God vs. Evolution
Debate Rounds (5)
I will reply on my second round.
Any source including opinion is valid.
No rude hateful comments but true hateful facts against not the opponent but the opponent's belief are allowed.
Voters: Choose not by opinion but by who ruled the vote.
Lordgrae: If I feel that I did not manage to say what I wished I can start a Part 2 of which you must accept!
No long tiresome speeches or pages of wiki. References stated by opponent must be checked by their opponent. All points must be stated when a competitor is rebutting. If you do not wish to state any rebuttal to that point you must say Forfeited rebutting - -.
Topic: Anything relating to Evolution vs. God - Creation, "inventors" of evolution etc.
Here are some definitions as provided by my Freshman Biology Textbook flashcards which I still have.
Species: Any group of organisms with the ability to produce fertile offspring among one another. (Note: This definition is not perfect, as group A might be able to reproduce with group B, but although group B can reproduce with group C, group A cannot) [-1]
Evolution: The scientific theory that explains how speciation occurs, and how simple life forms can turn into more complex life forms over time (Note: This requires several conditions to be met, which is why people believe humans do not continue to evolve. For a list, follow this link, which gives each in the first few pages, as well as detailed descriptions. )
Evolution does not necessarily oppose the idea of a deity. A great many people, even many Christians (such as Catholics) accept both god and evolution. As well, atheists (though underrepresented) have some number who do not accept evolution. Therefore, the entire premise of this debate is flawed. I simply happen to be both an atheist and a proponent of evolution. However, evolution does counter the idea of a creationist deity, and refutes an idea of biblical literalism.
Now, since evolution is the currently accepted as the best scientific model for how simple life forms like bacteria can change into the complex life forms we see today, an explanation necessary as there are fossil eras with no humans or any significant number of modern day species (some species stay relatively unchanged through the ages due to an environment that may stay stagnant. However this is not true for the majority of species). Here is a chart that shows that we have a large number of species that existed at one time, while modern day species only have existed for a relatively short period of time, making an explanation for how modern species came about from ancient species a necessity.
So, an explanation of species is a necessity, and I will show some evidences for evolution. I definitely do not have enough characters to go through all of them, so here is a Wikipedia page with the list of all of them, and a brief description. Note: This is not my evidence, but simply a compiled list. 
I will discuss some of the most important evidences that I feel are most compelling, and simple enough for someone to understand without years of education, which I, and most of us lack, because let's face it, evolution is not an easy concept to understand.
1. Vestigial structures
Vestigial structures are structures that are not necessary, but occur in our bodies. They are remnants of things that once had a use, but have long since become tied with a less significant use (or a placeholder, like the human tailbone, which now has a lot of 'wires' around it), only were used by certain branches of the ancestor who had it, or became completely useless. We each have many organs which are deemed useless, or even with our modern technology, we have not determined a use for. The appendix and the tonsils both have no uses that have been so far determined. Both are only significant in that sometimes we must remove them if they become inflamed or infected. There is an example of a non-sexual species, a specific type of lizard, that still atempts sexual reproduction even though they are all female and can produce offspring without males. The fossil records and DNA evidence suggests that they come from a sexual reproducing ancestor, and have not lost some of those sex drives, though the need for them is gone. Some whales still have leg bones from an ancestor of theirs, though they serve no purpose, as a whale has no hind legs. 
2. Observed speciation
Many times I am told that we have not observed evolution. This is simply not true. While yes, we have not seen a dog give birth to a cat, we have witnessed animals crossing the species line. Many times we have been able to create flies that are unable to reproduce with one another, and are therefore two different species. Another definition of evolution is simply a change in a species. If you have ever heard about all the different kinds a flu, and wondered why you have to keep getting different immunizations, evolution is to blame. Some of these are needed because new mutations arise, and are resistant to the previous drugs that we used, or changed enough so that the previous immunizations no longer affected it. Leprosy was treated at one point with a drug called Dapsone. However, it evolved to become resistant to this treatment, and we had to develop other cures. Our understanding of how the species of Leprosy reacted and changed has helped us treat Leprosy and many other diseases that have become resistant.
Now, I am certain you wonder how minor changes or flies or salamanders failing to reproduce with one another affect actual change in kinds. Take minor changes, as in, tail getting shorter, or head growing bigger, and allow those changes to affect over millions of years. These changes will be massive. Significant changes over long periods of time will only affect in small ways in a short period of time. I think Richard Dawkins explained this well in his book, The Magic of Reality. Imagine you took pictures of all your parents for all the time that life existed on earth. your great x (I don't know the number) grandparents. at one end, and you at the other. If you take out pictures next to each other, or even near, the minor differences will be overshadowed by individual differences. Even a few thousand years, and you will notice only small species change. If you look back far enough, you will start to seem major differences.  
Unfortunately, I do not have the characters to talk about fossil records or genetics, two of the strongest evidences for evolution. I felt like they were less important, as those need the least explaining, and they are the most evident.
Now, I would like to discuss the difference between scientific theory, scientific law, scientific model, and a normal theory. Now a normal theory is nothing more then a guess. It is a synonym for a hunch or a hypothesis. However, a scientific theory is one that is similar to scientific fact. Scientific fact doesn't really exist, as there is nothing we can be 100% sure about. All we can say is that all evidence we have points to it, and it is the most likely answer that we currently have. Gravity is a law and a theory, and evolution is a theory. A theory in the scientific sense, is no different from a law, except that a theory is still accepting new evidences. A scientific theory is not absolute. We are still learning more about evolution, and as the period of observation we have increases, so does our observational evidence. And it still changes. While evolution is regarded as close to fact as anything can be by the vast majority of the scientific community, there are still internal debates. Some debate rages over certain ancestral chains, the properties of missing fossils that have yet to be discovered, and whether natural selection plays the largest role, or whether other factors are important as well. The scientific theory of evolution, is rarely debated as a whole by the scientific community, though internal debates are common.
 The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins (no exact quotes used)
Proof that a species ever evolved?
The earth cannot be old: The sea would be too salty. And Clown fish? how did they "evolve" to resist the sting of the sea anemones ? The first families would have been extinct?
Me personally? No. I don't observe species myself. Why would that matter? Have you ever visited outer space? I guess that's proof that you might be able to breathe in outer space.
"Proof that a species ever evolved?"
Well, this was taken from a debate with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort (I forgot the evolutionist debaters. There was one guy and a red-haired woman. This quote is from the guy), but "how can you not walk a mile, taking one step at a time?" We see minor changes in a species over time, or minor speciation or change, and when you apply that to millions of years of potential change, that gives you massive amounts of change.
Anyway, the fossil record is very interesting. It is interesting in that we never seem to see human skulls next to the skeletons of Dinosaurs. If the flood is really what killed all the ancient creatures, then we would see all the fossils next to each other, however we see a nice chain of fossils that get more and more similar to modern creatures the closer to the surface you get. Not only that, but we have shared DNA with creatures that have recent ancestors that look similar to ours. The closer we find an ancestor that has a match with both species in fossils, we find that the species has DNA similar to ours, less similar to the species with a more recently shared ancestor, and more similar to one with a more ancient ancestor.
"The earth cannot be old: The sea would be too salty."
You failed to explain this one, so I actually had to go look up this argument myself, and I will try to refute the unintelligible argument made by creationist.com. Here is a more condensed version of the argument taken from another source.
'Amount of salt in the sea. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the earth is radically less also.'
Basically, the rate of salt in the sea in not increasing at a constant rate. It sometimes decreases, and increases, as water is removed from the sea and re-added at differing rates (without the salt), and sometimes removes more or less salt with it. 
" And Clown fish? how did they "evolve" to resist the sting of the sea anemones ? The first families would have been extinct?"
This is actual a process of mutual evolution. It is where two species evolve to form a better codependent symbiosis. Now here is a possible explanation, because I do not know what the actual process was. You had the ancestor of clown fish and the ancestor of Anemone were both 'normal', as in, neither had either a poison sting or resistance to it. The sea anemone either had the gene for poison sting, or it suddenly occurred from mutation, in a small amount. The small poison sting made the few with that gene better at surviving, because they were less likely to be eaten, so the property spread. Through mutation and genetic shift, the poison got even better and stronger. The fish had some small resistance to the poison already, and the few with the gene became the majority of the population, because the resistance was beneficial, it spread and became better. The other animals that may have eaten the anemone had other food sources, and thus any small resistance would have been unnecessary. That is one possible explanation.
 http://rationalwiki.org... (reason number 40)
 McIntyre, K. and Schrag, D.P. The Salinity, Temperature, and delta 18O of the Glacial Deep OceanScience, vol. 298, no. 5599, p.1769 (2002)
I cede conduct points, but I hope you actually put forth an intelligent and intelligible argument, and actually explain your arguments so I don't have to look up the explanation myself. I will not do that again, and I will simply demand that you re-explain yourself. All you have shown is your complete ignorance on this subject.
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3
Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.
Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4
The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.
With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:
And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5
Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:
The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6
Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!
Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.
No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18
The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.
Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?
Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.
The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).
-The Scientific Case Against Evolution
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
I think you have once again misunderstand evolution. Evolution does not always lead to a more advanced life form, and it is not always in affect. If an environment changes little, the species might not change either. The change however, is not always simple to complex. Yes, over long periods of time simple processes may become more complex, and they did not start as complex, but evolution will simply move a species towards a form better fit for its environment. Let's say you have a tree who's fruit hangs high. On the ground, you have a species that jumps for its food, which are on slightly lower hanging trees. One day, a member is born with slightly better jumping genes, or perhaps it was a beneficial mutation. This member can now get an entire new food supply, so his likelyhood of surviving increases, and the species will slowly become better at jumping. Is that more complex? Not necessarily. The species just became better for its environment.
And EVERYTHING is a transitional form. There is no end result to evolution. As long as natural selection can take place, as well as some of the other conditions I linked to in round 1 occur, species will continue to change.
"Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there."
Well, many species simply go extinct. Even without human interaction, if an environment changes too fast for a species to adapt, or an illness that too few, or no, members have resistance to enters, the species will die instead of adapting or becoming resistant. There is also mass extinction like the dinosaurs. Plus, our fossil record is not complete. We do not possess every animal in fossil form. That is why we have something called 'missing links'. However, we do have some chains partially or mostly completed, such as more recent ones like our own. 
And I think that you are forgetting something important. Evolution predicted that we would find these fossils. When Darwin published his findings in the Galapagos and other places, it made many predictions., because that is what a scientific model should do. If evolution was true, we would see a rich fossil record, a genetic hierarchy of creatures said to be more closely related sharing more DNA. Both of these turned out to be true. Yes we are still missing fossils, and our technology in the field of genetics is not perfect as of yet, but the fact remains that the model of evolution has predicted these things.
"With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:
And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5
Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:
The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6"
*******Okay, this is ridiculous. You are not even on topic here. The origin of life is not a topic covered by evolution. I am running out of characters, so I will not argue against this. ********
The second law of thermodynamics is unrelated to the topic of evolution. Even if you accept your adulterated misunderstanding of the concept, if it is a slow enough process, you would not notice it, and it would not affect this place quickly enough. Entropy is simply stating that matter will tend towards a disordered state (like a fast moving gas), and require energy or force to put it in a ordered state, such as a crystal structure at 0 degrees Kelvin (This situation has an entropy of 0)
Complexity and order have little to do with each other. A black hole is complex, yet it is highly disordered. Especially not evolutionary complexity, which has little to do with the order and energy of molecules, which complexity in the entropy sense refers to. Again you have shown little understanding of science.
I love flashing the authority card with your Ph.d It is sooo funny. You know how many Ph.d papers I could find in favor of evolution? I think the words I was looking for was 'a lot'.
And irreducible complexity is imbecilic. Pretty much every structure in the body can function with only a few of the parts. Can it function as well? No, of course not. I have a question for you though. Why does the eye flip the image multiple times? Why not just the bare minimum to get it to be upright? Evolution says this is because it evolved from a simpler form, and it was easier for the system to add new parts rather than to change old parts. Why do we have vestigial structures? Why do rabbits have to digest their food twice? Evolution says that we have things like these because they were never harmful. Since they were never detrimental, even the inefficiency of having them was never bad enough that a mutation of not having them would have widely spread. There was never a need to get rid of the tonsil. The rabbit could deal with digesting twice.
I do not have a lot of space left, so I will use my remaining characters to talk about a false Dichotomy. My opponent, who has failed to argue his own position, and only argues against mine, seems to think that it is either evolution, or the Christian god. I explained why evolution is not against god in round 1, but this is false in another sense. There are many thousands of gods that humans have worshiped over the years. So even if creation is true (which my opponent has not argued for as of yet), how is my opponent certain it is his idea of creation. And evolution is only the leading scientific model best explaining and predicting the evidence we have. It could be dis-proven tomorrow, though that is unlikely. (it would take soooo little to disprove evolution, yet it has not happened. A fossil in the wrong spot, a gene that just doesn't match up) Even if it were disproven, there could be other models that match our current understanding well, (though evolution is currently the best. Much like our current model of gravity best explains our observations) and fit the new evidence. So just trying to knock down my position means nothing.
You must fight for your own position.
If my opponent fails to do this, then he cedes any claim to points in the category of most convincing arguments. Though the points would not necessarily go to me, they would not go to him.
So I have one more thing to put out there. Warning: This does NOT mean that I cannot rebut any of your comments but rather that I have not time to type an answer as it is Easter Sunday and I am busy.
The earths Magnetic Field -
The Dynamo Theory is ultimately incorrect and has many faults.
The Rapid Decay Theory - If you use the Rapid Decay Theory to predict what the magnetic field was like in the earth's past, you find that the earth had to be formed less than 10,000 years ago. Otherwise, the electrical current necessary to sustain the magnetic field would have been so large that it would cause the earth to explode! Thus, since the rapid decay theory assumes that a world-wide, cataclysmic event such as Noah's Flood occurred sometime in earth's past, and since the rapid decay theory concludes that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old, most geologists reject it. They reject it despite the fact that it is the only theory consistent with all of the data collected.
Back to the Clown Fish - If the Sea Anemone did not sting, then it too would be extinct as many fish would eat it before it could grow again. . .
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Whatever then. I understand, you'll get better I'm sure.
"So I have one more thing to put out there. Warning: This does NOT mean that I cannot rebut any of your comments but rather that I have not time to type an answer as it is Easter Sunday and I am busy."
I understand. I only had an hour to post one of my rounds because of a Passover Seder. I'm not a practicing Jew, but I am a minor, my family is Jewish and I consider myself a cultural Jew.
"The earths Magnetic Field -
The Dynamo Theory is ultimately incorrect and has many faults.
The Rapid Decay Theory - If you use the Rapid Decay Theory to predict what the magnetic field was like in the earth's past, you find that the earth had to be formed less than 10,000 years ago. Otherwise, the electrical current necessary to sustain the magnetic field would have been so large that it would cause the earth to explode! Thus, since the rapid decay theory assumes that a world-wide, cataclysmic event such as Noah's Flood occurred sometime in earth's past, and since the rapid decay theory concludes that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old, most geologists reject it. They reject it despite the fact that it is the only theory consistent with all of the data collected."
The problem with only using data we've collected is that we can't observe over long periods of time. The problem is, Noah's flood model simply does not reflect the data seen.
How could Noah's arc hold that many animals? With its dimensions, even just holding 'kinds', and excluding fish and birds from the boat and assuming they take no room or food, there still would not be enough room for most of the animals, even excluding their food.
And big cats need quite a bit of space, as they are very territorial animals, and will refuse to share it with other cats, even sometimes females. And that's just the cats.
But even if you think that god changed their mental states so you can just shove them in with no room for exercise for years, you still have one problem. Speciation and species distribution. If you watched the Ken Ham debates, Bill Nye explained that evolution would have to happen much more rapidly then scientists think it is if the 'kinds' on the arc theory were true. We would be seeing new species every day, and not just small difference in species that just can't mate, but species with significant differences. Evolution just doesn't happen that much. And how did non-aquatic species or non-flying species reach places like Malaysia, Japan, the Americas, the UK, Madagascar, Philippines, the Caribbean. And yes every once in a while, a small amount of a species will be on a log and wash up on the shore of a island and proliferate. Or birds will get swept out far more then they could fly by a storm. But are we to believe that bears could have gotten to North America? And why did none of the animals that are found in obscure places in the world, like Australia or Antarctica, stop and settle instead of making the arduous journey? Surely there were places almost as hospitable to the Penguin in Russia, or on some southern isle, why did none of them stop there?
And the fossil record is way off. If the flood were true, we would just find fossils scattered, perhaps in many layers, but most likely in one, with complete randomness. Instead, we find fossils that almost all the time are in one layer of earth, and other fossils that are pretty much always in another layer of earth.
This is why any scientific model that requires Noah's flood to be true would be rejected outright. The flood model simply does not match up with our current evidence, and has failed to predict evidences. Evolution has.
Back to the Clown Fish - If the Sea Anemone did not sting, then it too would be extinct as many fish would eat it before it could grow again. . ."
No, not necessarily. There are other foods for animals, and it only takes a small amount of sting to convince a predator that it isn't worth eating. Not all the sea anemones would be eaten, and those that developed the sting would slowly become the majority of those that were not eaten. Many plants survive today with little to no protection, but they live, simply by sheer numbers propagating their survival.
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils." Such fossils are found all over the world. They usually consist of fossil trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4 They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. 3, Sometimes they are oblique in relation to the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular to it. For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of these are from 10-20 feet long, 5,6 and, at least one was 40 feet long. 5,6,7
Very few of these upright fossil trees have attached roots, and only about 1 in 50 8 have both roots and rootlets attached. Such trees, and their -- more often than not -- missing roots, are discussed in detail in The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia. 9 Likewise many, if not most, of the large, fragmented, and broken-off Stigmaria roots are also missing their rootlets. In fact, that's how such "stigmaria" roots got their name: i.e. because of their broken off -- and/or missing -- rootlets. 9
Many of these roots and rootlets, are also buried individually. 9 Thus virtually proving that they were not buried "in place" where they grew (or "in situ"), but rather were uprooted and re-buried where they are now found.
Similar circumstances occur at various other places in Nova Scotia, as well as in the United States, England, Germany, and France. Another place where large tree stumps are preserved without their roots attached is Axel Heiberg 10,11 Island in Northern Canada. -The Age of the Earth: Part Four
Please have a look at this site (I do not have enough space for it all!) -
Secondly - I advise you to watch The Mysterious Islands. Please try get hold of it. It will explain more clearly.
I am not saying that animals don't change, they certainly will ADAPT to their environment. Something God programmed into them. But not one species EVER becomes another. I wish for proof!
Thirdly - You did not reply to my comment so I must take space to put them here:
Evolution is racism, it is Hitler. Hitler tried to fulfill what he believed Evolution asked him to do. He tried to wipe out the "undeveloped".
It is impossible to believe in God and in evolution. If one believes in God ( I talk of the One true God, Jesus Christ who rose from the dead) then one would believe in the Bible. The Bible strictly says that God created Heaven and Earth.
If anything was found against Evolution I KNOW that the word would never get out.
Even is evolution was proved wrong with facts (which it is) the world would not acknowledge it. Humans are too stubborn, too self-willed. They do not want to submit to any authority, God or man.
Remember that time when you kicked and screamed for food? That time when you spoke back to your 6th Grade teacher? That time you just HAD to cross that red stop-light when no one was looking? That time you just needed to Google something wrong? I admit, I too have done this. But I am free in Jesus Christ and with Him I will live forever and ever. He died for me. It's like some one taking your crime that is unforgivable onto himself, and you reject him.
Remember, I too have sinned but I am free because Jesus Christ our Lord died for me and rose again after the third day.
Fourthly and lastly - Sea anemones are not plants >.< They eat! They are animals!!!
"One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils." Such fossils are found all over the world...(I need the characters).., Many of these are from 10-20 feet long, 5,6 and, at least one was 40 feet long. 5,6,7"
First off, coal takes a long time to form. Millions of years in fact.
Secondly, natural disasters occur regularly. Volcano ash, or just a regular stratovolcano, or perhaps a flood (minor. They do happen you know) could cause a period of rapid fossilization followed by normal fossilization and sediment piling up. The process would still take millions of years before the trees were buried, and the trees never seem to start (from the examples I have seen) to layers lower then where we have dated them. Same with fossils. They appear in a nice, neat order that wouldn't be found if all of those species died at the same time. If they all died at the same time, they would be all mixed up, with sabre-tooth tigers sitting next to t-rex who are partying it up with a Homo Habilus. The only difference is, they cross several layers because they are taller.
"Many of these roots and rootlets, ........., but rather were uprooted and re-buried where they are now found."
Well, there are numerous explanations. Again, minor floods do occur from time to time. the earth shifts too, and there are numerous minor factors that could influence this. And this is similar with fossils. It is rare for us to actually get a complete fossil. Many times, complete skeletons that you may see in museums, while are often plaster casts of the real things in the first place, have replacements, who's design and dimensions are based off of the same parts that weren't missing from other fossils of the same animal, re-sized to complete 1. So I fail to see why this is significant.
"Secondly - I advise you to watch The Mysterious Islands. Please try get hold of it. It will explain more clearly.
...Something God programmed into them. But not one species EVER becomes another. I wish for proof!"
Well, I think you fail to understand species. A species is defined as a set of creatures that can create fertile offspring with one another. Well, a horse and a donkey can mate, but mules are not fertile animals, so they are separate species. However, there are often times where species A is similar enough to species B to produce fertile offspring, and species B is also similar enough to have fertile offspring with species C, but species A and C cannot. So the definition of species is somewhat flawed already, but i will give you examples of changes in species.
Not all of these are species changes, in fact, most of them aren't. However, over long periods of time, minor changes that we observe in 20-30 years can amount to significant changes. Think of it this way. You grow from a baby into an adult. If you took a photo of you at 4 and you at 30, you would see significant differences. The same can be said of Australiopithicus Africanus and us. However, if you took a picture on your fourth birthday, then another a week later, you probably wouldn't see any differences, and any small changes in height and maturity would be overshadowed by fluctuation in your health and mood day to day. The same for species. They are always changing, though just looking at parents to children, and small genetic shifts will be overlooked for individual differences. You only grow (or evolve) a little every day, but multiply that by 20 years (billions) and you will see significant growth.
And I know you want to see a lion change into something else, but a lion has relatively long pre-maturity life span, is small in number and produces few offspring. So change will take much longer than that of bacteria.
"Evolution is racism, it is Hitler. Hitler tried to fulfill what he believed Evolution asked him to do. He tried to wipe out the "undeveloped"."
I wanted to spare you from having to break Godwin's law.
Hitler was a committed Christian who did accept evolution. However, he used something called Eugenics, which is a racist misapplication of evolution. Eugenics is the study of races, and often tries to prove that one race is superior. However, modern genetics and evolutionary study tells us that we are incredibly similar. Since a black man and an asian woman or a asian man and a white woman can make a fertile child more often then not, we are one species. the differences in our genetic codes between me and a black person are no different between someone with more distant European ancestry then me. There will be some small differences in the races, like black people may have more people who are tall and Jews have more susceptibility to certain diseases, and these trends prevail because of racial 'incest' over long periods of time. However, about 99.7% of all human DNA is the same. Obviously those with more similar ancestry will have slightly more shared genes, but it is so minimal.
This is an emotional argument. As someone with Eastern European Jewish ancestry, I do a facepalm to this argument, and I do feel some anger that you would try such an emotionalistic approach. If someone killed 2 people because 1 + 1 = 2, would that make it wrong? No. Not saying Eugenics was right, but just because someone does something bad over a belief doesn't make it wrong, unless good deeds are inherent to that belief.
"It is impossible to believe in God and in evolution. If one believes in God... then one would believe in the Bible. The Bible strictly says that God created Heaven and Earth."
That's for biblical literalists. You just used a No True Scotsman fallacy. People believe different things, even withing Christianity. there are over 10,000 denominations, all with different beliefs.
"If anything was found against Evolution I KNOW that the word would never get out."
Well, scientists would be interested in disproving evolution. Since they used it to help medical technology (understanding bacterial evolution to ward off treatments), they would be interested in proving it false, and finding better ways to save lives.
"Even is evolution was proved wrong with facts (which it is) the world would not acknowledge it. Humans are too stubborn, too self-willed. They do not want to submit to any authority, God or man."
That's not true at all. People have craved dictators. Stalin is still revered in some places. Hitler and Lenin and Mao all had the people's support coming into power. And the vast majority of the world is religious. The vast majority of the atheist population is declining, because they had atheism forced on them, and the rise in atheism is no longer part of communism, but an intellectual western movement.
"Remember that time when you kicked and screamed for food?... I admit, I have done this. ...He died for me. It's like some one taking your crime ... onto himself, and you reject him."
Well, this is intellectually bankrupt. It is just a claim, nothing else. It appeals to emotions, and has no evidence.
"Remember, I too have sinned but I am free because Jesus Christ our Lord died for me and rose again after the third day."
Again, where is the evidence?
"Lastly - Sea anemones are not plants. They eat! They are animals!!!"
Fine. I concede that.
 http://en.wikipedia.org... (I chose Wikipedia because they explain it well. They cite their own sources)
My opponent, in a single round has committed 4 logical fallacies.
1. Godwin's law, using Hitler when Hitler is not relevant to the discussion.
2. Appeal to emotions
3. The No True Scotsman fallacy
Vote for me. Good job on your first debate
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 2 years 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:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was rude so pro lost the conduct point. Equating evolution with "Hitler" shows an incredible amount of ignorance on her part. She also claims that because Con has never observed evolution and speciation happen, that he is wrong to assert that it is true. Con qualified his support of evolution to show that there are different schools of thought on the topic, but even then he did reference sources to show that there is quite a bit of evidence for it. Con successfully defended the theory of evolution in 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.