The Instigator
Tatarize
Pro (for)
Winning
98 Points
The Contender
GodSands
Con (against)
Losing
38 Points

Evolution is a coherent theory with significant amounts of data to establish its veracity.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,754 times Debate No: 6335
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (255)
Votes (20)

 

Tatarize

Pro

Jacoby claimed in another debate comment:
"I'll just call you Con. You called the debater ignorant. He just doesn't understand. Well. based on your comments. You certainly aren't in any position to call anyone ignorant. Arrogance becomes the astute know -it -alls that use dogmatic rhetoric to insure your position. Fact is. Not one thing you stated is a fact on evolution. You]re simply parroting what you THINK you know. That is the problem with amateur debaters. Ever read Punctuated Equilibrium? Gould and his pal made a sorry attempt at revising a silly hypothesis of the evolutionary notion. Anyone worth their salt could see that the pathetic attempt to revive the FAIRYTALE was impossible. Don't be so sure about your science from those who weren't nearly as sure as their followers. I will debate anyone on the technicals of the theory and the abtracts that has perpetuated itself into a truth. Name the day, time and hour. I have Gould's book on my desk in his own words. He was frustrated with the LACK of facts! Good day."
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

-- I contend that he is wrong on these claims.

* Gould did not argue against evolution, he argued varied interpretation.
* Evolution has significant concrete data supporting it.
* Evolution is a robust theory which explains large tracts of data.
* I am not parroting what I think I know, I actually understand the theory.

As it seems likely the Jacoby only registered to make that idiotic comment (it is the only thing he did) and is not going to return to defend it, I'm going to open this debate up to the floor. Does anybody care to defend his statement on any or all of the points.
GodSands

Con

Have you put a complex title to show your intelligences? This debate is about "if evolution is significant or completely rubbish".

"Does anybody care to defend his statement on any or all of the points." I could not care what this man thinks, all I'm here for is to stop you people from believing in a lie. In any way and in no doubt the comments left after this debate will have nothing to do with Jacoby. As the core of this debate is evolution. Not Jacoby.

I'm glad in all rights, that this debate may be educational for some. And that those who believe in evolution or think evolution is real that you will question your self's afterwards. I am no scientist or any expert in this topic but I have studied this verily deeply in my free time.

Micro and Macro evolution are easily mixed up. The reason why they get mixed up so much is because people have different ideas on what a species or a certain type of creature is. Let me tell you that a cat is a lion, tiger, panther, house cat, lynx, jaguar, loped and a cheater. And many more. These cats are all in the rage of micro evolution, none are nearer becoming a new species than the last. By their features, which is the makeup of a cat. All cats have rounded and unpinned snaws, a tail and raws even if it is a hiss or a peer. All cats have 4 legs even if they are short or long. All cats have whiskers even if they are short or long, all cats have claws. Another problem is that I may say...

"what makes up a cat are all these features" and you may say
"evolution does not care what makes up a cat, it cares for what the cat is to become, if the features need to change or not, it means nothing". Then I will say
"why are there so many variations in that case, if evolution is leading all creatures in one direction, to be at the top. Why does it seem evolution has a mind behind it. Why would evolution come up with many creatures rather than one all round creature, how does evolution know what was good to start with, why does evolution know what a good fighter or climber is? Where is the motivation behind all these creatures? Hunger? If a creature is hungry it will feed, if a animal is attacked it will die". There is no motivation or commitment by any animal to reach the top. You only think that because you see all kind of creatures. If you were only allowed to see one animal in your whole life you would think it was created. No doubt. If there was only one creature, say a rabbit would you not say it evolved and more like this creature was created as it was. Evolution works and uses what God have made y the amount and variation of creatures there are. Abusing God's handy work. There is not such thing as evolution, again say you were 20 and your dad brought in a mouse, would you think the rabbit evolved from the mouse? Well in a evolutionary way of thinking you would. Because those creatures are the only two, you would think they are alike. Even a elephant and a snake, you would think they both evolved from one another if that's the only two creatures your dad showed you in a evolutionary way of thinking. The truth is that this is not the case, there are billions of creatures, if trillions so who am I to say you are in the right to be wrong. Basically you are wrong but I understand that. I mean look at what God has done. Even His work will stretch your minds beyond truth. Evolution though is a lie. You get brain washed in science lessons, as evolution is taught in science, as a young new to this world school child the last thing a teacher is to expect that you would answer and question back evolution. Unfortunately I was too bewildered by evolution at the time I did not question it, I believe what a science teacher taught. Of course I would it is a science teacher.
"You had to be clever to know about science" I would think. So for that reason I did not even think about questioning he teacher.
Back to the point: As there are so many creature on this planet of course you would think they evolved, as how else would these creatures came to be? By God I would say. Quick questioning on that first though; as you are a atheist. Say you knew there was no God, and you got into a convocation on a all most powerful being, like a godly figure. Would you not say
"If there would be one thing that can judge me one who I am, that would be a perfect being, a being that has done no wrong Him self, human or not, I would allow someone like that to judge me."
Sound fair? Since you do not say that, you are not a atheist as you have some doubt in mind which makes you say "Ha if there is a God, why oh why can God judge me, I am my own god"
You say the second quotation proving there is such thing as God. I believe so.
Now I got that out of my way, why is God such a bad idea? As "if" there was only two creatures here on earth. They are billions alive and living. Big and small, round and square. The size can be a microscopic plagton, it does not matter. What matters is if it is living. Time you say has a large effect of evolution. Then why do I not see any missing links? If time is such a problem with creatures evolving then why are there no creatures having problems in breeding, climbing, swimming, hunting etc. For example if why is not one monkey suggling to climb? I know what your think the mistakes are too small to see. Yes? Then wouldn't then the correct way of climbing a tree also be to small to see, and all you would see is a monkey attempting to climb a tree over and over? But getting better. And the good genes would be pasted down and over millions of years the monkey hich has turned out to be is really quite good. I am not saying that this happens to baby monkies but to adults and the baby monkies would be even worse in till they are adults but still pretty shoddy. What I am saying is that this monkey is not a monkey other wise the struggle would be suttle. I am say that you need in this case to have a half monkey half dog. (could not think of another almost monkey creature, dog is close enough) Now dog's can barely climb, you may get a odd one or two but no more. And say a monkey was to evolve from this dog, I sure you that you would get the dog half restricting the monkey half to climb and you would get the monkey half stopping to dog half to catch prey on the ground. This will lead to the creature dying out as it would be the worse creature there is. Anything but a creature like this is Micro evolution. E.g. A horse evolving into a zebra is micro evolution as nothing new has been added. Fur colour you may say, but did not the horse already have coloured fur? This is why I do not believe in evolution! No matter what scientific wording you offer in the next round, will not help your agurment. You would need to disprove why a half monkey/dog creature could be a legit creature. How it could survive and what would lead the half monkey/dog creature to want to change from dog to monkey. Would this creature be better off remain the same? Would it not die out? And would not a change like this be a personal change? You would not expect this change to be globe? Do you think all monkeys where chased into the trees? If so why now are all monkies roughly at the same stage? There no super monkey, they are all equal in their own right. Some are better at climbing and others are better at social connections. Why do you get so many variations if evolution is heading one way? A race (a human race) 100m's. You do not get one ringing a cab to get to the finish another hopping another skipping and another on a pony. All of the runners would be running. Why don't all the monkeys do the same "tactic" to be the best? I know eviroments. 1 fig tree in the Amazon can contain up to 40 speices of animals. Would they all be the same speices if evolution were truth? Why does so many speices of animal need to be in one tree. I would say God made them like that. What do you say?

Disprove me now. No scientific wording will change my mind.
Debate Round No. 1
Tatarize

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.

I must clear up some obvious misconceptions you have about evolution. I shall show these and go into depth shortly.

* There is no distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution. Pretending there is a distinction is an attempt to make it seem like a different mechanism is used. This is similar to suggesting you can walk ten feet with legs but cannot walk ten miles.
* The taxonomy of animals into groupings of cats, dogs, mammals, tetrapods etc. Only make sense within evolutionary theory and have no natural lines of demarcation outside of implications of the theory.
* Evolution does not care. It does not want. It does not choose. It does not "come up with" anything. Much of the power of evolution comes specifically from the fact that it works without knowing anything.
* Evolution does not travel in one direction. There is no top.
* Rabbits and mice are both glires. They share a common ancestor about 82 million years ago. Humans share a common ancestor with the glires about 86 million years ago. Species do not evolve from their cousins, they evolve from their ancestors.
* Elephants and snakes are both amniotes. They share a common ancestor about 340 million years ago. The group of amniotes includes all mammals including humans.
* You do not see any missing links because you are not looking at the research. http://en.wikipedia.org...
* Evolution evolves forms well adapted at climbing trees, climbing, swimming and hunting. This is why you see well adapted creatures doing these things. You're not going to have any half-monkey/ half-dog climbing a tree repeatedly. The fact that you even suppose this a prediction of evolution is a problem with your understanding rather than the theory itself.
* Monkeys and dogs are both Boreoeutheria. They share a common ancestor about 93 million years ago. The Boreoeutheria includes humans.
If there were a selective advantage for dogs to climb trees they certainly could do it.
* Horses and zebras share a common ancestor about 2 million years ago.
* Evolution allows species to best occupy their niche, not create super-monkeys.
* There are many different niches to occupy in a single tree. No single species occupies all the niches. However, in general of two species do actually occupy the same niche one species will drive the other species out.

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

I'll attempt to explain your objections as well as provide evidence for the principle issue of the debate. The easiest way to show that evolution is a coherent theory with a significant amount of data to establish its veracity is to present the theory, show the data and show how the data explains is explained by the theory.

Given any species grasshoppers for example if they were allowed to breed indiscriminately, they would within a several generations cover the entire planet several feet deep with grasshoppers. So there must be at some level forces within nature which limit the expanse of the grasshopper as well as the expanse of ants, mice, dogs, cockroaches and the millions of other species around. Now, these forces such as breeding opportunity, starvation, disease, feeding ability, predation, habitat availability must be present for all species which exist on the planet. Now, within any species there exists a slight amount of variation within that species. Some dogs have longer ears, some rabbits larger eyes, some humans are taller, and under varying conditions those traits may allow for that individual to have more offspring than other individuals within that species. In colder climates, those individuals with longer hair or thicker coats might be slightly more able to have more offspring with longer hair or thicker coats. Through this process given a colder climate you would necessarily end up with a population of those individuals best adapted to that climate.

Darwin's great insight was to looks at the selective breeding of those domesticated varieties of plants and animals. The Mexican hairless is a dog as is the great Dane, mastiff, bull dog, and German Shepard. These breeds of dogs were produced by selective breeding over only about 10,000 years. He suggested that this same process which was widely known and used by every breeder, fancier, and farmer in England for hundreds of years could also be used by the mindless whims of nature. Naturally Selecting those animals which could best compete in the struggle for survival.

So if species were produced by nature selecting those variations within a species and those individuals with that variation to survive, then what we see today throughout the world are the merely the leaves of a massive tree of life. The adaptations which arise in one population do not rise in another and the furthering adaptation by the selection of variations within a species will cause it to diverge from the closely related but disconnected species.

So the further back the common ancestor between the species greater the difference between the two species. So the slight differences between horses and zebras happened in a mere 2 million years, whereas the greater differences between mice and rabbits happened in a far greater 86 million years. Whereas the vast differences between the snake and elephant took 340 million years. This is also why traits shared between closely related species but non-existent in more distantly related species are never found in more distant species. All mammals for example have hair and also express milk. You will never find a reptile or non-mammal expressing milk even though it's an entirely effective way of giving nutrients to offspring. Also, all tetrapods have four primary limbs and a tail. So we see lizards with this general arrangement and cows even though their last shared ancestor was 340 million years ago. However, some species which evolved into niches which such traits were no longer needed. For example, whales are mammals and have hair and express milk for their young. However whales don't have hind limbs because they are ocean dwelling. However, if we look at the embryo development of whales we see they follow the typical mammal pattern and looking at the skeleton we find that they still have a pelvis. Moreover they have bones for hind limbs which are purely disconnected from the rest of the skeleton. Even stranger is that once in a while we will find a while with little hind limbs that don't work: vestigial legs. Just as sometimes humans are born with small tails. Without understanding the origins and ancestry of these forms these happenings would make little to no logical sense. But, we understand that whales are mammals and had land dwelling ancestors with legs. In fact, we've discovered over the last couple decades a large series of these ancestors from the land dwelling to the partially aquatic to the fully aquatic in Pakistan (where they evolved).

We see that the species alive today are the result of long lines of varying ancestors. We shouldn't see a monkey evolving from a dog because those are both end points in the tree. However, we could see the ancestor of all of the mammals evolving into both of those species by adapting to different niches for survival. And understand that there isn't a topmost place for a species or some magical goal for evolution, but rather a series of species well adapted towards their particular way of life. An all around species might be great, but it also might be out competed in every area by species which are masters of that area. Which ever variations of a species produce the greatest amount of offspring are those variations which will occur at a greater frequency in the next generation.

For more and greater bits of evidence I recommend:
http://toarchive.org... 29+ evidences for macroevolution.
GodSands

Con

It did not surprise me that you believe in evolution. You yet need to explain why there are some any types of creatures, did I not say if you were allowed only to see one creature you would see it as a created thing not evolved? Mice and rabbits may seem there is a connection 86 million years ago, I think because they have the same creator. Would you not us the same material in different project? The one reason why evolution is very convicting is because there are so many types of creatures. I bet that if there was only birds on earth no other creature, evolution would not enter your mind. No doubt. You did not reply back on the father giving his child a creature.

"There is no distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution." Are you saying that micro and macro evolution are the same? Now knowing evolution is a false theory I can see that difference.

Micro evolution - A variation with in a species of creature. Example - Eagle and humming bird.
Macro evolution - A variation between two species of creatures. Example - Snake and polar bear.

"Pretending there is a distinction is an attempt to make it seem like a different mechanism is used." There must be other wise the species would remain the same. Like I said in the comments, is not there a change from walking to getting on a bike? (Waking represents one species, the bike is another.) As you climb apone the bike, you stop walking yet you are not cycling. By wording let me show you the evolution on how to get on a bike from walking
Walking, Calking, Cylking Cycking. Arr here comes the common ansector part, Cycling, The ing part of the word means that it has the same means of doing. Like this you would get this also happening in creatures, like half of one animal and half of another. If you said....
"Well walking and cycling are two complete activities, so why would they merge. They are both (like some creatures) at the top of the tree. You do not need a bike to walk or to walk a bike." And I will say...
"Yes, but in opinionated thinking different creatures may be equal, like cycling and walking people may think walking is better and funnier, we as humans have different views on which creature is better. This is were in the evolutionary tree you think the lines connecting each animal up are actually linked"

I hope you are aware it is a drawing? I would not believe it if you say "No I am not aware, the drawings actually happened" As you have never seen the drawing occur in nature. Also like the sketch of the evolution of ape into human. (I am aware you think a human is a ape.) As I was saying the lines are linked to gather but the creatures are not linked to another creature. In the first video. The scientists only implied macro evolution, they did not explain it. The video was about micro evolution, which is a result of natural selection. The scientists would expect macro evolution to occur as there are so many types of creatures. More than there are types that there are humming birds. I completely agree on all micro evolution.

"niche". Does the niche not allow the same species "jump ahead" ? "Monkeys and dogs are both Boreoeutheria" According to you all creatures have the common ancestor. The first cell. I know that God designed every kind of creature. So according to you, will some monkeys become different species to other monkeys over time? Is this not what you are saying? I am saying that this is impossible since to justify what a better monkey is would be down to a opinionated view. No monkey can expire being a...Monkey lol. So by having a natural party on this matter would be down to natural selection. Nartual selection keeps to own breed of monkey moving forward together. In a fair and even manner. But monkeys will remain monkeys as there is no limit, (like you said evolution does not have a goal) therefore there I no limit or no goal with in the species of monkey. So as you believe in macro evolution where does this limit end to allow a new species to arise from a existing species? As there are no limits. No doubt.

"Horses and zebras share a common ancestor about 2 million years ago." I also believe the earth is no more than 6000 years old. Evermore according the award winning series "Walking with Dinosaurs" and "Walking with Beasts" The zebra existed like today 3.5-2 million years ago.

"must be present for all species which exist on the planet." I saw a error where if you have a basic life form according to you this is where all creatures came from. Yet you said disease. A disease can only take effect if the target is fordable. You also said that disease is needed to give other breeds and species the availability to improve. But if I take you back to where life according to evolution began. You have basic life forms, (jellyfish) if a disease was to occur, as all life is very basic at this stage the disease would over come it's target and kill it off. And all the rest of the basic life forms since there is little difference between species as it is early on in the evolutionary processes. After all a disease is more advanced than a certain breed as it has the ability to kill off the target. So how did a basic breed like a jellyfish over come a disease which is more advanced, would you say mutation? This is still a problem as a mutation is a result of a failed species or breed, how do you explain this?

"In colder climates, those individuals with longer hair or thicker coats might be slightly more able to have more offspring with longer hair or thicker coats." Yeah so in till the climate changes again the breed would remain as it is. Since there are species all over the world and with in the species all breeds live in all climates. Example: Bear: Polar bear, grizzily bear, panda bear and brown bear, mother, father and baby bear lol. No seriously though all these bears exceed in different climates around the world. So what makes you think that if a "say" sold climate changes the polar bear would change species? As a example. I understand that bears in colder climates have small ears and thinker coats with more fat. But there are also bears in warm climates with larger ears and thinner coats and less fat. It is not a question of a change in species it is a question of will there be a new kind of climate. No doubt. Can you think of one new climate? If not so this may solve your case in understanding why a breed of one species does not jump to another breed in another species. As the climate leads breeds to breed new breeds. Through natural selection.

So as there is all types of climates on earth no animals can evolve through a macro stage. Although it still would be impossible. Micro evolution is still valid as if you placed a polar bear in a warmer climate over some time the polar bear would loose fat and the fur would get thinner. And the ears would become smaller.

I still have over a 1000 letters. What I have said occurs for the rest of what you have written. All what you have told me (including the videos) are based on micro evolution. You still have not explained to me how Macro evolution can occur apart from you assuming that it has based on the time you think earth has been around and based on the amount of variation of species. You have yet to make me go "Ah ha yes, so is that's how macro evolution occurs." Nice video of the dog climbing the tree lol I did say the odd one or two dogs can do that, and I am right over wise the dog would not be on the news.

Do you not understand my points? Why can I question evolution but not the speed of light? (e=mc2). Or gravity? (f=ma). The whole debate over this in my opinion proves evolution wrong, you never see a debate on gravity or the speed of light. This also shows a divine line between what is science and religon is (Jesus hated reilgons by the way). Evolution is a religon. That all religons as you would agree are questionable and science is not. If science is wrong it is not science.
Debate Round No. 2
Tatarize

Pro

I am the pro side of the debate in favor of evolution. You should not be surprised to find I am an evolutionist. Furthermore, one of the primary points in the initial debate was whether I actually understood the theory. Demonstration of my understanding is required as is a presentation of the coherency and data behind the theory.

*Rabbits and mice are both glires. They are members of the closely related rodents and lagomorphs orders. In fact, so closely related are the groups that they were once placed into the same order. Pikas, for example, look like really big mice or very short eared rabbits (They are sooo cute: http://images.google.com... ). The Pika one of the more ancient lagomorphs but not on the rodent side. In theory you could say they are kind of like Rabbit-Mice.

The reason this evidence is so convincing and doesn't work for an individual designer is that the rules are set in stone. After the divergence of the species branches you never ever see any species adopting the characteristics of the others.

* Mammals have hair, so you never ever see a reptile with hair, or a reptile expressing milk, or warm blooded reptiles. Hair, milk, warm-bloodedness are all very useful adaptations and yet do not jump branches.
* When animals evolved the same general strategy, we find they use completely different methods to achieve this. Bird wings are modified forelimbs, with the fingers being completely eliminated (we have some transitional fossils with small digits), whereas in bats the digits are the wings. Bird wings are arms. Bat wings are hands. In insects it's different and in pterosaurs (extinct) it's different still. In every case where non-birds fly modifications of the common body shape are all different whereas with birds every single bird uses the same general wing design. Moreover, this wing design holds true even for species of birds which don't fly. Penguins are aquatic and yet have well adapted wings for flight (they kind of fly underwater). Ostriches similarly have non-functional wings.
* Humans have a lower back better built for an animal running on all fours. This seems odd unless you realize that humans had ancestors which ran on all fours.
* All mammals have a poorly built eye with a blind spot and nerves and blood vessels running in front of the light detecting surface. Squid eyes don't have this problem.
* Shrimp can see polarized and phased light. Most animals including humans are polarized and phase blind.
* Pit vipers can see infrared. Humans can't.
* Bees can see ultraviolet. Humans can't.
* Humans use the same hole for eating, breathing and talking. This insures that some percent of the population will choke to death. Dolphins don't.

Gould noted that it isn't in the amazing designs of nature that you really see evolution in the perfections but rather in the imperfections. The jerryrigging and the nonsensical design which makes no sense unless you consider all the little ins and outs of its history. If you understand that evolution simply pushes species towards those variations which are more successful, it isn't going to always produce perfect adaptations but rather jerrybuilt designs remaking the wheel when the wheel is needed or changing the wheel into wing if variations towards that end survive better in the struggle of life.

* Theories can't be false. They can be wrong. They need to be shown to be wrong by the evidence.

* Eagles and humming birds are both members of the class Aves. They notably have feathers like some dinosaurs, but are actually quite distinct from each others. Fairly modern hummingbird fossils have been dated to 30 million years ago. If more than 30 million years is your definition of "microevolution" then you are tassedly admitting an acceptance that all the old world apes are easily the same species. Humans, gorillas, orangutans. In fact, it was only 18 million years ago that the greater and lesser apes split. So we'd be the same general kind as gibbons.

Your supposed disconnection between micro and macro evolution is wrong. There is no suggestion of any alternative mechanisms. The question is whether or not it is possible to walk 10 miles with the same mechanism you used to walk 10 feet. And though the distances may be greater. The underlying mechanisms remain the same. Those variations within species which allow that species to better exploit their niche and better survive in their way of survival (eagles hunting or humming birds drinking nectar) are the ones to have the most offspring and be similarly inclined. Through a continuation of this same mechanisms you get species diverging and changing and adapting. When we look back at the (quite literally) world of evidence we have for these changes we understand that them under the light of evolution, we can make sense of this very diverse group of facts. We can make astounding predictions about the history of organisms and with genetics we are finding all the DNA changes falls into rather specific trees and we can find DNA similarities between humans and yeast.

In the spirit of debate you could suppose that you could walk ten feet with feet but to go ten miles demands a spaceship and alien abduction. This is however silly and pointless. There's nothing special to explain about macroevolution. It is microevolution over long spans of time. There's no different mechanisms to establish. Looking at the entire fossil record and the entire diversity of life today as modified variations of previous forms explains all the questions we asked and more. There's no other mechanism nor is one needed.

* If your God designed all species on this planet he did a hell of a lot of work, redesigning everything on other branches of the tree of life and no reusing work there, while similarly reusing work within the same branch without fail. Oh, and designing things like the humans lower spine and panda's thumb implies that he isn't very smart.
* You suggest that there are various kinds and those kinds diversify. But if you look at the kinds you suppose those can be tracked back into their own tell-tale signs of diversification. Reptile, amphibians, and mammals all have the same basic skeletal structure with the same number of limbs and same number of digits in the same order and attached at the same places.

My estimation of the last common ancestor between the zebra and horse comes from a June 2006 paper published in Genomics. Walking With Beasts was produced in 2001 and the previous date given for the divergence was 4 million years ago, with the donkey earlier yet. The more recient picture due to new genetics evidence is that 2 million for the zebra/horse split and .9 MYA for the zebra/donkey split. -- This has nothing to do with being right or wrong but rather is a testament to the advances we are making due to genetic analysis and molecular clocking.
http://dx.doi.org...

* A cold climate was simply an example. New predators, extinction of other predators, new food sources, coevolution, etc are equally as adept at producing such changes.
* There was actually considerable debate as to whether panda was a bear or a raccoon. It has a number of very unbearlike features.
* What we see today as diversification of bears could be seen 60 million years from now as the diversification of the polar, grizzly and panda lineages of radically radiated species. 340 million years ago, the changes in very related species of tetrapods which would eventually become snakes and elephants would look like extremely slight microevolution within the tetrapod species.
* I know people who question speed of light and gravity (by the way neither of those equations actually related).
* The suggestion that one branch is going to jump to another branch is exactly what evolution predicts will never happen.
GodSands

Con

I am again fully aware that you believe that if micro evolution is watch-able you then would think that macro evolution is doable. Just like God, I would say and you even would say this universe but talking about earth is a creation, Like you I use the same belief system. That would it not be logical to say theres a creation (micro evolution) so there must be a creator (macro evolution). And that creator is God. Unlike you I consider to think there is a God is a belief. When really like God (actually I have felt His spirit in my room) but like God you can not see Him, hear Him, touch Him, smell Him or taste Him. You can neither sense macro evolution. You are implying logic to micro evolution but not to this creation. I am now thinking on writing a book on the Darwin Delusion. No only joking.

I know micro evolution happens by the variation of creatures with in the same species, over more though, if you were to prove macro evolution you would sticky need to allow me to witness a change between one species to another with in my life span. I could not care where. The fossil record shows no proof, you are implying the same logic but backwards. As how would you know if the dead, now fossilized creature ever had young? It is very payola to suggest that my faith is a belief and yours is not. Like the scorpion which according to evolutionist has not evolved for over 400 million years. You would need faith to say that a monkey or any creature would evolve as the scoping has not. And I am suggesting that instead of macro evolution occurring but instead micro evolution occurs over and over. In that with in a species there is always one which is the less able (as we are the observers we can point out which creature one is better and worse with in species) one and a better the more able one. Again there is the smallest monkey in the world the albino Pygmy Marmoset next to the Mandrill the largest monkey related to the baboon. It would be alot easier and safer to hunt the Pygmy Marmoset rather than the Mandrill since they are in packs up to 200. The weaker one the Pygmy Marmoset is more venerable since there is more dang ours. This weaker more venerable species of monkey is holding back the whole kingdom of monkeys, it is like a change reaction. Smaller breeds of creatures hold back the larger less venerable creatures. Therefore like our body temperature the animal kingdom uses the same technique. I also believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in which things decay and get less appealing. The same works in the animal kingdom where over periods of time with in the use of micro evolution species actually get worse and worse just like the panda thumb. The thumb may be growing smaller to an disadvantages. This panda bear may of ate much more bamboo in the past. Since pandas are rare, using a thumb to grabe bamboo may have been in full use. Now though as a pnad is a rare creature the hunt for bamboo to make houses, boats, torture, water wheels and there even a bikcal frame made from bamboo for good measure. Since bamboo is 99% of a pandas diet, there is no surprise that the panda would become a rare creature through adapting to it's main food source. Bamboo can disappear faster than a panda can adapt. This is just like micro evolution but creatures disimprove instead of improve. For example the saber tooth cat with large teeth since this cat there has never been a cat like that one. It is also a myteroy why it became exstict. Climate change apparently? Not really convincing when you have snow lepods.

The Pika is a member of the rabbit and hare family. Micro evolution has no intentions. But the creature will always remain he it's species. The pika has ears more like a hamster than a rabbit. Quote from wikipedia.com " The pika may look like a hamster, but is actually a cousin of the rabbit." So it is not a rabbit-mouse. But further down the page the Pika is recalled as hamster like. This still does not mean it is a hamster. Humans can act hamster like too. Pika's like just like rabbits exsreet then eat the waste, quote "to extract further nutrition, before producing the final, solid, fecal pellets." - wikipedia.com There are around 30 kinds/breeds of Pikas ranging from the Turkestan Red Pika to the Gansu Pika. Which belongs like rabbits and hares in the Ochotonidae family. The Pika is a type of Ochotonidae.

What you need to do is tell my how macro evolution can occur with out the use of millions of years. Pretend macro evolution is micro evolution. Explain macro evolution like you would with micro evolution. Could I make it more clearer. Macro evolution is not science but a mere belief. You do not debate over science but beliefs. This whole debate alone proves macro evolution is belief funded. Not science funded. Like me I would say God does exist, like you, would say macro evolution exists.

"Mammals have hair, so you never ever see a reptile with hair, or a reptile expressing milk, or warm blooded reptiles. Hair, milk, warm-bloodedness are all very useful adaptations and yet do not jump branches." Therefore there should be separate evolutionary trees for different species. Not clumped in one. Does not make sense. Where the branch on the evolutionary tree splits in two what is happening there? If you say "the same what is happening now in nature" Then why on the evolutionary tree does it not show continues split of branches on the tree? And why does the end of the branch end in a straight line. I do not understand how you believe macro evolution as on a real tree, the tree only produces it's own kind. You do not get a tree with another type of tree growing from it. The whole evolutionary tree is a flaw.

The pterosaurs meaning "winged lizard" is a lizard, there are flying bird, flying lizards and flying bats. Infact a flying mammals is called a bat, as the shape of a bat is used to fly, you can not get a flying pig. There is no limit to micro evolution. Example, not being able to fly will not allow a "say" penguin for having features. Infact again feathures are great insurlaters. Thats why there are feathered pillows, sofas...Etc. So to say a penguin is a full bird is very reasonable. The peak also as the penguin lives in a sea surrounded eviroment it would be logical to have a beak to nip up fish, and to browes through their feathures. How could a bird groom it's feathers with still having teeth? Grooming is very important as it keeps the bird hygienic. And even more importantly keeping the bird in the right condition to breed. I believe God has given animals the conscience to know weather or not a bird is in the right condition to breed, otherwise diseases would become more likely and finely killing off the species, similar to aids. As animals breed at a certain time of year, this would be a very lethal problem. Unlike humans we breed all year around so we can take one problem at a time. The half dinosaur half bird would have a tough time breeding. Macro evolution is simply a myth. Period! Saying penguins have yet to adapted wing for flight is possible, the bird will still be a penguin. I assume you are talking about the penguins which can not fly. Firstly the bird would need to loose weight (fat) but this will kill it off as fat keeps the bird warm. Since the bird lives in the coldest climate on earth why did it go there in the first place so why would it evolve wings to fly away? As you said the wings are there to swim and act like giant flippers. To lift them on the ice berg. With help of waves. "Ostriches similarly have non-functional wings." Yes does it mean if you have wings you need to use them, other wise you are evolving them? Like the penguin the wings may be used for balancing, as ostriches life on flat and wide open spaces the wings could be used to help curl up when sleeping. Wings are not only use for flying when you have a 6.5ft bird. Therefore being able to fly to survive is not needed.

I'll continue the demolistion next time.
Debate Round No. 3
Tatarize

Pro

* Gould did not argue against evolution, he argued varied interpretation.

To this effect I posted a video of Gould discussing his understanding of evolution and his interpretation of the theory.

* Evolution has significant concrete data supporting it.

To this effect I posted a fantastic link to http://toarchive.org... which has perhaps the best site on the subject providing the concrete data behind evolution. The growing massive understanding of genetics between different species would be more than enough to accept evolution even if we had no fossil evidence at all.

* Evolution is a robust theory which explains large tracts of data.

The arrangement, taxonomy, distribution, features, genetics, life cycles, and forms of all the different and diverse species of animals on the planet would be not understandable prior to natural selection. Darwin managed to explain the fossils being found, the distribution, taxonomy, and providing a robust mechanism for exactly how natural selection could occur. He managed to explain the entirety of the biological sciences in a single explanation. His explanation has not only explained the data of his day but it's the only thing that explains the data of our day. Understanding how and why all great apes including humans lack the gene GULO on their chromosome 8, whereas other mammals have it and don't suffer from scurvy, would be impossible if not for the understanding of evolution.

* I am not parroting what I think I know, I actually understand the theory.

I hope it should be apparent to the voters that I understand the theory in a very real way. That my understanding is not merely parroting of apologetics or cookie-cutter claims that I don't fully comprehend. To this effect there are a number of other debates I have conducted on the subject of evolution. I submit that these should also be used to determine whether or not I understand the theory.

I believe, and I hope the voters agree that I have met my burden. I have established the points I was to establish in the intro. Although, I had to walk a fine line between giving a good presentation of the theory and correcting the misunderstandings of Con. I think I have sufficed to establish what needed to be established. I will continue in that manner and correct more of my opponents misunderstandings from the last round.

Thank you for reading and doubly thank you for voting (if you're not voting for me you only get a single thank you).
Tatarize.

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

I don't know what possesses you to think this debate is about God. It isn't. I specifically didn't respond because I didn't think it was relevant before. God does not provide a mechanism for species are created. You conceded that evolution takes place in the short term but oddly question it in the long term. The suggestion is that given a little time you can get a little variation, but given a lot of time it's impossible to get a lot of variation.

Think of the taxonomy like an ancestor list. All species which are chordata are related to an ancestral chordata. All the tetrapods to an ancestral tetrapod. All the dinosaurs to an ancestral dinosaur. All the birds to an ancestral bird. Now, consider this. They all come from the same ancestral species. There was once one species of mammal and one species of reptile and the species were very closely related. They would look no more different than a grizzly bear looks to a black bear. It is only through the modifications over vast stretches of time that the species look completely dissimilar.

Think of an ostrich and a humming bird. They are both birds but vastly different species. However, there was once only one species of bird and slight amounts of variation within that species.

So while it's true that a monkey isn't going to become something other than monkey. The species might easily radiate 100 million years from now and have burrowing monkeys and grazing monkeys and flying monkeys and aquatic monkeys and monkeys the size of a houses lumbering through the forest. -- The fact that species don't jump between branches in the tree of life is a very specific and confirmed prediction of the theory of evolution.

You are spending your time being overly concerned over the amounts of variation found within the last 10 million years and the variations within the last 100 million.

We have witnessed within our lifetime infectious diseases becoming resistant to the antibiotics used to fight them. Evolving new genes which only serve to render our medicines useless. Entirely new species arise and entirely new genes evolve within our lifetime. The fossil and genetic evidence is insurmountable and improving and you're amazed that given 200 million years rather than 2 million we can have forms a hundred times more distinctive?

You are wrongly supposing that one species is converting to other, rather they are all the same species from the most humble of beginnings and radiate out to have a vast array of different lineages. The term species is actually really vague and fairly nebulous. Generally we use it to mean gene pool or genetically isolated population. We can cause speciation to occur within a number of generations and have done so repeated.

http://toarchive.org...

Further when one considers such phenomenon as ring species (where there's a consistent gradient of species around the planet or lake or similar area resulting in two different species in the same place which are the same species if you circle back around the ring to the intermediate species.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

* Fossils need not have had children to be fossils.
* Scorpions have evolved plenty as have have sharks and crocodiles.
* Of course the Mandrill is related to the Baboon. Oak trees are related to baboons.
* The monkey species are different species. They occupy their niche. There's is a greater monkey or lesser monkey and there's no such thing as holding back all the other monkeys.
* You don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* Adaptations do not decay over time.
* The saber tooth cat looks to have gone extinct due to a meteorite impact in Canada about 13,000 years ago according to a new and fairly impressive new proposal of what happened to the megafauna.
* Pika actually isn't part of the rabbit family. It has it's own grouping.
* Pikas are more related to rabbits than hamsters. Sharing a much more recent common ancestor.
* Pikas like rabbits are cecotrophs. Hamsters are however rodents characterized by their teeth rather than lagomorphs. The close relationship in behavior and appearance is due to their common ancestry and evolution.
* Pikas are part of the Ochotonidae family. Rabbits and hares are Leporidae family within the order Lagomorpha, they are not as you suggest Ochotonidae.
* Macroevolution is microevolution over longer periods of time. So rather than just a couple million years you are looking at tens of millions of years. The fossil record is fantastic for showing exactly these transitional forms of these no extinct common ancestors of the current forms. I can show you the common ancestors for mammals and reptiles. How is this a failure to properly provide evidence for evolution over the long term?
* There is one tree of life because there is common ancestors for all the species on the planet. Live birth is also characteristic of mammals but not all mammals as the monotremes lack this functionality as well as nipples and various other standard mammal adaptations.
* At the branching you have two very closely related species like the Red Pika and Gansu Pika. Only later do the variations mount.
* You say there's no limit to microevolution, except you impose one... it doesn't work over long periods of time. That you deem to be macroevolution and demand God be at the helm.
* Birds are dinosaurs. They are
GodSands

Con

You are quite right, I should have not included God. I was just making a comparison.

Just to make this clear, you mentioned large numbers several times (like millions of years, tens of millions of years) in this debate. To describe how a species adapts overall it is not convincing to people who only live 90 odd years. Therefore macro evolution I can not believe making it a belief. I personality rebuke the theory.

* Evolution is a robust theory which explains large tracts of data. Yes correct micro evolution does. You seem to not get that I think micro evolution is a scientific theory. But macro evolution is not. It has not been tested. Fossils do not proof macro evolution. "Fossils need not have had children to be fossils." I targeted this quote first, it was not what I was saying at all. Let me explain. You can not tell weather or not fossils have had any young at all. For all you know the fossil could have been the last of it's kind. Or the fossil could be the first of it's kind, fossils show no evidence towards macro evolution. Period!

Ask your self: What evidence does a child have towards Santa Claws? Presents in the morning? Does Santa Claws exist? Now I will put that in a macro evolutionary phrase. Now ask your self this: What evidence do you have towards macro evolution? Fossils found? Does macro evolution exist? That the fossils (presents)

Ask your self: As a child why is there a Christmas tree? To place presents underneath? (Think back to the tree of life)
You now know as a 26 year old that Santa Claws does not exist. You also know that the presents are from family not Santa Claws. And hopefully you are aware that the Christmas tree is there as a decoration . Ask your self: As a child why is there a Christmas tree? To place presents underneath? (Think back to the tree of life)

"where as other mammals have it and don't suffer from scurvy" Scurvy is caused by a large lack of vitium C. This was only desovered in the when explorers suffered from scurvy when travelling to places like the Arctic and played a large role in WW1. I believe that before the flood there was much more land rather than sea. Before the plane was built people used ships and boats to cross the sea. It would have taken much longer and tinned food was not meant to be stored for so long. Therefore because of the food, scurvy occurs when it is eaten. All diseases like scurvy have been caused by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which did not exist when God made the universe. As it says "And it was very good" is disease very good?

Saying a 100 million years is like saying Santa Claws can get to every house and spend a millionth of a second if he was to visit every home in the world.

That's a belief ladies and gentlemen.

"We have witnessed within our lifetime infectious diseases becoming resistant to the antibiotics used to fight them."
This may be true but it's like saying a giraffe with a longer neck can reach the remaining leaves were another giraffe can not reach and dies. This is no proof of macro evolution but only micro evolution. Can a cure for a disease help one have longer arms or a longer neck, stronger arms or stronger legs? And can one with longer arms or a longer neck, stronger arms or stronger legs cure a disease? Didn't think so.

"Scorpions have evolved plenty as have sharks and crocodiles." Yes but they are still scorpions, I agree with that. But no macro evolution has occurred even after an apparent 400 million years. So would you not need to believe that the creatures alive today will evolve to a completely different species. Example: Scorpion to small mammal like a rabbit.

"Of course the Mandrill is related to the Baboon. Oak trees are related to baboons." Yeah because God made them both. So what did the oak tree look like when haha sorry, when the baboon was closer related? We also share 50-60% DNA with bananas, were be once parshly a banana? Which would have been not a banana at the time. But still were we once partly plant? See how silly evolution is viewers.

"The monkey species are different species. They occupy their niche. There's is a greater monkey or lesser monkey and there's no such thing as holding back all the other monkeys" Ok I did go slightly crazy there. (over the top) So the lesser monkey then. It is down to them to keep up. Yeah I get that then. Other wise they will go extinct. Just proofs that most of the fossils are lesser breeds then. Not middle forms, I believe though in the Great flood. Sorry to say there is not macro evolution.

"The saber tooth cat looks to have gone extinct due to a meteorite impact in Canada about 13,000 years ago according to a new and fairly impressive new proposal of what happened to the megafauna." Just like the dinosaurs, I think someone is lying about the meteorites here. I know there's a big gap between 65 million years and 13,000 but the only disaster which has wiped out species was the flood. And that is the only disaster too where humans have been around and alive. No humans according to you were around 65 million years ago. And there is no record from the apparent humans about the meteorites 13,000 years ago. In till I see a meteorite in my life time I consider this again to be a belief. Not going to well for you is it?

"Pika actually isn't part of the rabbit family. It has it's own grouping" Then it is what it is, neither a rabbit or a mouse or hamster. It just another mammal.
"Pikas are more related to rabbits than hamsters." Yeah fine. I can not decide that.
"Sharing a much more recent common ancestor." No. It just looks more like a rabbit. That simple.
"Pikas like rabbits are cecotrophs." Yeah fine again.
"Hamsters are however rodents characterized by their teeth rather than lagomorphs. The close relationship in behavior and appearance is due to their common ancestry and evolution." No. They are just common looking. A mug and a cup look the same but there is no common ancestor. (there is no between cup/mug drinking item)
"Macroevolution is microevolution over longer periods of time." What like to scorpion? It is not like the scorpion has concerned all climates, but if it did would it change? Unlike dogs which have conserved all climates. Labradors and Huskies for example. There both dogs.
"The fossil record is fantastic for showing exactly these transitional forms" Like saying " my record of presents are fantastic for showing exactly what presents I may have this year." There is an amazing link going on between macro evolution and a 4 year old Christmas. If one is wrong both are. You know.
"There is one tree of life" Yeah only one Christmas tree too, for your presses.
"At the branching you have two very closely related species like the Red Pika and Gansu Pika." Would not the word closely not be close enough? I want you to tell me what happens at the very start of when the branches splits. Just as soon as the branches divide.

"You say there's no limit to microevolution, except you impose one... It doesn't work over long periods of time."
No it does work over long periods of time so it has no limits, you are getting the wrong analogy here. Example of a correct analogy: If one mows the lawn in two hours how long would it take if two men mow the lawn? One hour yes? Ok. Now a false analogy: If one plane crosses the English channel in two hours, two plane should be able to cross it in an hour. Right? No! Another example: If it is raining there must be clouds. There are clouds therefore it must be raining right? Wrong! Last example "If I am elected, I promise to reduce crime. I will reduce crime by making fewer things illegal." Like evolution. Micro evolution happens therefore so does Macro evolution. No this is not the case. Macro evolution is a false analogy. You may say "so you think." Yeah I do therefore macro evolution is a belief I think the Great flood happened about 4400 years ago.

Thanks you, note on what I've said.
Debate Round No. 4
255 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
"The Church fathers thought that yom mean thousands of years not days. Let's say that people wanted to say that God created the universe in an unspecified amount of days."

NO THEY DIDN'T!

There's every reason to suppose that yom doesn't refer to millions or billions of years, or even a thousand years, because it didn't. When left along it means a day. Sometimes when you give it a context like "days of our lives" or "days of yore" it works. But it doesn't say that. It says on the second day. Not, God was busy making plants for a little while.

The sacrifice is the truth. You're bending over backwards to accept something is true even while admitting everything it says is utterly stupid. I mean, this is even fairly small. The order is quite absurd. Birds being yanked out of the ocean, plants being made before the sun, the moon giving off light. You can't even set those into any viable periods of time if you could pick and choose what the word day actually means at each point.

You have the sensibility to try and square their beliefs with reality, but not enough sense to do so by accepting reality. It really does pollute the middle-ground. You're saying the Bible is true despite what it says.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 5 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
"There was absolutely no problem with this understanding until during the 20th century when it became very obvious that it was absolutely wrong."

The Church fathers thought that yom mean thousands of years not days. Let's say that people wanted to say that God created the universe in an unspecified amount of days. They had to choose yom, because yom means exactly that. Hebrew isn't diverse as English, but if it was so, you would had a point. If yom didn't mean a period of time, you would have a point. But since yom can mean a period of time, there is no problem believing that yom meant periods of time.

"Rather you're trying to say that it is magically perfect so long as none of the words mean what they are suppose to mean."

They do. Yom means unspecified amount of time. When you translate yom into English, you get day.

"There's no middleground with this kind of nonsenses. You'd rather sacrifice the meaning of words all together than admit that bronze aged primitives might have just been bored and made some stuff up."

There is no sacrifice. You're saying although X means A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H or I, it HAS TO MEAN A, which it non sequitur.
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
Context is important. Genesis is quite literally recounting the days of creation. There was absolutely no problem with this understanding until during the 20th century when it became very obvious that it was absolutely wrong. It's a creation myth. Creation myths are written exactly like that. "God does this, creates that. God does this other thing and makes that. God does this and makes this."

You're really trying to say that yom means general period even in the unbounded context. It's utterly silly to claim the Genesis account isn't what it so clearly is, the creation myth of a small tribe from the Middle East. Rather you're trying to say that it is magically perfect so long as none of the words mean what they are suppose to mean.

"And God or the consciousness of the Universe called or otherwise let it be known sometime in the future when people could right it down that the light was a period of time, and the darkness he or she called not a period of time. And the evening and the morning were the first general period of time." -- Amen.

There's no middleground with this kind of nonsenses. You'd rather sacrifice the meaning of words all together than admit that bronze aged primitives might have just been bored and made some stuff up.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 5 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
"That's exactly what I'm talking about. Yom actually means day, it's used over and over, it means a literally day. In some plural references like "the dog days of summer" or "all the days of his life" it's used to indicate some general stretches of time, but in context it means day as in 24 hours."

Yom literally means 24 hours OR a period of time. I made the statement that someone is gay. Is that person happy or homosexual?

"The fact that you can pitch that utter crap with a straight face should make you embarrassed."

No it shouldn't, prove that yom means 24 hours in the Bible. The fact that yom can mean a period of time rather than 24 hours gives options for interpretation.

"Yom" being translated as "the day of God's wrath" in Job 20:28 -- apparently referring to a period of time of indeterminate length. Similarly, when translated from Greek, 2 Corinthians 6:2 refers to "the day of salvation" -- again a time interval that is apparently not equal to 24 hours.

In fact, since Hebrew is not diverse, it can mean time, year, age, ago, always, season, chronicles, continually, ever, and evermore besides day.

http://www.answersincreation.org...

The fact that yom could mean day doesn't make it so when used. The fact that gay could mean happy doesn't make it so when used. The fact that X could mean A, B, C, D, E, F or G, doesn't make X means A.
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
Context? Really?

And when the context is "We'll have a gay ol' time." It could just mean that you'll have the time of an aged homosexual?

The context is that God is making stuff on this day and making stuff on this other day and then makes more stuff on the third day, on to the seventh day when he rested. You should rest on the Sabbath just as God did. -- You think that the interpretation is really up in the air on that?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Yom actually means day, it's used over and over, it means a literally day. In some plural references like "the dog days of summer" or "all the days of his life" it's used to indicate some general stretches of time, but in context it means day as in 24 hours.

http://www.blueletterbible.org...

The fact that you can pitch that utter crap with a straight face should make you embarrassed. Adding perfume to dung does not make for roses. There really isn't much room for interpretation. There are words used quite literally in literal contexts. Learn a little bit of Hebrew. You are actually uttering complete nonsense. GodSands is right to call you out for being wrong because you're being wrong and silly. Few things annoy me more than such gymnastics to salvage to utterly worthless.

Sure, you've thrown out the baby but you simply must keep the bath water.

It really is exactly as pathetic and wrong as GodSands claims. You are bending over backwards to try and make bronze aged scribblings fit properly with modern understandings, it's kind of sad.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 5 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
"Yom means a 24 hour day." Gay means happy. However in the context of gay I could be using could means lots of different things. A word can have more than one meaning and therefore interpretations of a word can be different.

"However the fact remains that the days in Genesis are clearly actually days."
False; yom means an unspecific amount of time too. I make the statement that someone is gay. This can mean that someone is homosexual OR happy.

I can also made the statement that I love you which can be interpreted in a huge number of ways.
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
No. Yom means a 24 hour day. The early church fathers were pretty strict with their interpretation of Genesis. The 1,000 years is an oddity of Peter and pretty grossly out of context. However the fact remains that the days in Genesis are clearly actually days. To make the boldfaced claim that it could me a day but doesn't because I don't want it to is completely and utterly silly.

Liberal interpretation of the Bible always seems like pouring perfume on dog poop. The traditional interpretation of the church is actually that of a 24 hour day because that's what the word means. The longer made up days are actually a fairly modern apologetic which happened to crop up about the time we realized the earth is many millions of years old.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 5 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
"Seriously, it's like endorsing all the idiotic bits of the Bible by way of half-truthed reinterpretations of utter poppycock."

Half-truths? Yom can mean 24-hours although it doesn't mean that in Genesis. Nearly all of the early church fathers believed that creation days were longer than 24 hours. If fact, most believed that creation days were 1,000 years long. So the the traditional interpretation of the church is NOT that creation days are 24 hours long.
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
Diablos, I gotta kinda agree with GodSands there. Those links are hella retarded. Seriously, it's like endorsing all the idiotic bits of the Bible by way of half-truthed reinterpretations of utter poppycock.

Fruit is good for you. The days weren't 24 hours. Blah, blah, blah... what a crock. It's exactly as retarded as GodSands says it is.
Posted by GodSands 5 years ago
GodSands
Meaning I will not relpy.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 4 years ago
Tatarize
TatarizeGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 4 years ago
philosphical
TatarizeGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 5 years ago
TFranklin62
TatarizeGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
TatarizeGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 5 years ago
resolutionsmasher
TatarizeGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by zach12 5 years ago
zach12
TatarizeGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
TatarizeGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 5 years ago
InquireTruth
TatarizeGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Metz 5 years ago
Metz
TatarizeGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by SixSigma 5 years ago
SixSigma
TatarizeGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70