Evolution V.S Creationism
Debate Rounds (3)
humans to assume. I will be talking over the facts about how creationism
is illogical and is the worst thing for society.
Don't be a idiot. I know myself, that I wan't to shout YOUR COMPLETELY WRONG!!!
But please don't!
Anything specifically offensive (Yes, this may sound stupid, but hang on!) isn't
allowed - let's try to at least be civilized. No "you stoopid no morale *@!$".
Finally, stick to your point. I kind of hate myself for this, but just think of it as... well, a friendly reminder? Remember, I have best regards no matter who you are! ^-^
To start it off, we will be going on about evolution and creationism themselves,
is wrong, providing proof and evidence to support this.
Firstly, I myself haven't come across any evidence that even slightly supports
that creationism is, in fact truth. Literally no evidence I can give of this... there just isn't
any evidence. So, instead, I'm going to give evidence of why evolution is valid. Remember, this in its self adds to my claims. If you're wondering why I'm looking for some evidence I thought an efficient way to prove my claims is to have quotes from anything from the bible, people or anything really and then, underneath, show how this is wrong.
(Ok, I'll try not to make any remarks about Christianity, since I clearly stated above, that I would only say about how evolution is valid, nothing about Christianity being wrong, but if I do, then well... I'll be a bit of a hypocrite! :D )
Getting to the point though, evolution is clearly the best thing for us all. Not only is there no proof that Christianity is valid, there are very strong supports on evolution itself. For example, there is hard proof and examinations over micro-biology that show that evolution exists in the cell stage and that it is slower in the multi-celled organism stage. The reason humans haven't evolved is that well, we haven't had that long to. Evolution is especially slow when it comes to organisms like humans. We have examined - in real time - cells going through their stages. Secondly, it is dictated that God is nice and kind. I, myself, would not do this. Some people say that "God is testing humanity" If this is true, then other religions have just as much, if not more, evidence. Finally, (yes I have realized I have strayed from my saying... sorry!) any, religious, historical events have been disproved. Since there are so many, I won't write about it or put links in. This isn't my strongest point is it? Just google it!
So, I recommend any comments would be on these specific points.
If you want you can say something else, otherwise that would be
unfair. Try to keep it somewhat neat!
Accepted. Thanks to the instigator for making this open to anyone. I agree to follow the rules, and will now open with a simple debate.
Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Ever notice how evolutionists will manipulate reality to try and do away with creationism? For example, when you ask an evolutionist how they come up with the age of the sedimentary layers in the earth, they will always tell you they date them by the fossils found in those sedimentary layers. Then when you ask them how they come up with the age of the fossils, they say their age is determined by which sedimentary layer of rock they"re found in. But how can that be? How can the rocks date the layers, if the layers date the rocks? That's what's called "circular reasoning." One minute they say the rock determines the age of the fossil, the next they say the fossil determines the age of the rock.
Darwin said "It is a truly wonderful fact" that all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other"" "The Origin of the Species p 170.
The evolutionist agrees with Darwin and says all life on earth evolved from primordial soup, which then somehow formed into many different species like birds, animals, plants, fish etc; and those birds, animals, plants and fish evolved into many different types of species themselves. For example, they believe a bird later formed different types of lizards, horses and dogs. They also believe that plants created everything from vines to trees to flowers, and fish evolved into dinosaurs, apes and humans. If that"s true, then I have to ask the evolutionist why is it for the last 6000 years of recorded history that not a single new species has ever been created? Scientific fact is, we still have many of the old species among us, and we know of many that did in fact become extinct. But not a single bird has been found that used to be a fish. And not a single bird has been found that is related to a lizard. If life truly evolves like they say it does, why did it all of a sudden stop dead in its tracks 6000 years ago? After all, if life is as they define it to be, then it must be a constant evolutionary process for life to continue, which means that evolutionary process be never ending. Some have claimed that mutations are evolution because of some moth that changed its color years ago. Real scientists discovered that the moth changed its color because of its environment. In other words, if just changing its color means they evolved, then that must mean that every time I work in the garden and get a tan I"m actually evolving?
And by the way, I say 6000 years because as Christians we know by reading Genesis chapters 1 & 2 that our Lord created all that is seen and unseen in creation week 6000 years ago. We also know this is when creation stopped and He hallowed the day He rested. We call that day Sabbath to this day and we keep it holy to acknowledge Him as our Creator every seventh day. Could it be this is why Satan inspired Darwin with evolution? I believe so because evolution allows you to hide the fact you were created and in so doing removes your requirement to acknowledge Him as Lord which would mean you need to and obey Him since He truly would know what"s best for you seeing how it is He that made you.
Getting back, the evolutionist believes the evolutionary cycle is never ending, but they too cannot explain why according to their Darwin inspired calculations that there has been no new species recorded for hundreds of millions of years, let alone the true 6000 years as reality dictates.
They also state it takes billions of years for each animal, insect or plant to evolve. If that's true, why do we have termites? Termites eat wood but can't digest it. In their intestines are smaller insects that digest the cellulose the termites place in there for them. Kind of like the worm inside the cricket. The termite can't exist without the smaller insect, and the smaller insect can't live without the termite. If evolution is true neither insect should be on this planet.
There are even some that believe in Creation, but not the Bible version wherein it took only 6 days. These so called "Creationists" insist it took 1000 years for each "day" of creation because 2 Peter 3:8 says, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" If they aren"t twisting that passage out of context and it is as they claim, why do we have wasps that rely on certain plants to lay their eggs within them to procreate. And if this is true, how do those plants survive without the wasp pollinating them? If the plants and the wasps were created thousands of years apart, how does the plant pollinate without the wasp, and how does the wasp procreate without the plant? That means the 1000 years for each day recorded in Genesis must be wrong by simply applying easy to research reality.
Moving right alone, we have the big bang theory which declares a spinning dot of absolutely nothing exploded to form all the planets, stars, asteroids, black holes, quasars, nova"s, and primordial soup found on earth. According to the scientific discovery called, "conservation of angular momentum", which actually means, if what"s spinning in a clockwise manner explodes, everything flying off of it will explode in the exact same manner. That being the case, why is it 2 planets, and numerous moons orbiting many planets in our galaxy alone spin in a different direction than all the others. If their big bang theory was true, why is it those planets and moons appear to have come off of a different explosion? Were there two big bangs?
Jumping ahead a bit, let"s take a look at man for example. The Word of God says we were created with Human bodies that have organs that are designed to live forever. Science has recently proven that if we were to learn something new every second, we would take well over 3 million years to exhaust the memory capacity of our "post flood" brains. (Pre-flood brains were 3 times larger) Now keep in mind, no one learns something every second. They just calculated it that way to get an educated idea. Most will learn something new once a week or even once a month and later in life once every few months or so. That means the human brain, as small as it is now, can handle the data for literally billions of years. That being the case, we see that evolutionists also claim that all species evolve after there is a need for a change. So I have to ask, how is it possible for us to have a brain that could hold enough info to last over billions of years, when all we can live up to is 90 -100 years? If evolution is true, why haven"t we evolved to age extremely slow so as to meet the requirements of our own brains, wherein we can live for an eternity?
When you get time I would like to ask you to view a video of a scientific experiment wherein they show how sound waves can actually create visible light when they are directed towards a body of water. The video can be found online. It"s titled, "What happens when you collapse an underwater bubble with a soundwave?" The link is found in box #4 of this sermon"s notes. When you watch that video you will be amazed at how nothing but sound-waves pointed at water did in fact create light, just as the Bible dictates.
Genesis 1:2-3, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
Ok.. Picture a sphere of water in Space. God literally SPEAKS and says, "Let there be light." That amazingly loud blast of sound causes the water to form a small bubble within it. Then that sphere of water collapses internally upon that bubble, and as we see in that video, "there was light" created at that exact moment. Better yet, the scientists also discovered there was an enormous amount of heat generated when that happened, and the method by which the heat arrives is what they deduce to this day is what caused our Sun to be formed in our Solar System. Pretty convincing argument for the creationist is it not?
Ok.. let"s talk dinosaurs. Were you aware that Tyrannosaurus Rex was not a meat eater? Yes, I am fully aware that every evolutionist, and Hollywood director insists that he was. But Christian scientists have recently discovered two things about T-Rex that proves we have all been lied to for quite some time. They found that the roots of T-Rex"s teeth were only 2 inches deep. That means, had he bit into the hide of another dinosaur in his day he would have lost all his teeth. When you compare the size of T-Rex and the fact his roots were only 2 inches deep, he couldn"t have possibly been able to break the hide of such animals as most evolutionists have him eating. His teeth would have broken off before he even broke the skin. Better yet, were you also aware that these same scientists took one of the teeth they dug up, cut it in half, and they actually found the teeth to be gorged with chlorophyll all the way to the center of the tooth. This confirms he never ate meat. Ever.
Now because this evidence is so well known now among scientific circles, evolutionists know they cannot say it"s not true. The data has been published, and they were caught in a lie. But to try and cover the lie, some evolutionists now claim his teeth are gorged with chlorophyll because he ate dinosaurs that were vegan. Problem with that theory is, it still doesn"t negate the fact that the teeth of T-Rex only had roots that went 2 inches deep, which would still make it impossible for them to eat meat. Still, the Christian scientists also offered data that showed the teeth of modern day animals that eat only herbivores. That"s right, their teeth had absolutely no chlorophyll in them. BOOM!
Ok, your turn. :D
mrpotatowaffles forfeited this round.
You and I arrived on planet Earth only recently. Cities and languages already existed. Art and table manners were taught to us by others; and so was history. Each person"s life touches others; as we each learn, then in turn teach (selections of) what we saw ourselves and heard from others, then die. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Slowly, inevitably things get dusty and forgotten or rewritten or lost.
Our understanding of human and Earth origins builds the learned history used as the foundation for our future; it is a base of experiences, of wisdom. There is an old Russian proverb, "If you dwell on the past you will lose an eye. But if you forget the past you will lose both eyes."
I do not know if Creation & the Flood as recorded in the Bible are true. But I do know that there is some very good evidence to support this scientific theory. Most other sites which deal with our ancient origins claim to "have the final word". Well, www.creationism.org will link to several of these on both sides of this Grand Canyon of controversy, but knowing the limits of my own IQ " I"ll try to share more of the evidence and debated theoretical problems than set-in-stone conclusions. You're smart; you can look at this set of arguments and then decide which direction to pursue for your own research. This (approximately 30 page long) report can be comfortably read in an evening. There are actually several creation-related theories out there, most of which compromise between strict "evolutionism" (no God, period) and strict "creationism" (no evolution, period - there were 6 days of Creation, less than 10,000 years ago).
As for myself I used to believe in "theistic evolution" (one of the compromise creation-evolution theories), but more and more the evidence appears to point me to a young Earth and no evolution. There are 2 or 3 types of evolution. The first would be "guided" from above. Certainly this is possible, and we have many examples in the world (cars have "evolved" tremendously during the 20th Century, with the guiding hand of engineers and designers). Many believers ascribe to such theories, but they still compromise the literal Genesis record. Secondly, there is what is termed: "micro-evolution", which I prefer to call: "genetic remnant variation". This refers to changes made within a biological "kind", i.e. mutations and other changes related to natural selection and environmental adaptations. Let's say that two calves are born and the one with longer fur survives the harsh winter allowing it to breed the next Spring, thus perpetuating longer fur in the herd. Sure, this is scientific. Within the DNA coding God has placed varying factors; thank the Maker for his forethought in allowing for automatic adaptability! But the third type (related to the first, but with no God "guiding" the outcome), as best as I understand, is unbiblical and also unscientific. There are no fossils which prove any transitional life forms have ever come about through "natural selection" or otherwise. The third type of evolution is what is believed and preached to our children in the public schools today, but to the best of my understanding there is no scientific evidence to support its tenets. Regardless of my individual beliefs however I hope that you can glean from the evidence and ideas which are related in this report.
Look at the evidence for yourself. I think you"ll be amazed at just how many holes there are in the evolutionary theory as commonly believed today. And then there are the politics involved in the discovery and classification of artifacts. If an archaeologist successfully bolsters a claim that a few one-of-a-kind bone fragments somehow fit right into ancient human lineage, rather than just another unsuccessful "spur" out there, then long term research grants are a lot more forthcoming. Debate, counter-claims, political wrangling; "Survival of the fittest" at its finest.
One thing that most average people don"t know is how wildly the radio-active dates can fluctuate within different samples of the exact same specimen. It's not scientific to ignore the values which don't match current beliefs and to keep testing till they find a date they like. This topic will be discussed further in the section below titled: "Professionals, Competition & the Scientific Method".
Another fact that the highly vaunted geologic column (as drawn by artists) is often stacked wrong, there are gaps, often layers lie in "the wrong order" or even upside down. And sometimes a geologist, archaeologist, or mining operation will be digging along and come across a few large logs upright and transversing what an evolutionist would have called "millions of years" but what a creationist would look at and see evidence of the Great Flood from the time of Noah - an Earth covered with a myriad of sedimentary rocks, often hundreds of feet deep and formed under great (though temporary, lasting under a year) pressure. In the forests near your home do you see dead trees that have stayed upright and undisturbed for the past few millions of years? Of course not! In some places ants won't leave picnickers alone for even one hour before moving in on the target. Insects and microbes are constantly on the look out for decay and unprotected food to take advantage of. Upright tree trunks are mute testimony to rapid, deep sedimentary deposition. Evolutionary theory, as currently believed, requires structural modification or to be completely replaced with an entirely different theory of our ancient origins.
The Flood theory can readily handle strata which, by exception, stacks in "evolutionary" order. The creationist can also discuss layers which have stacked "upside-down" - since they"re not such - if the Flood is a historical event. Evolutionists though, must conjure up a myriad of exceptions when dealing with the real fossil evidence we see in the world today. (These exceptions often require more faith than does the Bible"s historical account of what happened!)
Is it necessarily scientific (but not religious) to exclude God in geologic strata interpretation? Is it necessarily religious (but not scientific) to include God in geologic strata interpretation? If our (supposed?) Creator could, within one of many possible dimensions, also operate as a Scientific Mathematician then the two are not at all at odds. And in that case such a belief system with no god(s) on top would merely be another false religion out there; a religion (a system of beliefs) which detracts from or denies the invisible yet obvious hand of the true Maker. Evolution, as a belief system about origins should be considered on its scientific merits, not as an article of blind faith - that it "must" have happened.
There is significant evidence that the Earth"s climate used to be much more uniform and comfortably warmer than today. This is in keeping with the Bible"s record in Genesis. It is not in keeping with modern evolutionary beliefs. Fossils and some still frozen remains (the mammoths, for example) in the Arctic and (palm leaf imprints) in the Antarctic may be better explained if there was a firmament (thick cloud canopy) above the Earth prior to the Flood, as recorded in the Bible.
COAL & OIL (Section 2 of 27)
The existence of fossil fuels defies evolutionary theory, a primary evidence that there was a Great Flood
Have you ever sat around a campfire in the woods? In the Western US many forests are at least one or two thousand years old, some are much older. Individual trees die and begin to decay but the forest lives on. After putting out the campfire did you have to worry about the soil below catching on fire? If not, then where did all of the world"s coal and oil come from? Decaying vegetation adds minerals to topsoil. When you dig down a couple feet (about half a meter) you"ll see part way down a marked change. The topsoil, that nearest the surface, the live soil actively transforms death into renewed life supporting material.
Ask any diehard evolutionist who adamantly insists that there was not a global flood: "Where did coal and oil come from?, by what process were they created?" They have no logical answer. Yet oil and coal power our modern world. Buried at all sedimentary depths - they exist indeed.
When a drilling rig first strikes oil it often gushes up, still under intense pressure from deep below. Entire forests and jungles of life were crushed directly from life into preserved complex carbon energy. We refine it a little to extract fuel, fertilizer, and plastics, then move on to the next deposit without giving it much thought. Discrete pockets of preserved former life, separated by wide layers of muck and rock. Then nothing grew there for millions of years?, then "bam" a burst of stored life, then nothing for millions more years, then another concentrated coal or oil pocket. A million years is a long time. Where you live can you imagine that nothing grew there for one million or more years? Please consider the fossil record itself (as it really, actually exists) when pondering our ancient origins.
Modern evolutionary theory simply cannot explain why all this coal and oil is down there, sometimes at 10,000 feet or more. Folks, that depth is 2 miles (about 3km) straight down. 2 miles thick of various layers of sediment on top of a concentrated layer of crushed, preserved plant-derived carbon, and often with occasional volcanic layers interspersed in between.
Peat forms in swamps containing low oxygen or almost antiseptic conditions. The partially decomposed material builds up below and hosts the penetrating roots of successive plant life above. In the theory of evolution as believed today, peat buildup and then slow burial afterwards allows for the subsequent time and pressure to slowly make coal. Peat is partially decomposed and shows damage from massive root penetration.
mrpotatowaffles forfeited this round.
Paradoxxal forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.