Creation and Evolution are both Religions
Debate Rounds (4)
I am a Young Earth Creationist who believes that God created everything in six literal 24hrs days. The earth can be proved to be 6000 years old and it is not billions of years. Evolution is not a theory it is a religion.We can agreed we have the same evidence but different conclusions. Now Evolution is not scientific but it it used in the textbooks like it is. I am not against science . I love science . I am only against the lies in the textbooks! Please do not call that science . This is my unbiased opinion.
Now if you accept these are the rules:
1)Must proved Evolution is scientific ( I will prove that Creation is scientific .)
2)Must define the term"evolution"since it as several meanings to it such as....
Cosmic evolution-the origin of time,space,and matter.
Stellar evolution-the origin of stars,planets,and galaxies formed from gas clouds.
Organic evolution-life begins from an inanimate matter.
Chemical evolution-all of the elements on the periodic table "evolved" from hydrogen.
Macro evolution-animals and plants changes from one type into another.
Micro evolution-variations within the "kind" like different varieties of dogs.
3) Whether you believe in either one,they are both religions!
These are the rules and I will only debate if you agreed to these terms!!! May we have a great debate !!!
evolution is not and will never be a religion. evolution is not a religion option on this website and you dont get tax breaks for being a biology teacher who teaches evolution as you do if you are a priest??
im a bit dumbfounded by the way you assert at the start "creationism is a religion" but then say "i will prove creationsism is fact" by doing this you would contadict your own argument and only prove my side. (albeit in the alternative manner to which i intend to do it) ie if i prove evolution to be irrefutably true or you prove creationsim to be true then it is not religion it is fact.
i will be arguing this definition of evolution. "Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations".
now to prove that evolution is a belief system you will have to contradict these points, trying to prove creationism will not be relevent or useful to your argument unless you want to concede creationsim is not a religion.
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. http://evolutionfaq.com...
. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats http://genome.cshlp.org..., 80% with cows, 75% with mice http://journals.plos.org..., and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
I await your response.
1)Commo traits in embryos.
This theory of Haeckel's postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. He theorized that during its development in its mother's womb, the human embryo first displayed the characteristics of a fish, and then those of a reptile, and finally those of a human.
It has since been proved that this theory is completely bogus. It is now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. That part of the embryo that was likened to the "egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant. The part that was identified as a "tail" by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.
The impression they [Haeckel's drawings] give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George's Hospital Medical School in London" So he and his colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining and photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos "often looked surprisingly different," Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology.323
Science explained that, in order to be able to show the embryos as similar, Haeckel deliberately removed some organs from his drawings or else added imaginary ones. Later in this same article, the following information was revealed:
Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. "It (Haeckel's drawings) looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology," Richardson concludes.324
2)The Fossil Record
Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not.
Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them...." And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. (I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!)
Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."
All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart. Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been "discarded" and is considered a "phantom" and "illusion" because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can't be counted on being a horse then we've got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.
Concerning transitional fossils, world famous palaeontologist Colin Patterson admitted that "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Not one.http://www.cstnews.com...
The fossil record exist only in the textbooks. We have petrified trees standing out of these layers which evolutionists claims to be millions of years old and would have been decayed already . Instead it was laid down very quickly. Now these layers were formed in the Flood of Noah . That's why you see layers around the world like The Grand Cannon and dinosaur's graveyards and it didn't take millions of years.
3)The Genetics Commonalities. There are similataries
Evolutionist claims that things which are living are becoming more complex as time progresses because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter known, it would be to assume that the ones with the least chromosomes evolved first and the ones with the most evolved happen at the end of the millions of years. So we start off as a penicillin then into fruit flies which as 2 then after millions of years we are at the human stage which has 46 but the possums,redwood trees,and kidney beans which has 22. Pick which one is your ancestors! Don't tell me this is consider a theory and not fairy tale. We may have identical chromosomes but it's pointing to a intelligent designer!!!
4) the Universal Genetic Code
Recently geneticists announced that they had successfully read the human DNA code. This truly marvelous achievement ranks as one of the most remarkable in history. Creationists rejoice over the news, confident that the more we learn, the more we'll recognize the signature of God in what He has done, and give Him glory.
Scientists haven't actually deciphered the code, but they have, as it were, identified the "letters" in the code. They only know a few "words" as of yet, and really don't know the "language," or where the punctuation goes. There are about three billion letters in the human DNA, and the whole thing is enormously complex"not at all what would be expected from random evolution.
Recently a molecular biologist working on identifying genetic controls for diseases was interviewed by George Caylor of The Ledger, Lynchburg, Virginia. His article entitled, "The Biologist," appeared on February 17, 2000. I received permission to reproduce parts of the interview here, as a conversation between "G" (the interviewer) and "J" (the molecular biologist). It began by discussing the complexity of human code.
J: "I'm a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britanica."
G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"
J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by 'genius beyond genius,' and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"
J: "No. I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures"everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living."
G: "I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest."
J: "The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the 'elephant in the living room'."
G: "What elephant?"
J: "Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. By www.icr.org
alexcasey forfeited this round.
Often the claim is made in biology classes that evolution has been observed in certain microbes germs that over time have developed a resistance to antibiotics. For instance, penicillin is generally now less effective than before. Stronger and more focused drugs have been developed, each with initial benefits, but which must continue to be replaced with something stronger. Now, "super germs" defy treatment.
One might ask, have these single-celled germs "evolved"? And does this prove that single-celled organisms evolved into plants and people?
As is frequently the case, we must first distinguish between variation, adaptation, and recombination of existing traits (i.e., microevolution) and the appearance of new and different genes, body parts, and traits (i.e., macroevolution). Does this acquired resistance to antibiotics, this population shift, this dominant exhibition of a previously minority trait point to macroevolution? Since each species of germ remained that same species and nothing new was produced, the answer is no!
Here's how it works. In a given population of bacteria, many genes are present which express themselves in a variety of ways. In a natural environment, the genes (and traits) are freely mixed. When exposed to an antibiotic, most of the microbes die. But some, through a fortuitous genetic recombination, possess a resistance to the antibiotic. They are the only ones to reproduce, and their descendants inherit the same genetic resistance. Over time, virtually all possess this resistance. Thus the population has lost the ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic. No new genetic information was produced; indeed, genetic information was lost.
A new line of research has produced tantalizing results. Evidently, when stressed, some microbes go into a mutation mode, rapidly producing a variety of strains, thereby increasing the odds that some will survive the stress. This has produced some interesting areas for speculation by creationists, but it still mitigates against evolution. There is a tremendous scope of genetic potential already present in a cell, but E. coli bacteria before stress and mutation remain E. coli. Minor change has taken place, but not true evolution.
Furthermore, it has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development.1
Here's the point. Mutations, adaptation, variation, diversity, population shifts, etc., all occur, but, these are not macroevolutionary changes. It's showing it's adapting to its environment and it's a great example of intelligent design not evolution. Why would an intelligent designer design something like that? Looking at it from a creationist perspective,everything was perfect until Adam and Eve sinned against God. Then there was suffering and death and it continues till this day (Romans8:22) . It didn't go through evolution!
alexcasey forfeited this round.
Objective: Men do not want to be responsible to anyone for their actions.
"[Man] stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material process with unique understanding and potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself and it is to himself that he is responsible. He is not the creature of uncontrollable and undeterminable forces, but he is his own master. He can and must decide and make his own destiny."""*George G. Simpson, "The World into which Darwin Led Us," in Science, 131 (1980), p. 968.
Objective: Separation from God and identification with the brute.
"The real issue is whether man must think God"s thought after him in order to understand the world correctly or whether man"s mind is the ultimate assigner of meaning to brute and orderless facts . . Evolutionary thought is popular because it is a world view which facilitates man"s attempt to rid himself of all knowledge of the transcendent Creator and promises to secure man"s autonomy."""G.L. Bahnsen, "On Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator," in Journal of Christian Reconstruction, 1 (1974), p. 89.
Objective: Sexual freedom.
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."""*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. [Grandson of evolutionist *Thomas Huxley and brother of evolutionist *Julian Huxley. *Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]
Objective: A way to hide from God.
"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any new form of life, there is no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution."""*Julian Huxley, "At Random, A Television Preview," in Evolution after Darwin (1960), p. 41.
GEarnest, conscientious scientists have something far different to say about evolutionary theory. These are men, highly competent in their respective fields, who can see the flaws in evolution far better than the man on the street. Here is what they would like to tell you.
After more than a century of research, no one has yet figured out how evolution could have occurred.
"The evolution of the animal and plant worlds is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed. But in spite of nearly a century of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in regard to the details of the means of evolution.""*Richard Goldschmidt, "Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist," in American Scientist, Vol. 409, January 1952, p. 84.
A leading scientist of our time has this to say:
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible.""*Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
Evolutionary theory is nothing more than a myth, and concerned scientists recognized it needs to be obliterated in order for science to progress. *Grasse is a leading French scientist:
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.""*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
A growing number of scientists consider it the primary work of science to defend this foolish theory. For this reason it is ruining scientific research and conclusions in our modern world.
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin"s pronouncements and predictions . . Let"s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.""*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).
Not one smallest particle of scientific evidence has been found in support of evolutionary theory.
" "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." [Tahmisian called it] a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling.""*Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting *T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
"The reader . . may be dumbfounded that so much work has settled so few questions.""*Science, January 22, 1965, p. 389.
The truth about the precarious position of the theory, and the falsity of the evidence in its behalf, is kept from science students"and even Ph.D. graduates. An evolutionist who teaches in a university speaks:
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions.""*Director of a large graduate biology department, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.
*Singer admits there is no evidence for such an incredible theory, but he is unwilling to consider any other possibility.
"Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but that any other proposed interpretation of the data is wholly incredible.""*Charles Singer, A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century, 1941.
Thinking scientists increasingly question such an obsolete theory.
"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.""*James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p. 88.
*Jastrow, a leading astronomer, admits that the evidence lies with Creation, not with evolution.
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.""*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
*Bonner makes a broad admission.
"One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling that we knew it for long time.
alexcasey forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.