Help with debate!

[Modus]

Hello everyone,
I am currently debating an evolutionist/athiest on my own forum (paropa.proboards19.com/index.cgi) and I'm having trouble understanding something. I tend to debate evolution with a phillisophical point of view, but I'm not so good with the breaking down evidence. i like evidence, im just not good at debating it. The problem with arguing with reason is that is it leaves me making broad comments on evolution without really digging into the evidence. I'm learning more and more every day as I study and I am working hard at learning about the evidence of evolution as well as creation. So thats kinda why I'm here, to see if someone can help me make sense out of this evidence.

An evolutionist on my forum told me that macroevolution has been proven. It has been observed 29 times. And it is considered fact. Here are the three websites he gave me;

1. talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
2. talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
3. talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I have a hard time breaking that stuff down or finding any resources that deal with that stuff. If anybody could comment on that or give me any kind of resources, I would be very thankfull. And also, if you feel equipt to debate on evolution or athiesm, come over to my forum and join in.

 

[Jet Black]

those are merely 29 examples. and they are all fine.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Hello everyone,

Hiya.

I tend to debate evolution with a phillisophical point of view, but I'm not so good with the breaking down evidence.

Since evolution is science and not philosophy, why would you debate it from a philosophical view? If you want to debate a scientific topic, you'll have to get your hands dirty with the evidence.

An evolutionist on my forum told me that macroevolution has been proven. It has been observed 29 times. And it is considered fact.

With respect to biology, macroevolution means evolution between species (i.e. one species evolving into a new species). And since that has been observed (how many times, I don't know, but problably more than 29**), yeah, it's considered fact by biologists.

Furthermore, the evidence for common descent is pretty strong, particularly the genetic evidence (which is something most creationists can't deal with, so no wonder you're having trouble finding material on it).

** edit: I realized the "29" is referring to the 29 evidences of macroevolution from the TalkOrigins faq. Those aren't so much 29 observations as 29 lines of evidence that points to common descent. And incidently, the TalkOrigins page links to an article on TrueOrigins which tries to refute the 29 pieces of evidence (for which there is also a rebuttal by the author).

 

[Modus]

I should say, I debate athiesm with philosophy and I usually talk to evolutionists (cosmic evolutionists to be more specific) into what their beliefs imply, and I show evidence of God through reasoning.

Jet black, your quote reminded me of another quote I once heard, it went something like this "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it." I can't remember who said it, but I thought it was funny so Ive always remembered it.

 

[TruthTraveler]

Post edited by staff

 

[bmount1217]

I admitt my believe in Creation in faith based.....Can any Evolutionsit admitt that as well? Can you admitt that its a religion, just like mine? by the way....this is a YES or NO question, although I doubt I get one.

 

[bmount1217]

Macroevolution is changes in One Kind...Example: there are salt water alligators, and fresh water alligators, they obvioulsy had a commomn ancestor.....yet my science book teaches that I came from a pre-historic soup? At least my religion is based by MEn's writings

 

[Meatros]

I admitt my believe in Creation in faith based.....Can any Evolutionsit admitt that as well? Can you admitt that its a religion, just like mine? by the way....this is a YES or NO question, although I doubt I get one.

No, seeing as evolution isn't a religion and has evidence supporting it-therefore it's not 'faith based'.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I admitt my believe in Creation in faith based.....Can any Evolutionsit admitt that as well? Can you admitt that its a religion, just like mine? by the way....this is a YES or NO question, although I doubt I get one.

Talk about your loaded questions. Of course evolution is NOT a religion. It's a scientific theory, just like gravity or relativity or germ theory.

Unless, of course, you are using some new-fangled definition of the word religion which would include such things, but then your definition would have to be pretty broad.

 

[bmount1217]

wait a second......lets find websters definition of religion...........


Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


Hmmmm.....so basically we came from a premortal soup, Millions of years ago....without proof leaves hope, or faith that evidence exists......I think that agrees with ol' Mr. Webster

 

[Meatros]

Hello everyone,
I am currently debating an evolutionist/athiest on my own forum (paropa.proboards19.com/index.cgi) and I'm having trouble understanding something. I tend to debate evolution with a phillisophical point of view, but I'm not so good with the breaking down evidence. i like evidence, im just not good at debating it. The problem with arguing with reason is that is it leaves me making broad comments on evolution without really digging into the evidence. I'm learning more and more every day as I study and I am working hard at learning about the evidence of evolution as well as creation. So thats kinda why I'm here, to see if someone can help me make sense out of this evidence.

An evolutionist on my forum told me that macroevolution has been proven. It has been observed 29 times. And it is considered fact. Here are the three websites he gave me;

1. talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
2. talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
3. talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I have a hard time breaking that stuff down or finding any resources that deal with that stuff. If anybody could comment on that or give me any kind of resources, I would be very thankfull. And also, if you feel equipt to debate on evolution or athiesm, come over to my forum and join in.

The best advice I can give you is to lie, because (no offense) if you are arguing with someone who knows a bit about evolution, you are going to get creamed.

You'll end up looking like Apollo here:

Is your mind open to the possibility that the reason you can't answer the evidence is because you could be wrong about creationism?

 

[ForeRunner]

Evolution is not a religion. Religion is based of personal, subjective evidnece of the supernatural.

Evolution is science. Science is based on repeatable, universal, objective/intersubjective evidence. It only comments on what is testable, a deity is not testable, therefore science has no comment on a deity. Science is agnostic.

 

[bmount1217]

By The Way....I knew I wouldnt get a simple Yes or No....When did as Humans complicate things so much?

 

[Meatros]

wait a second......lets find websters definition of religion...........


Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


Hmmmm.....so basically we came from a premortal soup, Millions of years ago....without proof leaves hope, or faith that evidence exists......I think that agrees with ol' Mr. Webster

So under which of these definitions does evolution apply??

Incidentally, your last paragraph talks about abiogenesis-NOT evolution.

 

[bmount1217]

Wheres the evidence?

 

[bmount1217]

Around and Around we go.....I love you guys....Ill pray for you and me too

 

[Meatros]

Wheres the evidence?

Evidence for what? Evolution?

The OP listed a few links to quite a bit actually, didn't you read them?

 

[Modus]

Macroevolution is changes in One Kind...Example: there are salt water alligators, and fresh water alligators, they obvioulsy had a commomn ancestor.....yet my science book teaches that I came from a pre-historic soup? At least my religion is based by MEn's writings

Macroevolution is not changes in one kind, that is microevolution. An example of Macroevolution would be if a man came from the same thing as an ape (not from an ape like most people say)

And you are right, some books do teach that we did come from some sort of soup. That is where the religion comes in.

 

[ForeRunner]

I suggest you start on page 1 of this forum and work your way backwards. Pay special attentipon to Lucaspas posts. Or you could just do a see all posts by him, you'll have plenty.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

wait a second......lets find websters definition of religion...........

Okay.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

Nothing to do with evolution.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Since this applies to the previous definition, again, nothing to do with evolution.

The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

Ditto.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Since evolution has no spiritual leader, therefore it doesn't fit under this definition.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

At best, you could sneak it in under this definition. But as I said, this is so broad and vague you could include anything. In which case, the definition is effectively useless.

Hmmmm.....so basically we came from a premortal soup, Millions of years ago....without proof leaves hope, or faith that evidence exists......I think that agrees with ol' Mr. Webster

Nope. I just showed why it doesn't.