's theory wasn't about that,.

I know that was not what the theory was about. the last point is not about his theory. It simply stated that Darwin gave us an Idea that if true could allow for the absence of a creator. This was a ground breaking idea a at the time of it's creation.

That is why I used the word "legacy" and not theory.

I know that was not what the theory was about. the last point is not about his theory. It simply stated that Darwin gave us an Idea that if true could allow for the absence of a creator. This was a ground breaking idea a at the time of it's creation. — hachit

well since a creator might still be needed to initiate life, all his theory says it a creator may not be needed for life to become more diversified and complex.

all his theory says it a creator may not be needed for life to become more diversified and complex.

Ok, I gess I always heard this and the big bang together and thought they were one.

The presentation however was against the Idea that life could add complexity because there was no evidence of it. Not Wether or not there was a creator.

The presentation however was against the Idea that life could add complexity because there was no evidence of it. Not Wether or not there was a creator. — hachit

it is possible to run evolution-type computer simulations.

In these simulations complexity does seem to arise by the process of random changes in the DNA-type version in the computer simulation, and the selection process that happens when some versions of the computer simulation species survive to reproduce, and some don't.

1. The type of evolution were looking for is one were features are added. We have never found evidence of that type of evolution. Only the type were features are lost. — hachit

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/

2. When you look at the about 50 million fossils we have not one has evidence of evolution. So why should we believe that getting more fossils well prove otherwise.(this is 80% of his presentation) — hachit

Evolution doesn't occur through stepping stones, it's a process of change over a long period of time and there are many fossils showing this.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13717-evolution-myths-yet-more-misconceptions/

In fact, there are far too many fossils with intermediate features to count – trillions if you include microfossils. These fossils show the transitions between major groups, from fish to amphibians, for instance, as well as from one species to another. New discoveries are continually made, from the half-fish, half-amphibian Tiktaalik to an early giraffe with a shorter neck than modern animals.

3. Those that beleve in evolution that know these facts treat evolution as a fath not fact. We also need to rethink the theory because we found a spear head in a dinosaur bone. — hachit

What spear in a dinosaur bone? Which publication of paleontology shows this?

4. Dawin's legacy was that he created a world without need for a divine creator. However we don't have proof of his world so we're going to need to change how we think. — hachit

Yes, we do.

Basically, you listen to someone who just ignores facts, findings and the science of paleontology in order to draw a conclusion. Should I spin the wheel of fallacies? Because there's a lot of them in this kind of reasoning. This is apologetics 101.

true but you can do whatever you want in a simulation as long as you set the rules.

true but you can do whatever you want in a simulation as long as you set the rules. — hachit

if they set the program to accurately mimic the theory of evolution then you have provided some evidence that complexity can emerge within a Darwinian model.

2. When you look at the about 50 million fossils we have not one has evidence of evolution. So why should we believe that getting more fossils well prove otherwise.(this is 80% of his presentation) — hachit

The fallacy here is a bit like saying that we should doubt that the Black Death occurred because no single skeleton we ever found from 14th century Western Europe shows signs of a drastic population decline. Evolution is a phenomenon which occurs in populations, not individuals. No one fossil (whether or not from a "transitional organism") tells the full story of evolution. The picture only emerges when we put the accumulated fossils into a proper context.

Having said that, one doesn't even need fossils to establish the truth of evolution - the known fossil record was pretty scant when Darwin published The Origin. There are other lines of evidence, including comparative anatomy and morphology, vestigial traits, biogeography, genetic homologies, etc. (The latter, of course, was also unknown in Darwin's time, and yet supports his theory.)

well I tried to find the picture but it's bured in the surch engine.

There's a problem with your source, it seems to only cite it self and Wikipedia.
It sounds like pop science.

Not saying it wrong just find me a different sources with the same concussions

yes but look at Point 1. It is the foundation of the argument.

Well, given that Point 1 is factually incorrect, that doesn't bode well for the other points, if that's to be the foundation of the argument (I'm going to just outright ignore the "spear in a dinosaur skull" thing, anyway, as it's too silly to really address, and, to be honest, may indicate that the people promulgating such an argument are not really acting in good faith).

one he did not say skull, and fine you can egnror it I can't find his picture any way.

Can you tell me why point 1 is wrong.

what sort of evidence would there be? A series of thousands of fossils that show how an animal when from having no horns to having horns for example, like a cow?

Sure. You can start by actually reading the New Scientist article that was linked to, which addresses this very issue. New information can arise via mutation, including by means of duplication and divergence. The globin family of genes diverged in just such a way, leading to new genes which produce new proteins with new functions. Evolution tinkers with what it has to work with.

(Ah, ok, it just said "bone," not "skull." That completely changes things...)

I was talking about the site not the fact, I want a more reliable source. Not a group were there using themselves and unreliable sites as there evidence.

a series of fossils with no horns then in each generation, (with a time period of who knows) thay get to the point were they do. As long as we have trackable change

I read the article and looked at it's information came from and asked for a more reliable one.

"Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. "

This is not my source. However if may be of were got it, however he also had more source like a book on fossils wich said there are no fossils that confirm evolution.

But I'm defending someone else argument so I don't have the sources sadly.

This is not my source. However if may be of were got it, however he also had more source like a book on fossils wich said there are no fossils that confirm evolution. — hachit

depends what he means by 'confirm'.......there is only evidence in science....'confirm' might mean he is referring to proof, which there wouldn't be..

Would he be able to confirm that poodles were bred from something more wolf like?

What evidence would there be for that?

Would he deny that poodles were actually bred, deliberately by humans over many generations from another type of dog?

evolution is a leap of fath.

There is the argument.

And you don't have to I just wanted to know what people's thoughts were

Every one of those four points is simply an unsupported assertion. It looks like the place where you got them is a low quality source, and best ignored.

It also misrepresents the notion of Darwin's Doubt, which is a particular philosophical idea that arguably originated from Darwin and was mentioned by JBS Haldane, picked up by CS Lewis, and used as the basis for a long argument against 'naturalism' by Christian apologist Alvin Plantinga. He calls it the 'Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism' (EAAN). While I don't think Plantinga's argument works, it is more coherent and scholarly than the above. It's interesting enough to be worth the time of reading through it and thinking about it.

The gist of the argument is that one cannot believe in both Naturalism (lack of gods) and evolution, because (it claims) the probability of our developing a capacity for reason under such assumptions is too low, and is incompatible with our observation that we can reason. That argument has no similarity to what is presented in the OP. Google 'Plantinga EAAN' and you'll soon find an outline of his version of 'Darwin's Doubt'.

It looks like the place where you got them is a low quality source, and best ignored. — andrewk

That's an understatement.

http://www.talkorigins.org

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

Thank you for the opportunity to run out one of my favorite quotes. It's from Stephen Jay Gould, who was an evolutionary biologist and one of the foremost defenders of the concept of evolution against believers in creationism and intelligent design. Note in particular the bolded text.

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered. ..... In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

So I listened to a presentation called Darwin Dout.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.facebook.com/events/marshall-davray-hall-unb/faith-science-series-part-ii/368676190624787/&ved=2ahUKEwi76NW3yonhAhXvTN8KHT7XBnIQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2X2LcKIzbdyqtM6pMwn8tA

Everyone was complaining about my source so I found what I could.

It was given by someone called Ragnar Oborn, yes I read his profile when writing this post

I will admit there is room for doubt but not as much as people are saying.