Evolution is NOT a fact, but rather falls short in evidence
Debate Rounds (5)
DNA: Science has proven that we are 96% related to the common chimpanzee, why would we be so related if we didn't evolve from the same type of species? We evolved due to the changes in environments. An example of this is, let's say the food of the chimp became higher than usual; harder to get-- the tallest chimp would thrive in that environment, and would then reproduce with other chimps that would then have taller offspring. That offspring would reproduce, so on and so forth...
Vestigial Organs: These structures provide evidence of genes coding for structures that are not present. Not because they are useful to us now, but because they were once useful to an ancestor. An example of this is the plantaris muscle. This muscle is often removed by doctors since it does not affect the balance when we walk. However, this same muscle is found more fully developed in the feet and/or calves of other primates, as It is the muscle used for grasping with the feet.
Homologous Structures: Let's take a look at this photo: http://itc.gsw.edu... Do you see any resemblance in the bone structure of these organisms? The closer the organisms are related, the more homologous structures they have. The structure was taken by different organisms due to how well it performs in their environment.
DNA similarity is an interesting argument, but an ineffective argument. That is because of one word: speculation. Now 96% seems like a large number, but remember that we are dealing with deoxyribonucleic acid here. The 4% left is an astounding number of cells (much more than billions of code and information). It's also good to remember that DNA is not about quantity but rather quality. You could have 99.9% similarity to something else, but the .1% left may be the genes that contribute the most. In other words, it's not so as how much, but rather what's in the genes that are left and how does it affect the connection between chimpanzees and humans. That being said, DNA similarity can also be a sign of a Creator. Are we to expect that we, humans, should be completely different than other animals. We are dealing with mammals and primates here! Of course we will be similar. Just because we are similar, however, doesn't mean we have the same common ancestor. That is speculation. Even modern science can't be exactly sure. So the argument is based on whether you want to believe that we came from a common ancestor, or if we have the same designer. That's up to you! :)
Vestigial Organs: The plantaris muscle is not vestigial. Although it may seem useless in a physical way, which in a way it is, it's quite important as a sensory muscle. Read more here: http://creation.com...
(Remember that if you ever question the sources of my articles, the references in the article are always displayed at the end (in the article)).
Homology: The homology argument is speculation again (just like the DNA similarity). We are both looking at the same information (the bone structures), but we both point to a different source. Now, of course, there's no way you can exactly know that we had a common ancestor as that happened in the past (and the past isn't repeatable). So you speculate that we had one and go with your belief. I respect that, however I take the information differently. Homology to me points to an intelligent design. Remember that you can't expect humans to be very different from others since we were made from the same Creator. Plus, if we were very different, it'd be hard for us to live. Humans must have a sense of connection to the things around it to survive (physically and mentally). If you study biochemistry, you learn all about that; what we eat and other animals also contribute to our lives on planet earth.
My argument: Now I am stating the following: Evolution is based off faith rather than science. Here's my reasoning:
Question: Can you provide one example of observable and testable Darwinian Evolution (a change of kinds)? Now, if you can't (and don't worry if you can't; it's never been observed) most evolutionists will say, "But it requires millions of years." Okay, I understand that, but do not call that science. The scientific method is based off what we can observe and test today. When you say, "it happened over millions of years," you step out of science and into faith. You are trusting that it happened those many years ago (even though you weren't there). So my main problem is that evolutionists cannot admit that there theory is based off lots of faith. I can admit that mine is.
Now for another argument: Fossils.
Many evolutionists claim that fossils back up their belief. The irony is that it does the exact opposite! Firstly, fossils are bad for scientific reasoning as you don't know if that fossil had any kids/ancestors. All you know about that animal/dinosaur is that it died. Secondly, we find billions of fossils all around the planet earth. Now if you know your science, you should know that it's not quite easy to create a fossil. If, let's say, an animal dies and we put it on my front lawn, it won't become a fossil. It will simply decay and bugs and other animals will eat it up. Even if the other animals don't eat it, it will slowly decay and simply vanish! Poof! So why do we have so many fossils. Well to make a fossil it takes a lot of sediment, water, and fast-paced time. So a creature's body is found, then lots of water and dirt mix to quickly wash over the body (it's important to note that this happens very, very fast.) There's even a fossil of a fish eating another fish midway! It's fossilized and you can search it up. It's quite cool. Either way, the billions of fossils that we find all over the world actually point to a worldwide flood!
Finally, I'd love if you would read this article. I'm assuming you might of watched (or maybe just heard) about the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate. If you enjoyed that, I'm sure you'll enjoy this article: http://www.infowars.com...
Mr. Nye states that we find that the layers of the earth and the animals that we find in them fit perfectly with the evolutionist's timeline. That is just not true. The article talks about how mammals have been found in the same layers of dinosaurs. If that's not enough then archeologists find flesh in dinosaur bones all the time! Now if a creature is millions of years old, that flesh should be long gone. But it isn't.
So overall, evolution is not supported by the scientific method (what we can test and observe) OR the historic evidence (the fossil evidence).
You bring up fossils as a false/weak way to prove evolution ever took place. "Firstly, fossils are bad for scientific reasoning as you don't know if that fossil had any kids/ancestors. All you know about that animal/dinosaur is that it died." What about living fossils? Ex: The crocodile. (http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net...).
"Either way, the billions of fossils that we find all over the world actually point to a worldwide flood!" No, it doesn't. Perhaps yes, the flood may have occurred, but not the entire Earth. Think logically. Would the Earth be the same if a worldwide flood ever occurred?
Now previously I talked about how evolution has no observable evidence (which you seem to agree on) and no historical evidence (which you did address, but I'm getting ahead of myself.) So there's no observable or historical evidence. You bring up a good point, however: We can't observe what happened in the Bible. The past is the past and therefore cannot be repeated. But, we do have a historical account: The Bible.
Now who was the 16th President of the United States? Abraham Lincoln was for some time until he was murdered. Eye witness accounts have been written and are cited today. Now, we weren't there so that takes out observational science. We have to trust the historical documents of the eye witness accounts. Everyone usually does because they seem credible. Christianity/Judaism has that historical document: The Bible. If you didn't have the historical written documents, would you believe that Abraham Lincoln was murdered? Well, probably not; it would only be gossip (by word of mouth). That's not very credible. The Bible, however, is the most published book in history and read by millions every day. Prophecies in the book have known to come true as well as having very credible historical accounts.
"Archaeologists have consistently discovered the names of government officials, kings, cities, and festivals mentioned in the Bible -- sometimes when historians didn't think such people or places existed." (http://www.everystudent.com...)
So do you trust evolution with no observable or historical account. Or the Bible with a historical account? That's up to you :)
What about living fossils? You just put a topic up there with no explanation. If you know anything about living fossils, then you would know that they go against evolution.
Living fossils are fossils that we find that are exactly the same for creatures of today. There are many examples which can be found through investigation. How exactly does that help evolution? If we find an animal said to be millions of years old and find that it is still the same physically and internally (for example, the spider) that challenges evolution. Some say "luck" and "chance". That's not science. Frankly, the odds of having a "living fossil" is very unlikely. According to evolution, organisms change and so does the environment. To have a creature not change in MILLIONS of years while other creatures around it are is insane. The odds against that happening are astronomical. The environment changes, and creatures in the environment will change too. They will change even more drastically if you believe in evolution. So why, with so many examples of creatures that have stayed the same for millions of years, do these animals stay the same? Let's look at this quote:
"Organisms are so complex that it is very hard to change one aspect without wrecking everything else""Yale University palaeontologist Elisabeth Vrba.
Think about it, in Darwinian evolution many things change, and when they change other organisms change as well. It's basic logic, and living fossils only help my point.
"Would the Earth ever be the same if a worldwide flood ever occurred?" Flawed argument as we don't know what the Earth was exactly like several thousand years ago, and can only therefore speculate.
DNA. Now you try to use DNA to help you, so I'll do the same. It's a complex subject and I have found this video to be very logical and great at explaining my points (I can't say it better than him!) Please take a look (this'll count as my current argument): https://www.youtube.com...
Fun extra question: Flowers were said to come on earth 300 million years ago; the first insects came 100 million years ago. How did those flowers survive (and thrive!) when there were no insects around to pollinate them?
"Now who was the 16th President of the United States? Abraham Lincoln was for some time until he was murdered. Eye witness accounts have been written and are cited today. Now, we weren't there so that takes out observational science. We have to trust the historical documents of the eye witness accounts." Or, we can trust in the documents that were actually written by Lincoln himself, along with the numerous eye witnesses. (There's actually a website dedicated to Lincoln's written documents http://www.papersofabrahamlincoln.org...). So, saying Lincoln is to Bible as Bible is to Lincoln is completely illogical, as no documents were ever written by Christ, "his" teachings that were supposedly seen / heard were.
"The Bible, however, is the most published book in history and read by millions every day." So what? I could say that Harry Potter was the most published book in history and is read by millions every day, but it doesn't prove Hogwarts exists, does it?
"Prophecies in the book have known to come true as well as having very credible historical accounts." Let me give you a passage from Ezekiel 26, A Prophecy Against Tyre: 21"I will bring terrors on you and you will be no more; though you will be sought, you will never be found again," declares the Lord GOD." According to God, no matter how hard you try, how hard you look, you will NEVER find the city of Tyre ever again... This is obviously not true, as it literally takes a 5 second google search to find Tyre.
Allow me to "trash" living fossils as it does not provide any sort of evidence for evolution. I realized that it means nothing. My apologies.
"DNA. Now you try to use DNA to help you, so I'll do the same. It's a complex subject and I have found this video to be very logical and great at explaining my points (I can't say it better than him!) Please take a look (this'll count as my current argument): https://www.youtube.com...; I don't see how that video refutes evolution at all. Evolutionists never claimed to know why everything seems to be put in place perfectly, but to say something like, "I can't answer this, therefore God," is completely ridiculous. But I'll try to refute: I'm sure you know the Miller-Urey experiment, (Yes, I know that this is not an amazing piece of evidence), but the "updated" version of the experiment is. (http://www.livescience.com...) This will be my counter-argument.
As for the Bible quote, I was just reiterating how much the Bible has influenced the world. It had nothing to do with proving it/using it as proof against evolution.
As for Tyre: "Concerning Tyre"s present condition, other sources have noted that "continuous settlement has restricted excavation to the Byzantine and Roman levels and information about the Phoenician town comes only from documentary sources" ("Ancient Tyre...," n.d., emp. added). Another report confirmed, "Uncovered remains are from the post-Phoenician Greco-Roman, Crusader, Arab and Byzantine times.... Any traces of the Phoenician city were either destroyed long ago or remain buried under today"s city" ("Ancient Phoenicia," n.d., emp. added). Thus, the only connection that the present town maintains with the ancient one in Ezekiel"s day is location, and the present buildings, streets, and other features are not "rebuilt" versions of the original city. If Ezekiel"s prophecy extended to the island city as well as the mainland city, it can be maintained legitimately that the ruins lying underneath the city have not been "rebuilt."" (http://apologeticspress.org...)
Creating Life in the Lab: "It"s important to remember that this is a carefully engineered, artificial environment that is allowing the enzymes to survive. As ScienceDaily reports, "The subunits in the enzymes the team constructed each contain many nucleotides, so they are relatively complex and not something that would have been found floating in the primordial ooze." And Scripps Institution of Oceanography chemist Jeffrey Bada, who was not involved in the research, cautioned that "it still leaves the problem of how RNA first came about. Some type of self-replicating molecule likely proceeded RNA and what this was is the big unknown at this point."" (https://answersingenesis.org...)
Now, I applaud science! I love science! I just came back from experimenting with silver nitrate and hydrochloric acid in the lab (as well as magnesium). So, do not think that I am anti-science. "I can't answer this, therefore God." That is said here and there, but not by me. I totally support more research into different subjects, HOWEVER: Do not teach evolution and the origin of life as a fact. That is ignorant of the scientific method. You can continue to research and test what you want to, but do not brainwash people into thinking that evolution is the only way, and the Creator in the Bible is wrong. That is superficial and the zenith of ignorance. I'm sure you would agree with me (as you seem like an intelligent person), but I have argued with many who just insult me and say that their belief is right. I admit that mine is a faith, and so do you. I support you trying to back up your faith with science (which is not working as of modern research) but maybe in the future, you'll find some type of proof to back up your statements (I don't think you will, though.)
Argument: Transitional fossils. This is a weak point for many evolutionists. IF we (and other creatures) evolved from single-celled organisms and from less-complex versions of ourselves, where are the transitional fossils?
"I will lay it on the line"there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." - Dr. Patterson.
He's right! All of the "transitional forms" that evolutionists show to creationists don't have a full fossil form, but rather are drawn by artists or pieces are added by paleontologists, who with their assumptions, assume that the fossil would end up like this. That's not science. (Ex: Rhodocetus...the tail was never found (even stated by the founder of the fossil).) So where are all the transitional fossils?
That's my argument, but you never answered the following question: Flowers were said to come on earth 300 million years ago; the first insects came 100 million years ago. How did those flowers survive (and thrive!) when there were no insects around to pollinate them?
eddoesnotshred forfeited this round.
eddoesnotshred forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 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:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
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.