Evolution Singlehandedly Debunks Christian Mythology

Before I begin I really must complain about the title of this debate. "Evolution singlehandedely debunks Christian mythology. " Once again, Atheists are using a distraction tactic in assuming the very thing they are trying to prove. The pro side argues that evolution is true, And debunks Christianity mythology, While the con side argues that evolution is true, But does not debunk Christianity mythology. No matter which side you argue, It assumes that evolution is true. This is a classic case of moving the goal posts. If you assume that evolution is true, There is essentially no room for debate.

Now let's move to the burdens of this round. Because my opponent has made two claims in supporting the resolution, That evolution is true, And evolution debunks Christian mythology, Then it is his job to prove both of them. All I have to do to win this debate is prove that either evolution is false, Or that it is consistent with Christian theology. I will primarily be arguing that evolution is false, But I will also argue that it is consistent with Christian theology. Voters note however, That pro must prove both claims in the resolution for him to win the debate.

The truth is, Most of the people that believe in evolution really don't know much about it. Even the people that do believe in it don't believe in it because of the evidence. This is a concept that I will go over later. The more you study evolution, However, You realize that there really isn't any evidence at all. It is common to hear that areas such as the fossil record and structural homology support evolution, But there is a lot of evidence as well from those same areas that contradict evolution. In the end, You will find that at best, Evolution is an unconfirmed hypothesis.

If evolution really happened, If for example a cat really did evolve into a tiger, Then in the fossil record we should be finding a series of fossils that represent that transition. These are called transitional forms because they represent a transition from one species to another. Unfortunately, For Darwin, Very few of these were ever found. Even the ones that were found were highly questionable. Consider this, Evolution tries to explain something, Something about the earth's past. But because we don't have anyone who lived 100 million years ago to say it happened, We must look for data that either support or contradict the idea. The best place to look for this data is the fossil record. What does it say? It says evolution never happened. If the most reliable place to look for data about the earth's history says evolution never happened, Scientists simply should not believe in it.

The best argument for evolution is probably structural homology and it is the study of similar structures in different species, But it is flawed. For example, Evolutionists will say that because dogs and horses have a lot of similar structures, They must have had a common ancestor. They say the same about a lot of animals. The problem is, Most of these animals have come from quite different evolutionary paths, So there is absolutely no way that they could have had a common ancestor. In addition, The genes that specify those structures are quite different in the species they are comparing, Thus, It confirms the fact that they could not have had a common ancestor.

Before I end I would like to point out the biggest problem facing evolutionists today. It is the cambrian explosion and it is something evolutionists simply cannot explain. Another reliable place to look for data about the earth's history is the geologic column. The geologic column is a column of rocks on top of each other and in them contain the species of life we see today. Now from an evolution point of view complex life forms evolved from simple ones. Thus, This is exactly what the geologic column should reflect, And for a while, That's what it looked like. At the bottom, You see simpler life forms such as the triiobites and nautiloids and as you go up they get more and more complex and you see things like horses and dinosaurs. But then something unexpected was found and today it is the biggest problem facing evolutionists today. At the very bottom of the geologic column were found species from every single major phylum in biological classification. This reveals that there was the sudden emergence of all species at once.

From a creation point of view, This makes perfect sense. After all, For Christians, We believe God created the world and all of the species in it in 6 days and if this were true, We should be finding all of these species in the very bottom of the geologic column and it is exactly what we found.

From an evolution point of view however, It leaves you scratching your head. You see, Evolution believes that every transition from species to species takes millions of years. However, The geologic column reveals the sudden emergence of all species at once. Not only does this not makes sense transition wise, But is also inconsistent with the idea that life started out extremely simple.

Scientists have developed crazy phenomenon's to attempt to explain this theory and there are a few things I would like to point out. One, All of the theories attempted to explain the cambrian explosion are only what could have happened against all odds. However, They have no real evidence to back them up. Second, Whenever you are searching for evidence about anything scientific, You should always see where the evidence leads you, Not where you lead it. If you are trying to develop crazy scenarios to make the evidence consistent with evolution, It is likely that anything you come up with will be wrong. It is a much better practice to just see what makes sense according to the evidence. Creationism is a logical conclusion to make from the evidence, Evolution is not.

It only makes sense to see where the evidence leads you, Not where you lead it. The evidence points to an intelligent creator, Not evolution.

I compliment you on your initial response. You took a lot of time to write it, And I can see the effort you put into it – thank you. I'm actually very excited to have this debate. This was not supposed to be a debate about evolution, But I will happily agree to that. I have no problems with this.

Before I start, I would like to clear something up. You are expecting evidence from me as to how evolution debunks Christianity. I already provided that in my initial opening round. To be clear, I'll state it again, Briefly. If evolution is true, There never was an original Adam and Eve. Evolution is true, Therefore there was no Adam and Eve. That is my proposition. Without Adam and Eve, There was no original sin, Obviously since the entire story is based on them. Without original sin, Christianity falls apart, Obviously, Since original sin is foundational to the entire religion. According to evolution there never were only 2 homo sapiens as a product of our ancestral speciation, This is not how speciation works. Because of this, There could not have been an Adam and Eve, As depicted in Genesis.

For the scope of this debate, If evolution is wrong, Adam and Eve could have existed. If evolution is correct, They could not have. I believe we can at least find common ground here, Correct? This would leave us with only one topic for debate - evolution. Agreed?

Assuming you and I agree on the above, And knowing our rounds are limited, I will go ahead and rebut the points you previously made regarding evolution. I do have some questions for you. I will highlight my questions in bold (to make it easier to respond). I will highlight your statements in italics.

Do you disagree with all evolution or do you acknowledge micro evolution?

Hey, I haven"t had time to post an argument this round. Just extend all your arguments and I will have an argument next round.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge that I agree with micro evolution. I will briefly state here why I believe that this is consistent with Christian theology. When God created all the animals on the earth, He gave them a genetic code with a great amount of variability. So for example, During creation week there might have been one kind of dog and as time went on, The great variability of it's genetic code began to manifest itself. So overtime, As the dog changed, We get the many species of dog we see today. The same goes for humans, Birds, Etc. This does not at all contradict the Bible. Although Christian theology does not agree with macro evolution, It does agree with micro evolution which is all I need to prove in order to win the debate. Now I will go through each of the points that you brought up.

I would like to first begin by addressing the issue of fossils. Yes, They are rare but as evolutionists are constantly arguing that evolution takes millions and millions of years for one species to change to another, You would think that at some point within that time, You would get at least some fossils that show that transition.

Creationists acknowledge that all life shares a base genome, But we disagree about how that relates to the process of one species evolving into another. You have still failed to give examples of bigger changes that are necessary in evolution. There are more significant types of changes that Darwinian evolution requires, Such as the production of novel structures that are highly complex but specified.

"Could you please provide a solid argument against this, As you would need one to disprove evolution. DNA is a vital part of evolution and something that can be easily demonstrated. "

This is a classic case of shifting the burden of proof. You were the one that made the claim of evolution, It is not my job to disprove it, It is your job to prove it.

Your only real argument against the cambrian explosion is that it is indeed possible for such complexity to arise in such a short amount of time. Animals in every single major phylum were found in the cambrian explosion and the only changes you've mentioned withing species are allele changes and mutations. Those won't create this complexity even in 20 million years.

I don't think that you have presented enough evidence for evolution in order to win this debate. My position is, "I have not seen enough evidence to believe that evolution is true. " The evidence would have to be overwhelming, Right now, It's just not.

Ok, I'm glad we at least agree on micro evolution and have a base line to start with. If you believe in micro evolution, You have no reason not to believe in macro evolution, Because they are both "evolution". Macro evolution is simply micro evolution with a time multiplier. The changes over a period of time (those periods can vary) will often, Not always, Lead to changes.

Examples of this are vestigial developments, Which are relics of previous evolutionary changes. One example of a vestigial development is the Laryngeal Nerve in a Giraffe's neck. Not all vestigial developments are entirely useless, Some can be repurposed, Such as the Appendix. Other examples of vestiges are sinuses, Wisdom teeth, Coccyx (tailbone), Ears, Tonsils, Male nipples and the plica semilunaris. Either way, These are remnants of our transitional history and they can be correlated to our ancestry through the field of morphology.

When I was explaining that fossils are extremely rare, I was in no way saying fossils don't exist. There are plenty of transitional fossils available. I was simply explaining how rare it is for a fossil to actually form. In our human ancestry, You can see the size of the brain increase with the evolutionary steps until it becomes indistinguishable from our current homo sapien species. A good example of human transitional fossils can be found at the Smithsonian Museum. Below is a link to the online page.
http://humanorigins. Si. Edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils

The issues with Creationism and the reason it cannot be compatible with evolution is as follows:
1) There is no micro/macro evolution, There is just evolution. The distinction between the two is mostly conceptual. You cannot reject one and accept the other, Scientifically, As one leads to the other.
2) There was never only one man and women of our homo sapien species, Which renders the Adam and Eve story false. At the point we speciated in our ancestry, Our species was approximately 2-3 thousand in volume.
3) Creationism requires "kinds", Or archetypes, Which were created by God, For example, Dog, As you mentioned. This would mean all dogs descended from that common Dog ancestor, And the original Dog was not a descendant of something else, Because it was made by God uniquely. This is the creationism proposition, But this is simply not what we find. A dog and a wolf have a common ancestor, Ancient wolves, For example, Which has a common ancestor, Which has a common ancestor, Etc. This ancestry trickles back throughout the phylogenetic tree of life. Like us, Dogs are related to trees, If you go back far enough. This entirely destroys the notion of archetypes and creationism and this is supported heavily by genomic sequencing. In fact, Scientists thought dogs were descendants of wolves, Until recently, Due to genetic sequencing, They realized they were wrong.

I am not trying to shift any burden of proof to you, You are just dodging my question. The proof IS what I said - genetics. I was asking you to refute it. Genetics is a very solid foundation of evolution, And to disprove evolution or reject the claim of genetics, You would need to provide evidence or a reason why it's wrong. I already said that changes in allele frequencies is a large driving force of evolutionary change. Mutations can cause change as well, But they are not as impacting. Do you have anything to refute that or not? You can't ask me for evidence, Then ignore it when I provide it and say I'm switching the burden of proof to you because you're forced to refute the evidence.

The Cambrian explosion is not a defense against evolution, As I already explained earlier. I am still not seeing the point you're trying to make here. You said, "those won't create this complexity even in 20 million years", Can you show me why?
You said "I don't think that you have presented enough evidence for evolution in order to win this debate. My position is, "I have not seen enough evidence to believe that evolution is true. " The evidence would have to be overwhelming, Right now, It's just not. "

I am trying hard not to overwhelm you with evidence and scatter this debate into a discussion on 20 fronts, Since we only have a few rounds. I've done this in the past and it got nowhere. There are so many fields of science that corroborate evolution, But, I want this to discussion to actually get somewhere, So I'm trying to keep it contained to a few points. Since genetics is the strongest argument for evolution, I'm focusing on that for now. Do you have a rebuttal for genetics?