Assigned opinion debate: Evolution

[Dan4reason]

IMPORTANT: READ THIS POST
This is a very special thread that I want to do as an experiment. In debates on this forum, we debate the positions we actually support but in a debate club you are given a position to debate for. I will do the same by assigning the side you will take by the number of characters in your user name. Those with an odd number of characters in their usernames will take the side of evolution, and those with an even number will side with creation. For example, my username is "dan4reason" and has 10 characters so I will side with creation.

You can take any of the diverse number of views within your respective positions. If someone was too lazy to read the OP and is debating the wrong side please inform him about the nature of this thread. If you are assigned a position you don't support think of this as an oppurtunity to let out your inner creationist or evolutionist. Now let the big debate begin!

 

[Dan4reason]

There are several problems with evolution. Evolutionists are always changing their minds about how evolution works. They cannot even decide if evolution happens gradually or in punctuated equilibrium. They cannot prove that life descended from a common ancestor. Evolution is a theory without significant evidence.

 

[LuisDantas]

(Meta-question: for purposes of this experiment of yours, does Creationism include "biologists are right but God wanted it so" positions?)

 

[Dan4reason]

(Meta-question: for purposes of this experiment of yours, does Creationism include "biologists are right but God wanted it so" positions?)

Sorry, I don't really understand your question. If you mean theistic evolution, then no. As a creationist you must argue that life on earth was designed whether it is creationism, ID, old-earth, or young earth. Evolutionists can be atheist evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, or something in between.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, I don't really understand your question. If you mean theistic evolution, then no. As a creationist you must argue that life on earth was designed whether it is creationism, ID, old-earth, or young earth. Evolutionists can be atheist evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, or something in between.

Yes, I think you understood correctly. I will sit this one out then. Best of luck!

 

[fantome profane]

Do spaces count as characters?

 

[Skwim]

There are several problems with evolution. Evolutionists are always changing their minds about how evolution works. They cannot even decide if evolution happens gradually or in punctuated equilibrium. They cannot prove that life descended from a common ancestor. Evolution is a theory without significant evidence.

Like a true creationist you're starting off well: lies, hyperbole, and ignorance. How about defending your position rather than attacking the other side.

Oops, almost forgot, you have nothing to defend and are only left with attack. Excellent creationist post.

Just excellent.

 

[Autodidact]

Experience has demonstrated that the Bible is true and valuable. God has given us the Bible. It is reasonable to start from what the Bible tells us about our origins. The Bible tells us that God created us, and we can see evidence of this as well. Humans are not at all like animals. It is obvious to anyone who accepts obvious truth that God created us in His image.

 

[Dan4reason]

Do spaces count as characters?

I can tell you are trying as hard as you can to not be a creationist, however, spaces do not count as characters.

 

[Dan4reason]

Like a true creationist you're starting off well: lies, hyperbole, and ignorance. How about defending your position rather than attacking the other side.

Oops, almost forgot, you have nothing to defend and are only left with attack. Excellent creationist post.

Just excellent.

Creationism is the defaut position. When you see a computer on the sea shore, you assume a designer. In fact we know that a being capable of creation complexity exist so it is not unreasonable to think that designers also made biological complexity. The evidence for creation is all around you. The evidence for evolution is yet to be shown.

 

[meogi]

For once, I wish my name wasn't odd.

You have to at least admit that evolution could be the mechanism by which God creates.

 

[Skwim]

Creationism is the defaut position.

Don't you wish.

When you see a computer on the sea shore, you assume a designer.

And when you see the sea shore, you do not.

In fact we know that a being capable of creation complexity exist so it is not unreasonable to think that designers also made biological complexity.

In light of no such known designers, yes it is.

The evidence for creation is all around you.

No quarrel that things are created. Simple cause-effect.

The evidence for evolution is yet to be shown.

False. Stick to the facts please. Thank you.

 

[Skwim]

For once, I wish my name wasn't odd.

You have to at least admit that evolution could be the mechanism by which God creates.

Ah, creationists aren't allowed to do that. Something to do with an oath they take, a hand on Bible thing.

 

[Dan4reason]

For once, I wish my name wasn't odd.

You have to at least admit that evolution could be the mechanism by which God creates.

Genesis said that God created everything in six days. God said it, I believe it.

 

[Dan4reason]

And when you see the sea shore, you do not.

Well, the sea shore is not complex, the computer and life itself are.

False. Stick to the facts please. Thank you.

The fact is that creation is the most reasonable position if there are no other proven alternatives. You have given me no proof of evilution.

 

[Skwim]

Well, the sea shore is not complex,

Get your microscope out.

The fact is that creation is the most reasonable position if there are no other proven alternatives.

In the context of showing creationism to be true, what you find reasonable doesn't mean squat to me.

You have given me no proof of evilution.

And what constitutes acceptable proof?

Edited to note: I see you slyly deleted your last accusation (creationist tactic 32-B). Too bad I already copied it and responded. So, how about an answer.

 

[Autodidact]

How can anything exist without having been created? Science tells us that the universe came into existence. Therefore, it must have been created. Once again the Bible accords with modern science, or rather, modern science discovers that the Bible was right all along.

 

[Skwim]

How can anything exist without having been created? Science tells us that the universe came into existence. Therefore, it must have been created. Once again the Bible accords with modern science, or rather, modern science discovers that the Bible was right all along.

Science never said any thing was never created. This is just another mindless accusation concocted because you have nothing of substance to work with. How about trying to support your position for a change rather . . . Oops, there I go again forgetting you have nothing to say in defense of creationism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can tell you are trying as hard as you can to not be a creationist, however, spaces do not count as characters.

How about underscores?

I'd actually like to try the creationist side for this one, but I'll stick to the rules and whatever you decide on this.

If underscores are characters, I'm arguing evolution. If they're not, it's creationism for me.

 

[Autodidact]

Science never said any thing was never created. .

Exactly. I'm so glad you agree. Science has never discovered anything that proves that the universe and everything in it was not created. How could it? How can something come into existence without having been created?