Sorry, not going to just post a few points. As you said it's too complicated to sum up evolution in a few sentences, why would you feel arguing against it would be any different. I posted what I did, the way I did, for the reasons you see here. I knew ecrack would come in and ruin the thread again so I had no choice but to just put it all out there while his craziness slept.Sorry it looks overwhelming but if you read it from beginning to end(heck, copy and paste it for later) you will see a very sound, reasonable, argument. I'm not in here to beat my chest or tie my pride into proving something right or wrong. I merely wanted to present facts from the other side of the table and not simply beliefs.
Reasonable, it may be from a certain perspective. Possible it may be. The most likely explanation as suggested by data? No
Let me explain:
Conjecture or rhetoric can posit any theory to explain a phenomenon.
Example: What makes a ball drop?
Science: We don't know for sure, but we will call it Gravity and note that it exerts a force proportional to the mass and radius of an object, and that it's acceleration is always constant. We have several theories which need to be tested that suggests it's source, which all fall in line with our observations.
Conjecture #1: Aliens cause it to drop. We think it's aliens because you can't prove that they don't exist. If an alien wanted humans to get more intelligent, they would create phenomenon to inspire our interest in studying.
Conjecture #2: God makes gravity. He makes it so we can stay alive and serve him. It is beyond our understanding to create, thus it is obviously the product of intelligent design.
Now look at these closely. The scientific explanation attempts to perform a linear regression from data. If it doesn't fit, it's not science. It's only conjecture is to make an assumption to test. Sometimes it's harder to test some things than others. Conjecture 1 represents the possibility to believe any infinite amount of unfalsifiable explanations. Be it noted that this method provides no functional advantage by its application. The second provides an arbitrary belief about the origin, but makes no analysis of data, except to interpret via an illogical principal that the lack of understanding something entails that it was the result of greater intelligence.
The bible teaches that God directs lightning. This view was held really for thousands of years until Benjamin Franklin proved otherwise. This system was beyond human understanding and thus appeared to be the result of intelligence rather than a random natural phenomenon. To hold these verses as symbolic is fine. But to hold them as absolute and literal retards the pursuit of the understanding.
This has happened countless times in history.
Perhaps one of the most notable examples was Galileo.
Creationism doesn't address the fact that lighting is electricity, or even that electricity exists. Nor can it possibly provide a specific literal account of the development of life. Partially because a literal interpretation resulting in young earth theory can be unequivocally be proved wrong. Also patially because the creation account doesn't make any sense.
Here's why.
The Bible clearly makes 3 errors i'll address regarding "Creation".
#1 that the earth was formed before the moon.
This is not possible, both radiometric dating and astrophysics confirm that the earth and moon and sun are about the same age. If this is true then it would mean that since the stars are formed at the same time, we would not be able to see most of them. (this is the least important of the 3 errors.)
#2 That "light" existed before the sun moon and stars.
Obviously this doesn't make any sense. All light in the universe comes from these sources. Consider the authors of the time. They seperated day time and the sun as separate entities. They really could not have known any better. The sky looks bright and blue most of the time no matter where the sun is. So it could be easy to assume that the sun being in the sky and day light are two separate phenomenon. Thus the oral myths known as genesis depict creation in this way. To an ancient person, the only purpose for the sun moon and stars was so we could keep time and make calender's. they did not perceive that day and night were not only marked by, but CAUSED by the sun. If you don't know what an atmosphere is, how can you understand that the entire sky lights up bright blue during the day? If the sun were the light source, the sky should just look black. That's the logic these verses likely come from. (this point is the most important.)
3.) Plants were created BEFORE the sun but after "light".
Again, doesn't make any sense. Again this suggests that the authors did not understand that the sun was the source of daylight instead of a proverbial light-up digital watch. It is blatantly obvious that the creation account was simply oral myth written down based on the imagination and understanding of the people at the time. The account suggests that the people very well thought that you could make the sun a big black dot instead of a bright light and you would've had the over-all same effect of day time. Again, they wouldn't have known any better when it was written
Evolution is simply the most supported by evidence explanation of the development of life. Give me a more suitable and proven explanation and i'll believe it.
Put simply,
what separates the creationists from those persecuting Galileo? They were certainly convinced they were right because of the Bible, despite science's contradiction
