Urgent: Help with an Online Debate

[Valkhorn]

Here's the problem. I belong to this an online community which occasionally has a sort of debate war. The person challenging you issues their side of the issue and you have to do your best over three days to type out a full rebutal or counter-debate to whatever they said. What makes it difficult is that I agree on some of the things this person has said, and I'd like to post a rebuttal or counter statement which includes a lot of sources (so any sources you can give me will help greatly).

Please help me find any holes or any problems in what she said or help me find ways of rebutting her or debating against her. I already agree with Evolution so this is going to be slightly difficult.

Any help is much appreciated

Her post:

Well golly, I'd have to say I'm FOR evolution. I am FOR it being taught in classrooms, and I am FOR it being part of every general biology textbook manufactured for any grade level in appropriate context and language for said grade level. Furthermore, I am FOR evolution being the ONLY thing taught in science classrooms as SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Evolution has the capacity to be disporved. Creationism and Intelligent Design do NOT have the capacity to be disproved, because there is a higher being involved with both of those schools of thought, and there is no way as of yet to scientifically measure whether or not a higher being exists. The only thing that should be taught in science classrooms is scientific theory. The only context Creationism and Intelligent Design should appear in is to educate biology students about the dubious arguments that can be made for these two and why these arguments do not hold up against the theory of Evolution.

Naturally, I am FOR Darwinism as well. It has been shown repeatedly through coordination of sciences such as Biology, Geology, and Paleontology that populations evolve over time through natural selection. Only certain organisms will have the traits necessary to survive in their specific environment, thus they will have an advantage over those lacking critical traits. They will survive, reproduce, and thrive while others die out. Over time, the population will change or *gasp* EVOLVE, as a result.

Modern scientists have linked two other Theories to Darwinism in further support of the existence of Evolution: Gene flow and Genetic Drift. Gene flow is the introduction of new alleles to a population, thus increasing genetic variation that can lead to natural selection. Finally, Genetic Drift, the loss of genetic variation within a population, can lead to divergence of populations and seperate speciation as well as evolution of the population as a whole.

Evolution is clearly a well supported scientific theory. It is the foundation of modern biology, and it's influence can be found in many other branches of science.

----------------------

Also, I have something already typed up but I'd like input before I posted it. Thanks!

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Here's the problem. I belong to this an online community which occasionally has a sort of debate war. The person challenging you issues their side of the issue and you have to do your best over three days to type out a full rebutal or counter-debate to whatever they said. What makes it difficult is that I agree on some of the things this person has said, and I'd like to post a rebuttal or counter statement which includes a lot of sources (so any sources you can give me will help greatly).

Please help me find any holes or any problems in what she said or help me find ways of rebutting her or debating against her. I already agree with Evolution so this is going to be slightly difficult.

Any help is much appreciated

Also, I have something already typed up but I'd like input before I posted it. Thanks!

Yeaaaa… good luck with that one. I think your only chance of debating that (without being dishonest that is) is to try and steer the debate elsewhere. Try waving your hands a lot and talking about epistemology.

 

[Guywiththehead]

I suggest the Chewbacca defense.

 

[Valkhorn]

Yeaaaa… good luck with that one. I think your only chance of debating that (without being dishonest that is) is to try and steer the debate elsewhere. Try waving your hands a lot and talking about epistemology.

Well she did a lot of assertion but no citations and offered no real evidence, so I'm going to call her out on that and explain in detail what she didn't to show that she's only making blind assertions and isn't backing up her claims.

Citations with the history of ID, how ID has actually helped to draw more attention to evolution, and how no scientific theory (or anything) should be accepted dogmatically are being brought up.

In addition, her useage of the term "Darwinism" is a red flag as well.

I need -any- errors or holes in what she's said or if there is anything I can corner her in.

 

[AtheistPerson]

Yeah, thats a lame arguement from this Xian. Just say that she states that there is a god involved without bearing any proof that it exists.

 

[Tomk80]

I think you've got a hard one here. Indeed, you might pick her up on her statements that she is 'FOR evolution', try to show that she is biased in favor of it in stead of accepting it because of it's evidential support.

A semantic point is that genetic drift and gene flow are more like mechanisms in a theory, in stead of theories themselves. That's more of a semantic point, but maybe you can work it into an attack

 

[FSTDT]

At the very least, this statement isn't entirely correct:

Creationism and Intelligent Design do NOT have the capacity to be disproved, because there is a higher being involved with both of those schools of thought, and there is no way as of yet to scientifically measure whether or not a higher being exists.

If you want to get tedious and technical, its more correct to say whatever falsifiable claims creationism and ID have made, they have been falsified. For instance, the specific claims that the earth is 6000 years old, a flood happening, and the general description of the origins of the creatures are tangible claims that can be put under scientific scrutiny. But, seeing as how those claims have been falsified, it doesn't really help.

The use of the word "Darwinism" isn't really something I like to hear. Specifically, Darwin's evolution is incomplete, Darwin never knew about genetic drift and gene flow, in fact he didn't know the mechanism of heredity at all. Also, some ideas of Darwinism have been replaced with modern alternatives, such as slow phyletic gradualism being replaced with punctuated equillibrium. Of course, that's more semantics than anything. I understand in the UK, evolutionary biologists use the word "Darwinism" freely and use it synonymously with modern evolution rather than Darwin's idea of evolution specifically. Its only an American phenomenon where creationists try to cast evolution in the light of just another "-ism".

Of course, the suggestions above are just me being pedant.

 

[Aron-Ra]

If she's promoting Intelligent Design as a valid critique of evolution, then she should know that every one of Jonathan Wells' alleged "weaknesses of evolution" were either deliberately misrepresented, or (as in each of the cases below) they were downright false.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16716716&postcount=7

Casey Luskin has admitted that ID proposes an intelligent designer that can only be "an exclusively religious belief", one which doesn't oppose evolution at any level, and could actually support it.
http://www.christianforums.com/t2458780-my-letters-to-the-idea-center.html

 

[Tomk80]

If she's promoting Intelligent Design as a valid critique of evolution, then she should know that every one of Jonathan Wells' alleged "weaknesses of evolution" were either deliberately misrepresented, or (as in each of the cases below) they were downright false.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16716716&postcount=7

Casey Luskin has admitted that ID proposes an intelligent designer that can only be "an exclusively religious belief", one which doesn't oppose evolution at any level, and could actually support it.
http://www.christianforums.com/t2458780-my-letters-to-the-idea-center.html

She's not

Valkhorn will have to argue against evolution, apparantly.

 

[llDayo]

Just tell her that no transitionals exist and when she brings some up, ask for THEIR transitionals as well

 

[_Paladin_]

You could always use the argument of irreducible complexity, but be sure to answer any possible rebuttles before she can make them.

Here is a response to Matzke, and Ken Miller the likely responses they will have.

Also you can cite almost any technical Journal From Simon Conway Morris.

But tell us are you arguing for ID or creationism or agains evolution.

 

[Tomk80]

Just tell her that no transitionals exist and when she brings some up, ask for THEIR transitionals as well

Or argue the irreducible complexity of the immune system. When presented with the evidence against that notion, just say that it is not enough for you. When presented with more evidence, repeat. When presented with more evidence, repeat.

Since the Kitzmiller case, I like to call this the 'Behe-defense'.

 

[llDayo]

Or argue the irreducible complexity of the immune system. When presented with the evidence against that notion, just say that it is not enough for you. When presented with more evidence, repeat. When presented with more evidence, repeat.

Since the Kitzmiller case, I like to call this the 'Behe-defense'.

See? Easy!

 

[Dr.GH]

why did you get into this mess?

 

[joebill73]

Your not going to prove that evolution doesn't exist because it does. Animals and people for that matter adapt physically to their envirment. Just look at the different races. We know as Chistians that we all came from Adam and Eve.

But streching Evolution to try and explain the orgin of the universe is moving beyond the realm of science into the realm of religion. True science is a method to try explain observable processes. If you start looking at the past then you have to make assumptions that can never be proven. People who are big into science always take it too far. Science has limitations. The biggest one being you that it is limited to the 5 physical senses. You have to feel, taste, touch, see or hear something to be able to use science to try and explain it and you really can't use it to prove anything that happened in the past. Although I think is reasonable for things in the resent past. But if you are talking millions or billions of years, you will have to assume that the processes that you see today have not evolved themselves.

For the reasons above, you really can't use science to explain the existence of God. God is a spirit. You can't use your 5 physical sences to contact the spirit world. The only reason we know God exsists is that he revealed Himself to us. If you want to prove God is real then I think you are going to have to get into Christian Apologetics. Your going to have to talk about miracles and prophesies. I know science people love to say they didn't happen because their science is too limited, but you have to remember that the people who wrote the New Testament were eye witnesses. Most were executed because they refused to recant what they wrote. No one dies for something they know is a lie.

That being said, I think deep inside most people know there is a God. They are just either mad because of all the bad things that happen in the world or to them personally or they just don't want to be accoutable to Him. You may have better luck praying and asking God to show you what the heart of the matter really is and dealing with that rather than have a "scientific" debate.

 

[Ophis]

Why are you arguing with her? What has she said that you disagree with?

 

[Tomk80]

Your not going to prove that evolution doesn't exist because it does. Animals and people for that matter adapt physically to their envirment. Just look at the different races. We know as Chistians that we all came from Adam and Eve.

But streching Evolution to try and explain the orgin of the universe is moving beyond the realm of science into the realm of religion.

But nobody is using evolution to try and explain the origin of the universe.

True science is a method to try explain observable processes. If you start looking at the past then you have to make assumptions that can never be proven. People who are big into science always take it too far. Science has limitations. The biggest one being you that it is limited to the 5 physical senses. You have to feel, taste, touch, see or hear something to be able to use science to try and explain it and you really can't use it to prove anything that happened in the past. Although I think is reasonable for things in the resent past. But if you are talking millions or billions of years, you will have to assume that the processes that you see today have not evolved themselves.

But with physics and astronomy we can show that that has not happened. Natural processes worked the same millions of years ago as they do now.

[quoted]For the reasons above, you really can't use science to explain the existence of God. God is a spirit. You can't use your 5 physical sences to contact the spirit world. The only reason we know God exsists is that he revealed Himself to us. If you want to prove God is real then I think you are going to have to get into Christian Apologetics. Your going to have to talk about miracles and prophesies. I know science people love to say they didn't happen because their science is too limited, but you have to remember that the people who wrote the New Testament were eye witnesses. Most were executed because they refused to recant what they wrote. No one dies for something they know is a lie.[/quote]
It might not be true. That does not mean they did not believe it, or that they lied.

That being said, I think deep inside most people know there is a God. They are just either mad because of all the bad things that happen in the world or to them personally or they just don't want to be accoutable to Him. You may have better luck praying and asking God to show you what the heart of the matter really is and dealing with that rather than have a "scientific" debate.

I don't know there is a God, not even deep down inside. I just don't believe that God exists, it has nothing to do with 'bad things' or 'being accountable'. I'm already accountable in the here and now, and bad things happen just as good things, they complement each other. And no, I'm not going to pray to a non-existant being for an answer science is perfectly capable of giving.

 

[_Paladin_]

This is probably not the best place to ask for debate help if you are arguing against evolution. You could also use Haldane's Dilemma as an argument. That site comes with rebuttles too.
there is this site too, but a lot of argumentst here are creationists only. http://trueorigins.org/

there are several technical journals published by ID advocates see iscid.org will probably have a list somewhere. There is also places like Arn.org,or origins.org that could give you some good stuff. There is also Ashby Camps List of Creation URLs, it has creationist ID arguments against evolution, and some from the creationists for creeationism.

 

[joebill73]

Sorry, I was confused about this thread. I appoligize if I have offended anyone.

 

[Silent Bob]

You can also use dad's way. Philosophically you can challenge naturalism and go for the last thursday argument.