Debate #1: Is Evolution science or not?

[Novaknight1]

Uh…natural selection and heredity will basically point to evolution.

Modern synthesis theory has three major aspects:
The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor.[From heredity]
The origin of novel traits in a lineage.[From heredity]
The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.[From natural selection].
Evolutionary Theory

Yes, they do add up to Evolution.

Why is it so hard to believe in Creation?
#1)It was a book written by guys who have no knowledge of science.
#2)It was written by guys who believed they were communicating with the supernatural.
#3)The flood theory is a proven impossibility.See?
#4)The Bible is chock full of wrong things; why believe any of the other stuff that isn't historical fact?
#5)There is no evidence for it.
#6)Evidence supports Evolution.
#7)In order to believe in Creation, one has to believe in the creation of everything in 6 days. Planets take longer than 6 days to form.See?
#8)Why should I listen to a bunch of claims and assertions when there is no fact behind them?
#9)It requires belief in the supernatural, which can never be proven through natural evidence.

That is why Creationism is not hard, but impossible to believe in, unless you didn't think logically.

P.S. You cannot compare submarines to dolphins. Do submarines reproduce sexually? No. Do submarines use phenotypes to determine hereditary traits? No. Do submarines evolve by themselves over thousands of years? No.

It's like saying, "Robots can talk, humans can talk, robots are designed, why not humans?"

The dolphin's reproduction is VERY complicated. That points even MORE to a Designer. Dolphins also do not Evolve.

 

[Novaknight1]

apparantly lies are all you have learned.

Do I hear a debate? If you are so sure my evidence is all lies, I challenge you to a debate by PM just to keep the other people out and keep it 1 on 1.

 

[corvus_corax]

Yes. A theory means it's very likely, but not definite. If Evolution were a fact, as is commonly taught, we should have LOTS of evidence supporting it.

No no no.
Its been explained to you at least 3 times that Ive seen, but its obvious you dont know what scientific theory is.
Its almost as if you're avoiding doing any study on the subject.
Ah well, good luck with that

 

[caravelair]

Do I hear a debate? If you are so sure my evidence is all lies, I challenge you to a debate by PM just to keep the other people out and keep it 1 on 1.

possibly, but i would have my own rules. you would have to address each argument i make, not ignore what i say. also, we would have to stay on topic. frankly, i doubt your ability to partake in an honest debate, based on the way you have conducted yourself on this board.

 

[Novaknight1]

possibly, but i would have my own rules. you would have to address each argument i make, not ignore what i say. also, we would have to stay on topic. frankly, i doubt your ability to partake in an honest debate, based on the way you have conducted yourself on this board.

I accept your challenge. The only required rule is no insulting.

 

[Lucretius]

To say that dolphins don't evolve is to say they simply WERE. Also, complexity does not mean design by ANY means. Any INTELLIGENT designer would have made things incredibly simple. That is why people like things simple. If it's complex no one likes it because it is difficult. In fact, irreducible complexity is the argument of Intelligent Design proponents, and you basically just said the opposite was true of intelligent design.

If you want a debate, fine. Just don't quote Bible versus and state them as irrefutable fact. I'm currently debating with a friend of mine over e-mail about the falsehoods of belief in a young earth, I might as well try and help you as well. PM me with your first statement and we will point-counterpoint.

 

[dhiannian]

We have a debate: is Evolution science or religion? No interference allowed. Let the debate begin. My position is that it's a religion. My opponent says Evolution is a part of science. We shall see who's right and who's wrong.

Definatly a religion.
It's based upon faith, FAITH!
Only the last of the 5 steps of evolution has been witnessed, the rest are presumed, then believed by many, many with faith.
And that faith makes it a religion.

 

[dhiannian]

I'd make sure you're right if you want to stake your life on a theory, According to the bible God made a man, not a baby.
This man was only 1 day old, yet still a fully grown man, Why would the earth be any different? The animals were ready to reproduce, the humans were also.
God can put whatever appearance he wants on the earth.
Besides, where is there a planet exactly like ours the scientists can compare ours with??
Are there other "earths" forming as we speak? And other germs being evolved into people?

 

[jwu]

What do you propose those other four steps to be?

PS: Yes, God certainly could have made the earth in its current state and Adam as an adult. However, the fitting analogy to the actual situation would be that God didn't only make Adam an adult then, but an adult with memories of a childhood he never had, and with scars from injuries he never actually had suffered.
The respective counterparts in the world around us are e.g. river varves, and impact craters.

PPS:

I'd make sure you're right if you want to stake your life on a theory, According to the bible God made a man, not a baby.

Evolution does not equal atheism.

jwu

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I'd make sure you're right if you want to stake your life on a theory,

According to the bible God made a man, not a baby.
This man was only 1 day old, yet still a fully grown man, Why would the earth be any different?

Did Adam have a scar of where he gashed open his knee during his non-existant childhood?

 

[The Lady Kate]

I'd make sure you're right if you want to stake your life on a theory,

What do you mean? How exactly am I "staking my life" on evolution?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Definatly a religion.
It's based upon faith, FAITH!
Only the last of the 5 steps of evolution has been witnessed, the rest are presumed, then believed by many, many with faith.
And that faith makes it a religion.

So many things wrong...

What on earth are the "5 steps of evolution"?

Sorry, but faith (by which I assume you mean 'belief without evidence') does not make a religion. Consult a dictionary.

 

[dhiannian]

Did Adam have a scar of where he gashed open his knee during his non-existant childhood?

Afraid not
Adam knew he was only a day old and also that God had created him. He talked to God.
I don't think the earth is more than 10,000 yrs old, yet 10,000 years is a long time, so yes it's an old earth.
Nothing any scientist can bring to the table about the earth being millions of yrs old cannot be refuted.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp)------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Carmack]

Nothing any scientist can bring to the table about the earth being millions of yrs old cannot be refuted.

Actually you have it backwards. All young earth (6000-10,000) have been refuted many many many years ago.

 

[dhiannian]

And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either. [See Q&A: Radiometric dating and Q&A: Young age evidence for more information.]

Question: Why would any Christian want to take man’s fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man’s word is infallible, but God’s Word is fallible!

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-1211.html

 

[dhiannian]

And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either. [See Q&A: Radiometric dating and Q&A: Young age evidence for more information.]

Question: Why would any Christian want to take man’s fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man’s word is infallible, but God’s Word is fallible!

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-1211.html

 

[dhiannian]

Actually you have it backwards. All young earth (6000-10,000) have been refuted many many many years ago.

When? where? Show me one instance that has not been refuted by those who believe the oldest the earth is is 10,000 yrs

 

[Carmack]

http://www.amonline.net.au/geoscience/earth/dating.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#refs
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/datingmethods.htm
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554115/Dating_Methods.html

Take your pick.

 

[The Lady Kate]

And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either. [See Q&A: Radiometric dating and Q&A: Young age evidence for more information.]

So how does man using scripture as a dating method become infallible?

Question: Why would any Christian want to take man’s fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man’s word is infallible, but God’s Word is fallible!

No, it's saying that man's word is fallible even when he speaks about God's word.

 

[dhiannian]

So many things wrong...

What on earth are the "5 steps of evolution"?

Sorry, but faith (by which I assume you mean 'belief without evidence') does not make a religion. Consult a dictionary.

www.dictionary.com
faith ** (*P*)**Pronunciation Key**(fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Number 2 is where mill yr old earth believers fall.