Debate #1: Is Evolution science or not?

[corvus_corax]

Didn't Darwin came up with evolution theory, in part by noticing selective breeding techniques in his day?

Actually the theory of evolution (scientific theory or otherwise) has been around for much longer
Darwin came up with a mechanism explaining it- Natural Selection.

 

[Event Horizon]

Lol. There is PLENTY of evidence against Evolution.

If there was, then the current theory of evolution would change. The invalid creationist arguments like moon dust, second law of thermodynamics violates evolution, paluxy tracks, and the myraid of others are not evidence against evolution as they are easily refuted.

It has no scientific support.

It has mountains of evidence and the support of the scientific community.

The transitional fossils are pure baloney.

There have been a few that were originally thought to be transitionals but were shown not to be but there are tons of transitionals fossils whether you or some wacky anti-science creationist sites agree or not.

If they were really transitional, how did they get food for millions of years?

What are you talking about?

Not only that, but wings, legs, arms, lungs, eyes, etc. only work when completed.

You are arguing irreduciable complexity, again?! How many times do arguments you use have to be refuted to you're face before you stop using them?

Have you ever tried picking up a pencil with half a wing, half an arm?

Not only do I have no idea what you are talking about, I don't think you do either.

To date, NO evidence supports Evolution.

You know that's an outright lie. You have been given examples over and over besides the fact we see it occuring.

Even talk origins admits this.

www.talkorigins.org.

Go to the FAQ section and look at why there are no transitional fossils.

Can you read? Go back and look and tell me where they say there are no transitionals.

 

[Blackmarch]

Actually the theory of evolution (scientific theory or otherwise) has been around for much longer
Darwin came up with a mechanism explaining it- Natural Selection.

No that's the process that has been around, evolution was the name for itand the theory has not been around since life started on this planet. the statement was about how Darwin found it out, and named it.
Much like saying when man discovered or invented fire...

 

[corvus_corax]

No that's the process that has been around, evolution was the name for itand the theory has not been around since life started on this planet. the statement was about how Darwin found it out, and named it.
Much like saying when man discovered or invented fire...

Perhaps I didnt make sense in my post. Its been known to happen

Hopefully, these will clear it up-
From wikipedia-
The idea of biological evolution has existed since ancient times, but the modern theory wasn't established until the 18th and 19th centuries, with scientists such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Charles Darwin. Darwin greatly emphasized the difference between his two main points: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing the theory of natural selection to explain the mechanism of evolution.

From The Evolution Evidence Page-
Charles Darwin didn't invent the idea of evolution - that was around before he was born. He simply proposed a mechanism for evolution and provided evidence for evolution and the idea that many widely divergent organisms shared common ancestry.

(emphasis mine)

 

[thirsty]

Of course, a Creationist wouldn't know anything about self-correction and intellectual honesty. They're all about saying "goddidits" enough times so people won't ask any questions.

Why should we change when we know the truth?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Why should we change when we know the truth?

It's sometimes a good idea to practice humility in the face of God's creation, and accept that we do not have all the answers.

Check that... it's always a good idea.

 

[Socrastein]

Why should we change when we know the truth?

How incredibly arrogant.

It is only when we forget all our learning that we begin to know.
--Henry David Thoreau

You might as well be dead if you are too full of your own visions of wisdom to continue learning.

 

[Sphere]

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.

A religion explains ultimate reality. Because evolution does not do this(except perhaps your warped understanding of it), it is not a religion. You're wrong again. Debate over.

 

[amy14]

If evolution is a science then why do you have to believe it happened. It's not like you see monkeys evolving everyday.

 

[Jet Black]

If evolution is a science then why do you have to believe it happened. It's not like you see monkeys evolving everyday.

you don't have to "believe it" you can accept it based on the evidence. one does not have to see something happening everyday in order to accept that it happens, has happened in the past and will continue to happen.

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

Why should we change when we know the truth?

Because you're wrong?

 

[Socrastein]

If evolution is a science then why do you have to believe it happened. It's not like you see monkeys evolving everyday.

I'm not too sure about monkeys specifically, but I know that farmers see evolution all the time as they have to keep changing their pesticides to address the fact that the bugs keep evolving immunities to it.

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

I'm not too sure about monkeys specifically, but I know that farmers see evolution all the time as they have to keep changing their pesticides to address the fact that the bugs keep evolving immunities to it.

Easy. Thats not evolution, thats just adaption!


/Sarcasm

 

[Ryal Kane]

You're quite correct novaknight. The evolution you describe is not scientific.
Belief in half and half creatures is not scientific.
Belief that creatures can give birth to completely different species is not scientific.

Unfortunately you've made a rather large mistake.
You're not actually arguing agaisnt evolution.
You're arguing against creatiolution. This is the strawman creationist version of evolution. You're arguing against something that NO ONE actually thinks happens.

Try and follow the example from this thread.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1181549-flying-purple-pumpkins.html

Evolution is a scientific theory. You frequently demonstrate a lack of understanding of the theory. Until you learn what the thoery actually states, there's no real way of debating it.

Ryal Kane

 

[Novaknight1]

You're quite correct novaknight. The evolution you describe is not scientific.
Belief in half and half creatures is not scientific.
Belief that creatures can give birth to completely different species is not scientific.

Unfortunately you've made a rather large mistake.
You're not actually arguing agaisnt evolution.
You're arguing against creatiolution. This is the strawman creationist version of evolution. You're arguing against something that NO ONE actually thinks happens.

Try and follow the example from this thread.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1181549-flying-purple-pumpkins.html

Evolution is a scientific theory. You frequently demonstrate a lack of understanding of the theory. Until you learn what the thoery actually states, there's no real way of debating it.

Ryal Kane

How do I argue against Creatiolution? I don't argue with ANY bit of Creation, just Evolution. I agree with variation, but not Evolution.

 

[Ryal Kane]

How do I argue against Creatiolution? I don't argue with ANY bit of Creation, just Evolution. I agree with variation, but not Evolution.

You've missed the point. I apologize for using the word creatiolution and causing confusion.
It's a sarcastic term. It is not a merger of creationism and evolution.

The point is that you are NOT arguing against evolution.
You are arguing against what you THINK evolution is.

It's like me arguing that christianity is absurd because there are no flying purple pumpkins.

Ryal Kane

 

[Novaknight1]

You've missed the point. I apologize for using the word creatiolution and causing confusion.
It's a sarcastic term. It is not a merger of creationism and evolution.

The point is that you are NOT arguing against evolution.
You are arguing against what you THINK evolution is.

It's like me arguing that christianity is absurd because there are no flying purple pumpkins.

Ryal Kane

Ok. Sorry.

 

[The Lady Kate]

It's like me arguing that christianity is absurd because there are no flying purple pumpkins.

No pumpkins? Heretic!

 

[DJ_Ghost]

No pumpkins? Heretic!

No purple ones, everyone knows they are pink.

Ghost

 

[GeoffCC]

Hi Folks,

I'm new around here but thought I'd wade in...

I grew up in a non-religious home, attended public shooling and got a great education in evolution!! I believed in evolution absolutely all my life (until 18 months ago). My science teachers in high school taught me all about the big bang, life emerging from primordial soup, simple cells, mutation, natural selection, Darwin - everything!! and it sounded logical and real - I believed.

Through Uni I even argued with some Christian friends about evolution v's creation and my friends, unfortunately, didn't have the info to counter me. So I thought all their religious stuff was just fantasy.

Then 18 months ago I met a fellow work collegue who I got to know and admire. Later I 'discovered' that he believed in God!! Now his good nature, dedication, and very high intelligence (he has a degree in IT - like me, and a degree in electrical engineering) completely threw me. Here was a person of scientific background who believed differently to me.

This spurred me to action - I started reading christian literature and creationist arguments (to see if I could debunk them and keep to my beliefs). You know what? - as I read, the threads of evolution fell apart so quickly that a life time of belief was undone in weeks.

There is so much evidence against evolution, and for creation. Some of the more compelling areas that impacted me are:

- What external force or 'trigger' started the big bang or creation?
- There are so many universal constants (I think more than 100), like the force of gravity, charge of an electron, speed of expansion of the universe etc etc that have to be 'just right' to allow life to exist.
- The mathematical probability of atoms arranging themselves by pure chance to create the building blocks of life are by mathematical standards so infinitely small as to be close to zero.
- What caused these building blocks to arrange themselves into organic matter? and what sparked life in them?
- The first simple cells to 'evolve' are not simple at all. They contain membranes, nuclei, means for reproduction etc etc - how would this spontaneously form?
- So many parts of animals cannot be explained by evolution ie the Eye. How did it evolve? Every part must be present in order for the organ to function ie iris, retina, pupil, nerves, blood vessels etc etc.
- Even Darwin on his deathbed still held the view that he could not account for how something so complex as the human eye could ever evolve.
- Complete lack of fossil evidence for any transitionary forms between species - which would have to exist in order for evolution to occur.

Anyway this is probably only a small part of the type of information that I am now exporing. However I now have total faith in creation and an intelligent designer - God.

I'd welcome any feedback or alternate views.
Geoff