Is Evolution a Viable Theory?
So, to begin, I will lay out my platform.
1. I believe that an All-Powerful being (God) created the universe, and that his words (The Bible) clearly show a 6-day creation in which God created the universe and everything that is in it.
2. Evolution is not a Viable Theory for the following reasons:
A. There is no evidence of Cosmic Evolution (Origin of universe as a whole)
B. There is no Evidence for Stellar Evolution (Origin of Planets and stars)
C. There is no evidence for Macro Evolution (Transformation of one species into a distinct and separate species)
D. A, B, and C are all required for the theory of evolution to have occurred, so my opponent must either PROVE ALL 3, or he/she will have proved NOTHING.
I CHALLENGE MY OPPENENT TO:
1. Prove (Not just explain with a series of "what if's") how life originated from non-living matter. This has never been observed, so I would like my opponent to ALSO explain how then this part of evolution could be considered science since science is defined as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
2. Explain how the "Big Bang" occurred. (And furthermore PROVE it's occurrence in accordance with the definition of science)
3. Prove the existence of Macro-evolution. NOT Variations within a species, as variations within a species does not count toward Macro Evolution.
Let us refrain from, insults, name-calling, cussing, and/or rude behavior so that this can be an enjoyable debate.
Don't forget to have fun!!!
Hello, I accept this debate, I wish my opponent good luck and I hope it shall be an interesting debate.
I'm not exactly sure whether this round is meant for acceptance or not, but as you've laid out a platform I shall start.
I find it highly ironic that my opponent would lay the burden of proof on pro considering he claims that god created the world in 6 days 6000 years ago, that there was a flood ect. And I can bet you that my opponent will not be able to support his claims. Scientists on the other hand use hard evidence and experimentation to prove their findings, so it would be silly to say that someone couldn't prove that evolution isn't a viable theory when 1) it obviously is, and 2) my opponent can't support their own claims. But for the sake of debate, I will do what my opponent asks anyway.
You make a statement that there is no evidence of cosmic, stellar and macro evolution. Firstly, there is evidence for cosmic evolution. Edwin Hubble (one of the greatest astronomers of all time) discovered that the stars were moving away from eachother, and so deduced from this that the universe was expanding from something. All he had to do was turn back the clock and see what could have happened at the start; which is the big bang.
As for stellar evolution, a star is created when a giant cloud collapses in on itself, and the star will keep burning until it runs out of fuel at which point it will collapse and go supernova. Evidence for stellar evolution is found through calculations and the fact that we can actually observe a supernova.
Finally, macro evolution. There is mountains of evidence for species forming another. If you look at bacteria, which are the first stages of life; you will find that the bacteria's DNA and all of the DNAs of every animal on this planet have similarities, from this we deduce that we all came from the same origin and all exist in the same tree. You can also observe fossils, which excuse me for saying: are older than 6000 years, also are completely in place with the evolutionary tree. It was proposed by Charles Darwin (A famous evolutionist) that if one fossil was found out of place, the theory would go out the window, but it hasn't.
You ask me to prove how life originated from non-living matter. Firstly, lets take a look at your definition which is false. Science is actually a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Note the word "predictions". So no, we can't observe or experiment with a large amount of the things I claim, but we can predict. We know that evolution took place as soon as the first self-replicating molecules were created. We do not know how, or when they were created but we can predict that it happened.
I think that I've done my part to prove evolution. I now ask you to not only present your arguments against my case, but to present arguments for your extraordinary claims. And honestly; if you even present a shred of hard evidence for your claims, I will convert to Christianity right here and now without hesitation.
Ps: If this round was meant for acceptance I will gladly leave the last round blank.
Thanks for accepting this debate! It is no problem that you've used the first round to lay out your platform. I was hoping that you would do so!
Indeed, in this debate, I have laid much of the burden of proof on Pro. The question was: "Is Evolution a viable theory?", I am Con, therefore by logic the burden of proof is on Pro to prove that evolution is a viable theory, and myself to prove that it is not. It is not my responsibility (within this debate) to prove my personal beliefs about the Bible. That part of my platform was only noted so that my opponent may better understand from where I come from. I will not address within this debate the creation story, the flood, ect. because that is simply not part of the topic of "Is Evolution a Viable Theory?". If someone would like to debate that, then create a debate and challenge me to it, and we could go from there.
My opponent says:
"There is evidence for cosmic evolution. Edwin Hubble (one of the greatest astronomers of all time) discovered that the stars were moving away from eachother, and so deduced from this that the universe was expanding from something. All he had to do was turn back the clock and see what could have happened at the start; which is the big bang."
What my opponent probably does not realize is that he is using what is called the "Appeal to authority" Logical Fallacy. This fallacy essensially states that my opponent does not have the actual evidence himself, and is instead relying on the works of someone else (Edwin Hubble) to make his claims. Let us look at the facts behind what scientists call the "Metric Expansion of space" (MEOS from hensforth). The Core concept behind MEOS is that mankind can measure the distance between stars, this idea is flawed in itself.
There are only two ways that I know of to "Measure distance to stars". The first is some basic trigonometry, and the other is Redshift. You'll see scientists gloating over thier success in these areas, but let's look at the theories themselves, then we can talk about whether or not they're viable.
REDSHIFT basically states that we can measure the distance between stars based off the light that's coming off of one (and the color of it). This is flawed for two reasons:
A. We don't even know what light is. Scientists can't even agree on whether or not it is a proton or a wave. The speed of light is even debated on whether or not it's constant. So to say that measuring light is an exact science is not true, because we havn't even made up our minds as to WHAT IT IS in the first place, much less how much distance it has traveled.
B. The only thing we can observe is stars becoming brighter or dimmer (and slight changes in color). Who's to say that there wasn't interpherance moving in/off, like space dust?
TRIGONOMETRY is also used to "Measure the distance". Using the planet on oposite sides of the sun (which equates to an assumed distance of 8 light minuites), scientists claim to be able to tell the distance of stars. They claim that the closest star is 4.24 light years. Let's look at the math behind that.
Minutes in a a light year: 525600
Minutes in 4.24 light years: 2,228,544
8 : 2,228,544
That is an EXTEREMELY long trianle with an exteremly small base, and even the great advancements in technology that allow us to measure small angles, there is a point at which not even we can measure. We cannot measure the distance to stars with a degree of accuracy strong enough for us to say that the universe is expanding. (and even if it was expanding, a creationist, like myself, would bring up the fact that a God could simply have made the universe to expand).
There is a nice story behind what "scientists" call "Stellar Evolution". They believe that they have figured the universe out, however, i must point out as an intellegent person: what are they basing thier reasearch off of? Mankind has NEVER witnessed a star form in our entire existance, and i challenge my opponent to show me a star that we have observed form. Really, they have no idea how a star forms, because they have never observed a star form. They can speculate as to how a star would form, but that's all it is: Speculation.
Yes, supernova's occur, but how does this Prove Stellar Evolution? I fail to see the connection.
So, overall in this area, I challenge my opponent to bring forth PROOF of stellar Evolution, scientists can give a whole lot of fancy numbers, nice stories, and what if's. Until we see a star form, stellar evolution is only a story with lot's of exact numbers to wow people's minds (exact numbers that I don't know how they get). How then, can we consider this apart of a viable theory?
My opponent has said:
"Finally, macro evolution. There is mountains of evidence for species forming another. If you look at bacteria, which are the first stages of life; you will find that the bacteria's DNA and all of the DNAs of every animal on this planet have similarities, from this we deduce that we all came from the same origin and all exist in the same tree. You can also observe fossils, which excuse me for saying: are older than 6000 years, also are completely in place with the evolutionary tree. It was proposed by Charles Darwin (A famous evolutionist) that if one fossil was found out of place, the theory would go out the window, but it hasn't."
1. Bacteria exist -> DNA exists -> DNA is similar in many (distinct) species -> Therefore, we all came from a single life form.
WHAT??? My opponent took facts (Bacteria exists, DNA exists, DNA is similar in many species) and made the HUGE leap of logic to conclude that we have a common ansestory, the ONLY thing the facts PROVE is that DNA is similar in structure in many species (which, by the way, could just as easily point to a designer).
As for fossils, you claim (without supporting evidence) that fossils are older than 6000 years. I would like to see your proof of this statement. Let me guess. . .Carbon Dating? Some form of Radiometric Dating?
As for the refrence to the "Geologic column" and the "Evolutionary tree", it is always fun to point out that both are missing billions of intermediary fossils (a classic argument that could go on for hours). Fossils that just don't exist. The only fossils we find are from distinct species.
( And more on a sidenote, it is also fun to point out that a worldwide flood would have layered the earth's sediment layers in very little time (denser materials would fall to the ground faster than less dense materials, thus sorting the earth into layers (which is what modern-day scientists call the "geologic column" )
In conclusion, I state that my opponent has not proved ANY of the three statements, and instead relied on appeals to authority and a series of speculations.
Scientists SPECULATE that a big bang could have occured (Never been observed, no one was there!)
Scientists SPECULATE on how a star could form (Never been observed)
Scientists SPECULATE that a distinct species could somehow turn into a completely diffrent species (long ago and far away, of course)
We can PROVE that DNA structures are similar (we can observe DNA) (common designer)
We can PROVE that life is very complicated. (Observed) (intellegent designer)
We can PROVE that species produce after thier kind (Observed [dogs make dogs, ect]) (mentioned in the Bible)
Perhaps this question is a bit off topic, but considering the amount of speculation in the theory of evolution, why is it so difficult to believe that maybe evolution didn't happen, and that there is a God?
I'll try to keep the debate on-topic, but i must remind my opponent that it is not creationism we are debating in this debate, the question is "is evolution a viable theory?". If you want to debate creationism, challenge me, and we can talk about it!
Evolution uses what we can prove, then twists it to say something that the evidence does not point to.
Firstly, I shall target your "knowledge" about redshift and trigonometry. I used quotes when saying knowledge as you seem to have flawed knowledge of it or misunderstand it. You say that "We don't even know what light is. Scientists can't even agree on whether or not it is a proton or a wave. The speed of light is even debated on whether or not it's constant.". Actually, we do know what light is, scientists agree on light being photons (not protons as you spelt it), and have calculated the FIXED and precise speed of light to be 299792458 metres per second. And we can observe starts becoming brighter due to them burning off more and more fuel and becoming larger and larger. One would assume that if something was getting larger then it had a beginning.
Finally, why can't we measure angles that small? In fact, why would scientists be using the technology if it didn't work? Are they just messing around?
I admit it, we haven't seen or observed a star form. But this is not the only way to find things out. To know that if I drop my pen it will hit the ground I don't need to wait and watch it. I can simply use logic to know that due to gravity, the pen will hit the ground. Same with the logic that if stars and more importantly, the universe is expanding, then they must have formed at some point. And I would ask you refrain from insulting scientists by saying "They have no idea how a star forms." when I gave you an explanation for how a star forms in round 1. In fact, you can see stars in the process of forming in this molecular cloud: http://www.constellation-guide.com...
You ask how can we consider stellar evolution a viable theory when they give big numbers without saying how they got them. Well not only could you find the answers online or in a book, or by going to school for example. But it's a viable theory because these scientists have spent years studying, researching and analyzing. So I don't think they would give you big random numbers to impress you and get you into their cult. Or on a similar note, write a book with impressive stories and morals to get you into their cult.
Now for DNA, if you think that similarities could point to a designer, then in that case; your designer is a very bad one, contrary to what your bible preaches. When a self-repplicating mollecule repplicates, it passes on it's code. So as evolution takes place, all species that evolve from it will have the same code. As such, similarities are hard evidence for evolution.
As for fossils, if you would like me to disprove earth being created 6000 years ago, I can do so in a number of ways. But I will refrain from doing so unless asked. And yes, you said it yourself, we can see the age of rocks and fossils using carbon and radiometric dating which are in fact very precise, otherwise the scientists wouldn't use them. As for what you said on missing "billions" of fossils, which is false considering there hasn't been that many species yet, I would like to see how you back up this claim? You also claim that a worldwide flood could have laid out the layers of the crust. But that wouldn't account for the layers of silt inbetween. Or the fact that there isn't a huge layer of animals trying to swim up to the surface when the flood happened.
Scientists do not speculate, it would be insulting to say that they did. They did not spend years of training and research to mess around. What they found were facts, and I think I've provided enough evidence to support them. On the off topic note: We don't speculate about evolution (us atheists and scientists that is), we know it happened. I could ask you a similar question about what you believe, which would be much more difficult for you.
To start out, I would like to apologize for using the word "Proton" instead of "Photon" when I was referencing to light (minor typo).
On that same note, however, I will bring up the following articles:
So tell me, are you just saying that the speed of light is constant because that's what you've been taught all your life? Or could a few people be wrong and the speed of light isn't as constant as some big-name scientists would like you to believe? I urge the audience to look at the evidence.
I would also like to stop my opponent when he said "scientists agree on light being photons". Do a little research, and you will find that scientists are still unsure of what light is. It is generally accepted that light is BOTH a photon AND a wave, but that dual meaning is still not accepted by everyone, and there are still debates and research being done to find out what light is.
My opponent has also said " And we can observe starts becoming brighter due to them burning off more and more fuel and becoming larger and larger". This is an assumption, it is actually debated that stars are collapsing, and I have even heard it said that our own sun is collapsing at 5 feet an hour. Read here for more info on that: https://answersingenesis.org...
My opponent also asks "why can't we measure angles that small?", referring to my statement that we cannot accurately measure the distance to the stars. The answer is simple: The ratio is too small for our instruments. Tell me, you're familiar with trigonometry, right? If we have an 8 light minute base (which is what we use when using trig to determining star distances), and claim to be able to determine that a star is fifteen billion light years away, how small is that ratio? The answer is 8 : 7,884,000,000,000,000. There's no question about it, the ratio is just too small for our instruments to accurately determine the distance to stars.
Therefore, I stand by my statement which says that Red shift and Trig cannot be used to determine any accurate distances to stars, and therefore should not be used to support any theory.
As for your second paragraph, I found it a bit confusing, but I think I understood what you were trying to say. I'll break it down for our audience.
1. We have never seen a star form. [Fact]
2. Direct Observation is not always needed in order to predict something. [True, however, when we are observing something supposedly billions of light years away, we don't have gravity or anything BUT Direct observation to make our predictions with.]
3. Pen Example: If I drop my pen, I know it falls due to gravity [Nice Example]
4. The universe is expanding, therefore the stars must have formed at some point [Whoa! Firstly, as I've pointed out, scientists assume the universe is expanding. On the second half, I have to agree: Stars exist, therefore they must have been formed at some point. However, we disagree on how they came into existence. I say God created them, you say the big bang did it.]
5. I gave you an explanation on how stars form, also see the pic, you can see a star forming
That is (in a nutshell) what was stated. and in #5, I must object completely. My opponent did not explain facts in round 1, he explained a series of "What ifs" that are not based on observation or anything we can test. As for the picture of the nebulae, that proves nothing, because no star has formed from it, and scientists only ASSUME that a star will form. So I still stand by my statement that scientists know nothing about how a star forms because they have nothing to base their research on. That being so, Stellar Evolution is not a viable piece of the theory of Evolution.
My opponent's entire third paragraph is what's known as an appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy that also states that just because it's taught makes it true. No! Just because something is taught does not make it true. It's almost like saying "I read it on the Internet, therefore it has to be right." My opponent brought no facts in that paragraph, and the entire paragraph as a whole contributed nothing to the argument.
I would like to point out that my opponent claims that I am insulting scientists. I am not, I am merely stating what I believe to be fact. Now, they can find what I have to say insulting, but I am not insulting them. There's a difference.
Your fourth paragraph was completely unclear, you will need to re-write it in your next argument so that I can understand what you were trying to say.
In response to your earlier statement that fossils and the geologic column line up, in accordance with our discussion on Radiometric dating, I bring up the following article It was a nice read:
You implied that evolutionists are not missing billions of fossils. Lets take a look at Evolution, shall we?
"Over billions of years, animal will reproduce and give birth to animals that are slightly different, until a completely new species is formed. This generally takes millions of years" --My general summary of MACRO evolution.
If that were true, then evolutionists have a problem. They're missing the dinosaur's children, and their children's children, and their children, ect, all the way until a new species has been formed. That's at least a hundred fossils they're missing, and that's just ONE line of animals. Then, scientists will bring forth a whale, and a cow, and say they're related because of the "Intermediate fossils" they find, which are actually just a few scraps of distinct separate species or deformed animals (that happens). If scientists are going to claim that a dinosaur turned into a completely different type of dinosaur, they're going to have to show a lot more proof than one or two fossils they managed to pull out of a desert somewhere in Mongolia. They're missing the ENTIRE CHAIN of ancestors, and using what little fossil evidence they can to try to make their theory work. Now, does this sound like Observable science? No. If anyone thinks i'm being extreme about this, I urge you to spend some serious time thinking about this. Think about it for a while, and think of the facts, not the assumptions. Scientists can ASSUME Dinosaur A and Dinosaur Z are related and officialy title them as related species, but without the other fossils, can they really come to that conclusion? "Hey look! This animal's got sharp teeth too! Therefore it must be related." Is this really science? Or is it just an assumption? I'll leave that for the audience to think about.
So Yes, I stand by my claim that the theory of Evolution is missing the intermediate fossils neccessary to consider itself a Viable theory.
Your last paragraph, summed up, states that "Since scientists are willing to commit time and effort to something, therefore it's true". No, history has proven this false Countless of times. Scientists used to think that bleeding (medical) was good for health. They used to think (and based research off of) that the earth was flat. They used to think that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects. All of these things we know are false. So to say that since "scientists have dedicated thier lives to study evolution, therefore it must be true" is a FALSE statement. That does NOT make evolution true, and I would like the audience to note the Appeal to Emotion and the Appeal to Authority logical fallacies that were embedded in the statements that Pro made in that (and other) paragraphs.
Pro has failed to prove that
A. Stellar evolution has occured
B. Cosmic Evolution has occured
C. Macro Evolution has occured
Pro has also been using numerous Appeals to Authority and Appeals to Emotiion (Logical fallacies)
I Stand my ground and challenge Pro to present his best piece of evidence to show that evolution has occured.
Let me define a term here, which is the speed of light. When people talk about the speed of light, they mean the speed of light in a vacuum. Because when light enters into a transparent medium (air, water, glass) it becomes slower. But in a vacuum, the speed of light is constant. This may be where my opponent got his hiccup on his understanding of the speed of light. The speed of light changes, I agree, but in a vacuum it is constant, and space is quite a large vacuum. And yes, it is accepted that light is both photon and a wave. Light in any case has a certain wavelength (for example, the observable wavelength is 400 nm - 800 nm). From these wavelengths we can measure and calculate.
And I'm afraid I'll have to lay out another science lesson to the table. Stars, contrary to the majority of people saying they burn, don't. They are massive nuclear reactors. A star will turn all of it's lighter elements into the next heavier element, all the way down to iron. When the star runs out of elements to react with and becomes too heavy, it collapses and goes supernova. As the star needs to get hotter inside, the surface needs to stay at the same temperature, and as such the radius expands. Stars collapse, at the end yes. But they expand as time goes on until their death. This is not assumption, this is a scientific fact. I read your article (funnily enough on a site devoted to creation), and this is simply false. If stars happened to be collapsing at that rate, we would have noticed by now.
Your statement about trigonometry simply makes me shudder. I asked you why we can't measure angles that small. And you give me a response that amounts to "We can't measure an angle that small because it's too small." then apply "big numbers" which you critiqued not so long ago. Let me give you a little general information on our instruments. We have atomic clocks that can measure a second to the definition, which is 9192631770 revolutions periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. Or the large hadron collider for example, which can collide particles (which I don't think I need tell you; are very small) together at extreme speeds.
When observing objects at extreme (multiple lightyears) distances, we observe, we measure the wavelengths of the light, we calculate, and we make conclusions based on the calculations. Scientists do not assume the universe is expanding, they know the universe is expanding. Space itself is expanding and the observable universe is getting larger and larger. I don't think I need explain red shift or trigonometry since I've already done so, in fact you've done me a favor in helping out on that.
The picture of the nebulae shows a huge mass of gas (what stars form from) swirling and collapsing together which will most likely form a star. Also, take a look at your logic. You say that scientist have nothing to base their evidence on. Scientists work by getting conclusions out of facts (contrary to creationists who get facts out of conclusions), so if they had nothing to base their evidence on, how did they get to the conclusion that stars formed out of giant gas clouds? There's no point in them lying, in fact that's the opposite of what a scientist should be doing. Think of it this way: the first element of a star are light gases, huge gas clouds (nebulae) are composed of gases, and have been observed to collapse (like in the image I showed you).
As for my third paragraph, I wasn't saying "Because it's taught it's true". What I'm saying, is that considering scientists get conclusions out of facts, and have studied on their chosen subjects for years and worked to find the truth which is backed by lots of evidence, I really doubt that they would lie or give us random facts that aren't true. Scientists do not draw facts from conclusions (again unlike creationists). I still stand by my statement that you are insulting scientists as they have worked endlessly to gather information and find the facts, while you call them speculations.
By fourth paragraph I assume you mean the paragraph where I explained similarities. I apologize if it didn't seem clear, so let me reformulate. We have observed the DNA of most (if not all) living things on the earth or that have lived on earth, and have found that every single one has a similarity. From this we can deduce that as soon as a self replicating molecule could reproduce and mutate at the same time, the more advantageous mutations would win (which we call natural selection or survival of the fittest) therefore passing on it's genes. Through several billion years these mutations have come to produce millions of different species which all have the same original code.
Your statement about missing dinosaur children honestly made me laugh out-loud. Either I've misunderstood your statement, or you've encountered another hiccup. I believe that the children of the dinosaurs you are talking about are missing due to a certain asteroid and climate change preventing the children from ever being. Forgive me if I misunderstood what seemed like a silly statement but feel free to remedy it in the next argument. Furthermore, when determining that cows and whales or any other distant species are related, we do not need to go as far as finding each and every fossil in between. We can examine the code and find that, as always: every living entity on earth has DNA similarities.
All these things that "scientists" (note the quotes please) used to think, were thought before science. Before science properly took off. I apologize if I said this before or if you misunderstood me, but what I meant is: a modern scientist will strive to find the truth and facts, so it would be extremely unlikely if not impossible that a scientist would lie or call assumptions facts. I'm not saying that what a scientist says is the truth, I'm saying that a scientist will only tell you the truth, or what he thinks may be true.
On a side note, I would ask you to leave it to the judges to decide on whether or not I've proved you wrong, as I doubt you will change your mind anyway.
Thanks for responding!
I'm glad you had a few laughs reading! (I hope you don't mind if I did the same)
For argument's sake, I will accept my opponent's definition of the speed of light as being constant when in a vacuum.
The first thing I noticed when I read Pro's arguments is that a large portion of Pro's arguments existed only to defend scientists. What Pro (and most other Evolutionists) must realize is that Creationists have absolutely no problem with scientists. The only thing we have a problem with is FAULTY SCIENCE. Scientists can spend their entire lives dedicated to science, and giving many years to a very noble field. Pro is right when he said that scientists will only give information if they BELIEVE it is right. However, this does not make them right. In this debate, I am challenging Pro to defend the SCIENCE, not the SCIENTISTS.
And while we're on the subject, I'll address your many stabs at creationist scientists. Pro stated "Scientists do not draw facts from conclusions (again unlike creationists)". Are you saying that creationists can't be scientists? I must mention that there are many Creationist scientists. So are you telling me that because they're creationists, therefore they can't perform good science? Because at that point, you'd have a big problem because it was Creationists who FOUNDED science as we know it (many, many branches of it at least). Are you saying that only evolutionists are the good scientists? Are you implying, in any way, that just because a person is a creationist, therefore he doesn't use proper fact finding methods? I didn't think so. Therefore, we both agree that both Evolutionists AND Creationists have many good methods in which they draw conclusions. The only problem is that they disagree on the origin of the universe (and subjects that extend from that). Again, Creationists don't have a problem with science, we only disagree on how it is interpreted by evolutionists.
(On a side note about this, do you dismiss evidence just because it comes from a creationist source?)
Pro has stated:
"Furthermore, when determining that cows and whales or any other distant species are related, we do not need to go as far as finding each and every fossil in between. We can examine the code and find that, as always: every living entity on earth has DNA similarities."
This clearly shows your lack of understanding in this area. If scientists are finding DNA in fossils, they have a SERIOUS problem, because all the tissues in which DNA would be found would have decayed very quickly, and would not have stayed in the ground for millions of years. finding DNA (essentially fresh(ish) tissue) is like admitting the earth is under 6000 years, which is unthinkable for evolutionists, since time is the key ingredient to make everything work (everything has to be long ago and far away, of course).
But yes, scientists do not need EVERY intermediate fossil, but they cannot pull up five or six fossils and claim that they are distant relatives when according to the theory of evolution, there are supposed to be thousands (or millions) of linking fossils (showing the minor changes). Please, they don't even have anywhere NEAR a complete ancestral bridge to even begin to claim that the species are related. They can ASSUME they are related, but don't call it science. (and certainly don't put it in a supposedly viable theory).
I applaud Pro for doing a little research and defining how scientists believe the sun works (although the nuclear conclusion is still debated among the scientific community). I must point out, however, that if the sun has been expanding for billions of years, how then is earth's orbit been stable for 4.6 billion years, when the gravitational field would have been constantly changing due to the expansion? Creationists have no problem with this, because a 6000 year old sun would not have expanded much at all.
I also want to make clear that I (IMO) do believe that the stars are billions of light years away. Creationists do not have a problem with this because in creation, God would have simply created the stars where they are at, with light already shining down on earth. (and yes, an expanding universe would also be no problem with a creationist). What I don't neccessarally agree with is scientists proclaiming that they can accurately tell us the distance to stars. What I am urging Pro to do is question the very science used to make the claims of evolutionists. The stars may very well be 300 billion light years away, but is the science they used to make that claim sound? THAT is one of the main points I'm trying to make in this debate. Question the science (and logic) behind the theory.
Thanks for clarifying on that one paragraph concerning DNA! When you refer to "Natural Selection" however, it must be realized that one of the main fallacies in the evolutionary way of thinking is that it is assumed that "Natural Selection" can CREATE any new genetic information. It can not. As the name implies, natural selection only SELECTS, it does not create. Creationists will agree that DNA is SELECTED from the parents and passed down to the children, however, we realize that there is no evidence that natural selection can create. "What about mutations?" I challenge my opponent to bring up one positive mutation (Mutation, not micro-evolution. There's a big difference). Evolution is founded on positive mutations through natural selection, and therefore it can surely be observed over the thousands of years of human history ONE positive mutation. There is not one. There is only negative mutations, which are expected and predicted from the creationist viewpoint. Where is the evidence for positive mutations (Increasing complexity from henceforth)? It is one of the cornerstones of evolution, yet we have failed to find even one positive mutation, much less the thousands that SHOULD BE observed throughout the ENTIRE ANIMAL KINGDOM.
"a modern scientist will strive to find the truth and facts, so it would be extremely unlikely if not impossible that a scientist would lie or call assumptions facts"
I'm glad you went there!
Let's lay it out in the open:
1. Somehow the big bang occurred. Energy and matter had to come from somewhere right? Either the universe exploded from absolute nothingness (which, as we know, is scientifically impossible), or we are referring to an infinite universe, in which case the big bang could never have occurred (all the energy in the universe did not cause the big bang for an infinite amount of years, so where did the extra energy come from to cause the big bang?). All this is ASSUMED. It was not observed, nor can it be predicted. So how, therefore, can evolutionists call it science (especially with the logical fallacies I pointed out)?
2. Evolution states that inorganic matter came to life (when abiogenisis has never been observed, and can never be predicted). Tell me how this is not an assumption. Yet it is taught as a fact along with the supposedly Viable theory.
3. Evolution states that somehow the life created managed to survive in water (There is no possible way to prove this)(Assumption)
4. This single celled-organism somehow managed to find a way to reproduce itself (No proof, only assumptions)
5. After this single-celled organism somehow evolved (with increasing complexity which has never been observed, proved, or predicted) into an aquatic creature, it evolved into a land creature (Macro evolution has never been Observed, only micro-evolution which is biblical). That was either A. an Asexual organism, or B. Somehow found someone to marry. In either A. or B. , please describe the so called "Natural selection process" that would have made Bisexual reproduction more beneficial than Asexual reproduction?
There are many more assumptions that I would go into, unfortunately, I'm going onto my character limit. In conclusion, I challenge PRO to prove how these assumptions are supposedly a part of a viable theory.
Creationists may have no problem with scientists (which would surprise me actually), but scientists have a very large problem with creationists. Why? Because creationists like yourself, would present silly ideas backed up by no evidence, while telling scientists who have found mountains of evidence behind their claims which have became generally accepted, that their findings are false. By criticizing the science backed up by scientists, you are also criticizing the scientists. As such I must defend both, which I have been doing equally.
I don't think that a creationist couldn't be a scientist. Although firstly I would have a problem with a creationist being a scientist, and I think he would make a bad scientist. Furthermore, only about 5% of scientists are creationists, and if they don't keep their religious views out of their work, they would have a problem.
I think the problem here, is that a creationist's religious views are extremely flawed and are backed by literally no evidence. And when religious views are implied into or clash with science, then there is a very large problem. Evolutionists on the other hand have no religious views and are open-minded. (Responding to your side note: I don't dismiss "creationist evidence" because there is no evidence.)
Ah I see you've misunderstood me again or it flew past. Imagine the first molecule having the code "A", and two new mutations spring from this self-replicating molecule. One with the code "AB" and the other with the code "AC". Both have the same original code "A" and are as such related. We can see this by examining the much more complex DNA of a cow and a whale. They both have the same original code "A" and as such are related (distantly).
Con states that if the sun has been expanding for millions of years, then the earth's orbit could not have been stable. When the sun expands, it does not mean that it increases in mass. A gas can expand, but remain the same mass. In fact, the sun only changes by loosing a very small amount of it's mass over the course of it's entire lifetime. So I'm afraid your statement is false. Furthermore, the idea that the earth was created 6000 years ago is so wrong that it would be laughable if it wasn't so far spread.
I've already explained that the science (red shift and trigonometry) used to make the claim sound. Furthermore, there is no point in using such technology and science if it is not sound? It is like using leeches to cure people knowing very well that they don't work. Or saying that the earth is 6000 years old when you have evidence that contradicts it placed right in front of your face.
From where exactly did you hear that evolution has anything to do with creation? Not from me or any other evolutionist I hope. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with abiogensis (the origin of life), but everything to do with biogenisis (the creation of life coming from other life). The creation of the first self replicating molecule (abiogenisis) is all that is needed to get evolution up and going.
Are you honestly asking for a positive mutation for either humans over the past few thousands years (which is ridiculous) or positive mutations for the whole animal kingdom (which is also ridiculous?). Firstly, positive mutations do not happen in a few thousand years, it would take millions of years to get a species from another. Finally, if you want a positive mutation from the animal kingdom then I can provide a whole list, but I'll just give a few examples: Fins on fish, wings on birds, legs, arms, mouths, lungs ect. Positive mutations are found everywhere, because the mutations that help the animal survives will be more likely to pass on it's genes. Furthermore, what negative mutations that happened over only a few thousand years (which is a ridiculous amount of time anyway) are you talking about?.
I'm afraid we simply do not know what happened that produced the big bang, but we are working hard to find out. What we don't do is claim that something happened with no evidence, we simply say "We don't know.". All that we know is that at some point the universe including space and time was condensed into an extremely small point we call the singularity. At that point the universe expanded faster than light and well, you know the rest.
This is similar to the abiogenisis theory, we have never seen it happen, but we know it's the only way it could have happened. We just don't know how and are working hard to find out I'm sure. Self replication does not always have to include sexual interaction, in fact biologists have succeeded in creating self-replicating RNA molecules which are supposed to be close to the ones present at the start of the evolutionary cycle.
Actually, increasing complexity has been observed and proved. There are bacteria which have a very short life span of 30 minutes. As such, it is possible to actually observe evolution through the rapid reproduction of these bacteria. Sexual reproduction is much more beneficial than asexual reproduction, as when sexual reproduction takes place, both genes of the parents are passed down onto the child. As such this creates a new combination and, a new mutation. It is a faster and more efficient way of creating diversity than asexual reproduction.
As you can see, these are viable theories and not assumptions, as my opponent insistently and tediously repeats.
Since this is my last argument, I'll try to make it count. Also, since the site keeps re-formatting my paragraphs, I'll highlight new paragraphs in bold print. Sorry if my paragraphs seemed jumbled in the past, just know i'm not doing it on purpose!
To start off, I would like the audience to re-read Pro's argument, this time noticing every spot at which he states that "Scientists don't know", "Scientists wouldn't waste time", or "We're trying hard to find out". These sentences do not prove anything.
So basically, summed up from pro's point of view, "We don't know how the big bang happened. We didn't observe it, nor can we predict it, but we know it happened." If this is an evolutionist's view of science, then I criticize them for criticizing creationists, because I'm a creationist telling you (and all evolutionists) that that isn't SCIENCE. Yet evolutionists always claim that science is on their side, but then they turn around and make claims such as this. Forgive me for saying this, but that seems very hypocritical.
The difference between creationists and evolutionists is that creationists stay in the realm of observationally, but an evolutionist likes to go beyond what is predictable, observable, and right in front of us.
Your whole paragraph (8) on mutations if flawed. You're assuming evolution has already occurred, then basing facts off of that assumption, yet you said "Scientists do not draw facts from conclusions (again unlike creationists)". You cannot prove that fins, lungs, hearts, legs, or mouths are mutations because THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN THERE FOR US TO OBSERVE. Pro cannot prove that any of those are mutations, but that's no problem for a creationist because we know from observable science that THEY'RE NOT EVOLVING.
As for the negative mutations you asked for, here are just a few out of the thousands of negative mutations: Sickle cell, Pierre Robin Sequence, tetralogy of fallot, Down syndrome, etc. See a larger list here: http://en.wikipedia.org... . Pro cannot state that these aren't genetic mutations because by the nature of the diseases themselves, they are. You see, mutations are occurring, but they are all negative (as predicted by the creationist model). These genetic abnormalities can be extremely dangerous. What I would like to know is how (form observable and predictable science) evolutionists claim that positive mutations occur, but somehow not have any evidence for it in the modern world. We are observing (and can even predict in many cases) the negative mutations, yet we have yet to see positive mutations occurring before our eyes.
"positive mutations do not happen in a few thousand years"
Okay then, if positive mutations do not happen over a few thousand years (instead millions), then why is it that negative mutations happen YEARLY, but the positive mutations are somehow left out of that?
Also, just for the sake of argument, I'd like you to explain how and why over millions of generations, a land dwelling creature would continue to develop a completely useless stud that would one day become a wing. And also please describe why natural selection didn't kill this bird as the "weak link" in the species.
"Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with abiogensis (the origin of life)"
This is a classic move that evolutionists try to pull off. They will try to separate the two parts of the theory of evolution and say that they are not related so that they don't have to address the issues and problems surrounding The big bang and Abiogenisis. The fact of the matter is that in order to have something evolve, there must first be a planet to evolve on. So yes, Cosmic AND Abiogenisis are very closely related and cannot be separated.
Your paragraph on bacteria was amusing. In short, it stated: "There are bacteria that have a lifespan of 30 minutes and reproduce over many generations varieties of bacteria". And somehow this is an example of increasing complexity? Bacteria produces bacteria. What new information was added? Seriously? That's the best proof? Let's run the math on that:
A lifespan of 30 minutes would mean that there are 525,600 generations of this bacteria in one year. They've been observing this for what? Ten years seems like a reasonable number. 525,600 x 10 = 5,256,000. (And don't criticize me for using large numbers, because I was only criticizing large numbers that are based on unfounded evidence. This is simple math.)
5,256,000 generations of this species, and it still hasn't evolved into any other species? And you can't say that "It takes millions of generations for evolution to happen, because that number, forgive me for saying, is well over 2 million. And this is a SIMPLE life form. It should be evolving at speeds MUCH greater than a Macro species, but yet it's still a strand of bacteria, and hasn't evolved into anything other than that. So I'd like to thank Pro for giving me such a brilliant example of why evolution is NOT occurring (an example I'll be sure to use in the future).
In paragraph 3, Pro talked about DNA similarities in animals. Again, Pro is assuming that evolution has already occurred in order to make his conclusion that "DNA is similar, therefore this PROVES that all animals had a common ancestor". No, it doesn't PROVE anything. The only thing that it proves is that the DNA is similar in many animals, which could (using the same logic) PROVE that God made the universe and put similar DNA structures into Animals, using the same DNA sequences in many animals because it was a good design. You see, similar DNA doesn't PROVE evolution, because one must already assume that evolution has occurred in order to say that that is evidence for evolution. So let us stick with the realm of science and logic.
Pro stated regarding Abiogenisis:
"we have never seen it happen, but we know it's the only way it could have happened"
What is this I'm seeing? Could it be faith? So evolutionists are believing in something that can't be proved, observed, or ever predicted. Sounds like a god to me. Sure, they don't call it that, but it sure looks and sounds like it. Wait a minute though. . .I thought evolution was supposed to be scientific, not religious. What happened? Where's the science behind it?
Abiogenisis can't be proved, so why is it even in the theory? IF scientists ever manage to prove that is could have happened, then go ahead and put it in the theory, but until then, keep the theory scientific and leave Abiogenisis out of it. (But that would mess up everything else in their theory, so evolutionists overlook that "Minor" problem).
As for his next set of stabs on creationism, I will say the following:
According to the creationist model, God exists outside of the universe he created. Therefore, it is impossible to "Measure" God or have an instrument that can detect him. So no, I can't PROVE the existence of God, that's why they call it a RELIGION. I CAN say however, that there is absolutely nothing that contradicts or can't be explained by the creationist viewpoint. (Also, regarding the 5%, that number is hallariously underestimated, the number is actually more around 33-50% http://www.pewforum.org...)
There were many things that I would liked to have covered, counter arguments and such, but my character limit is approaching, So In closing, it doesn't matter how much money or effort scientists put into the theory of evolution, that doesn't make them right. As I hope I've been able to point out, evolution is based on assumptions. Sure there's some science mixed in with the assumptions, but that doesn't make the assumptions true. I still believe 100% that there is an Almighty God above, and I hope that one day Pro and everyone else will too. It was nice having an opponent to debate with, and perhaps we could do this again sometime!
Excuse me but I would be greatful if you didn't take my words out of context. I never said you couldn't predict the big bang. In fact that's precisely the contrary to what I said. If I remember clearly, I said: "We know the stars are expanding from the same point and as such we know that they must have all been at that same point". A clear prediction of the big bang which is not in any sense hypocritical. You state "The difference between creationists and evolutionists is that creationists stay in the realm of observationability". Can you honestly make that claim? Are you actually serious in making this claim? Are you saying that you can observe when your god made the earth? Are you saying that a book written a few millenia ago is your proof? Because if you are, then I'm afraid you are the hypocrite here.
The point I was trying to make in my mutations paragraph is that only the best mutations win, that is why we can observe them. Now I would expect someone to say "Why do we have an appendix, a third eyelid and tonsils which do little if not are completely useless for our survival?". Well that's simply because they used to be used for our survival, but have become obsolete.
The body of a human or any other large animal is extremely complex, as such we contain trillions of cells, most of which replace themselves over time. With such complexity, there is a chance that something will go wrong in the production process of a new individual. These genetic mutations have nothing to do with negative mutations. A negative mutation would be a fish growing lungs, or a bird growing gills. Each of which would either kill the animal or do nothing to help it survive, as such these unhelpful genes would not be passed on. If you would like more evidence for positive mutations, then there is an island on which scientists have placed lizards and waited for 50~ years. Over this time, scientists have observed evolution taking place. A positive mutation would be the lizards shrinking, therefore needing less food on a small island. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
There are various answers to how wings evolved. Answers include: Wings evolving from arms to capture small prey. Wings evolving to assist with leaping into the air, which were useful for doing so. Or wings evolved to help gliding ancestors flap and therefore fly.
I said that evolution does not explain how abiogenisis started. What it does explain is that abiogenisis did start. Just as an expanding universe explains the big bang. I never said so to advoid adressing the other issues, in fact I've already adressed the issues you are talking about. I think you might have a problem with the fact that we simply do not know how the big bang or abiogenisis happened, so you are in need of answers. Well the thing you don't do is pull up a book and jump to conclusions. What you do is simply say "I don't know" and continue working to find the answer.
Did you read what I said or did you take it out of context again? I said we can observe evolution taking place, we can observe the bacteria making evolutionary steps. From where did you pull out that no new information was added? A scientist observed that a species of bacteria had suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a positive mutation. http://www.newscientist.com...
So I'm afraid if you were to use that example, you would most likely get pummeled with the opponent's response, and give him points in the process.
You state that "DNA similarities could easily prove that God put similar DNA structure into animals". So your saying that God wanted to make it easier to prove evolution and easier to disprove the claims in the bible? In what way does putting similarities in animals help with God's creation? Why not just make all animals seperate? DNA similarities give overwhelming evidence for evolution just as an expanding universe gives overwhelming evidence for the big bang. If we are all related down to the very first RNA life forms, then it would be logical to conclude that we all came from there.
I never said you couldn't predict the big bang, you are again taking my words out of context. I think I'm repeating myself again but oh well. We can predict that abiogenisis happened just as we can predict that the big bang happened through the expansion of the universe. In fact, I take back what I said before, we have seen something similar happen in a scientific lab, I've already said so in one my rounds and gave a source.
"There is absolutely nothing that contradicts or can't be explained by the creationist viewpoint." Are you absolutely honest in saying that? Are you serious when saying that? Because I can quite easily contradict a number of ideas your bible throws out. The age of the earth being an easy one. And got caught on a slight hiccup along the 5% deal. I told you that 5% of scientists accept the creationist point of view, I said nothing about them being religious or not. Whether or not you are a christian or believe in creation are two different things.
I'm afraid my opponent, while presenting some interesting arguments, has been quite hypocritical and possibly misunderstanding. Although I must thank him for an interesting and heated discussion, and for drilling the word "assumptions" into my head repeatedly. I also thank the audience for reading and if you do, voting.
|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||5|