Assigned opinion debate: Evolution

[Skwim]

I'm still confused. Maybe your sarcasm is too subtle.

Just playing the game. That's all.

I don't have either of those books.

I would be surprised if you did. I merely used them to point out that the panda's classification as a bear goes back at least 26 years.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I would be surprised if you did. I merely used them to point out that the panda's classification as a bear goes back at least 26 years.

Right, just another proof that micro-evolution occurs within kinds, but macro-evolution turning a bear into a parrot doesn't happen.

 

[painted wolf]

What is a "kind"?

(no actual creationists can give a definition that works, maybe you guys will have better luck? )

wa;do

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What is a "kind"?

(no actual creationists can give a definition that works, maybe you guys will have better luck? )

wa;do

A kind is a type of animal. Say for instance, a rabbit is a kind, but there are different types of rabbits. These different types of rabbits occurred through micro-evolution. But a rabbit never gives birth to a coconut, which disproves macro-evolution. Simple.

 

[Dan4reason]

Is anything impossible for God?

Surely a God that can create the whole of existence in six days can evolve life in that time.

wa:do

Well, we have no biblical or scientific evidence of super evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

Well, we have no biblical or scientific evidence of super evolution.

Of course there is biblical evidence: Noah's Ark.

wa:do

 

[Skwim]

Of course there is biblical evidence: Noah's Ark.

Ah yes, Tales for Children

The creationist's first line of defense. *HE! HE!*

 

[Skwim]

 

[Orias]

[/color]
Actually, odds are integral to creation. Did you know that mathematicians have calculated that the odds of life arising on its own are so remote that it's virtually impossible? Darwinists always seem to avoid addressing this fact.

Well, that all depends on if you think everything happens for a reason.

But then of course, mathmaticians are only as creative as the arithmatic that they follow, not to mention their conclusion on the possibility of Life is skewed, since we are all that we know.

Oh, it's definitely been proven that evolution exists, but only micro-evolution. Evolution doesn't create new kinds, but only creates variety within the kinds that God created. For example, in the beginning God created bears - a clearly identifiable kind. Since the time of Noah, evolution has created the different types of bears we have now - grizzly bears, brown bears, polar bears, panda bears, koala bears, etc.

Lol, are you even trying?

I don't see what you are arguing.

I figured I would take a jab at the Catholic Church, even if it may or not be relevant.

I'm arguing that evolution is obviously clear, simply because our minds have allowed us to revolutionize such an idea.

If evolution is not self evident, then we would not have evolved our minds, and the concepts that progress and evolve to the coming days.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

I'm going to jump in on the side of Evolution. My user name has an even number but I'm going to take an opposite position. If that's a problem for anyone then I'll bow out.

Evolution has not changed much in how it is explained. Small changes in a species combined with natural selection and isolation from others of the same species leads to development of a new species. What has changed is the understanding of how genetics plays a role in the aforementioned process.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

What or who's experience? You cannot only use the Bible as that is a fallacy of Circular Reasoning.

 

[Autodidact]

What or who's experience? You cannot only use the Bible as that is a fallacy of Circular Reasoning.

The experience of millions of Christians for centuries. Those who rely on the Bible find that it works. This is the same quality of reliability as science--it works.

 

[Skwim]

The experience of millions of Christians for centuries. Those who rely on the Bible find that it works. This is the same quality of reliability as science--it works.

Selective memory. The Christian forgets all the times they relied on their faith and nothing came of it. It's like praying that the lottery number you picked wins the jack pot. After spending thousands of lost dollars on bad picks, all prayed for, all it takes is one big win and suddenly we hear how prayer changed the winner's life.

So, back to the drawing boards, wishful thinker.

 

[Autodidact]

So you're accusing all the world's Christians of being liars? What are you, some kind of anti-Christian bigot?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So you're accusing all the world's Christians of being liars? What are you, some kind of anti-Christian bigot?

This type of intolerance and hate is a natural result of Darwinism. What do you expect from a philosophy that glorifies the strongest, and celebrates the deaths of the weak? Evolutionism relies on the strong killing the weak. No wonder they're always so angry.

 

[Skwim]

So you're accusing all the world's Christians of being liars? What are you, some kind of anti-Christian bigot?

Just a matter of self delusion, dear opponent, simple self delusion---pretty much the default mind set of creationists.

 

[Big_TJ]

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!

I know the rules but I want to be on the Creationist side; can I? Honestly, i am a "evolutionist" but I want to try to poke holes in evolution.

* big_tj assumes that he get the OK to break the rules . . . *

OK, it is very easy to provide evidence for creation, but is extremely hard to do the same for evolution. Evolution follows much of the "God of the Gap" theory; a theory evolutionist like to use on us Creationist. In this theory, "God" is used to represents the unknown - only until it become known. This is the same for evolution; evolution only accept this now because that is where they say the evidence point. As soon as the evidence point elsewhere, evolution will be dropped like a dirty socks, and "evolutionist" will start having a new talk. The probably of the evidence pointing elsewhere is extremely high; you can see confusion about where evidence point within evolution; it is only a matter of time before the evidence points away of evolution itself.

For creation, the bible is an extremely good evidence that can be globally accepted as evidence of creation. Let me know if you want me to explain why.

Now, let the debate begin!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The experience of millions of Christians for centuries. Those who rely on the Bible find that it works. This is the same quality of reliability as science--it works.

That is what is known as antedotal evidence. It's like saying I drank 5 gallons of gatorade and my cold went away in a week when colds go away in a week anyway.

Science on the other hand uses reproducible experiments to achieve results. Christians can only claim that the potty results of prayer is a result of God's will.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The experience of millions of Christians for centuries. Those who rely on the Bible find that it works. This is the same quality of reliability as science--it works.

Do you care to address the circular reasoning claim?

 

[Dan4reason]

I know the rules but I want to be on the Creationist side; can I? Honestly, i am a "evolutionist" but I want to try to poke holes in evolution.

* big_tj assumes that he get the OK to break the rules . . . *

OK, it is very easy to provide evidence for creation, but is extremely hard to do the same for evolution. Evolution follows much of the "God of the Gap" theory; a theory evolutionist like to use on us Creationist. In this theory, "God" is used to represents the unknown - only until it become known. This is the same for evolution; evolution only accept this now because that is where they say the evidence point. As soon as the evidence point elsewhere, evolution will be dropped like a dirty socks, and "evolutionist" will start having a new talk. The probably of the evidence pointing elsewhere is extremely high; you can see confusion about where evidence point within evolution; it is only a matter of time before the evidence points away of evolution itself.

For creation, the bible is an extremely good evidence that can be globally accepted as evidence of creation. Let me know if you want me to explain why.

Now, let the debate begin!

Sure go ahead.