Evolution Vs. Creationism

[dallas1125]

I am curious as to the facts each side claims. I am going to be neutral on this and I am looking for a debate between people using facts.

Questions for Debate:
1. What evidence is there for evolution?
2. What evidence is there against evolution?

Rules: Any facts should be backed up with a valid source. There is no attacking the credibility of the other side because I have seen debates turn into nothing more than: Im right your wrong! No, Im right and your wrong! We are discussing the facts and not the person. The bible is not considered a valid source, along with any other religious texts.

 

[McBell]

opcorn:

 

[Pegg]

The bible is not considered a valid source, along with any other religious texts.

LOL

have you never considered that the reason why creationists are convinced in creation is because of what they find in the bible and how the bible marries up with known scientific facts?


telling creationist they cannot use the bible is like telling an evolutionist they cannot use science

:slap:

 

[McBell]

LOL

have you never considered that the reason why creationists are convinced in creation is because of what they find in the bible and how the bible marries up with known scientific facts?


telling creationist they cannot use the bible is like telling an evolutionist they cannot use science

:slap:

So the only evidence you have for or against evolution is the Bible?

That says quite a lot, don't you think?

 

[LuisDantas]

LOL

have you never considered that the reason why creationists are convinced in creation is because of what they find in the bible and how the bible marries up with known scientific facts?


telling creationist they cannot use the bible is like telling an evolutionist they cannot use science

:slap:

Doesn't the sentence that I highlighted implies that you wouldn't in fact need to rely on the Bible alone?

You could at least give us a few of those known, bible-compatible scientific facts.

 

[Pegg]

Doesn't the sentence that I highlighted implies that you wouldn't in fact need to rely on the Bible alone?

You could at least give us a few of those known, bible-compatible scientific facts.

i'd like to, but the OP specifically says only 'evidence' can be used and 'the bible is not considered a valid source'

so hey, that kind of leaves creationists out of the debate.

:sarcastic

 

[LuisDantas]

Questions for Debate:
1. What evidence is there for evolution?

The ones I am most aware of and find most convincing include the very fact that no true alternative has ever been found, despite over a century of very passionate desire to disprove it.

Of course, that would mean little if it didn't have evidence of its own. Such as the morphological research that Darwin undertook while on his voyage in the Beagle, observing birds and other animals and plants.

Charles Darwin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Darwin's finches - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most significant is that Wallace knew nothing of Darwin's work, yet arrived at such similar conclusions that Darwin was prompted to reveal both his own research and that of Wallace at the same time. Had Wallace spent more time and obtained more convincing and complete evidence than Darwin himself, we would probably be remembering him as the originator of the Theory.

Charles Darwin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These days, the most convincing one is possibly the genetic analysis of humans and other primates. The findings about how Chromosome 2 of the human genome seems to be a result of the fusion of two non-human Chromosomes are particularly interesting.

Chromosome 2 (human) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. What evidence is there against evolution?

I am not aware of any, actually. Some very passionate opinions and beliefs, sure. But no evidence that I know of.

 

[LuisDantas]

i'd like to, but the OP specifically says only 'evidence' can be used and 'the bible is not considered a valid source'

so hey, that kind of leaves creationists out of the debate.

:sarcastic

I thought you meant that there is scientific evidence that agrees with the Bible, as opposed to actually coming from it. Did I misunderstand you?

One would assume that if Creationism is true - or even if Evolution is not quite true - it would be possible to find evidence of such outside scripture. The natural world, after all, does exist independently of scripture.

 

[Pegg]

I thought you meant that there is scientific evidence that agrees with the Bible, as opposed to actually coming from it. Did I misunderstand you?

One would assume that if Creationism is true - or even if Evolution is not quite true - it would be possible to find evidence of such outside scripture. The natural world, after all, does exist independently of scripture.

the bible doesnt try to explain how things work, so its not going to give a lot of information that we would consider 'scientific'

but it certainly does contain some information that is in harmony with known science...that is what i meant.

 

[fantome profane]

1. What evidence is there for evolution?

All right, in no particular order off the top of my head

The stratification of the fossil record
the geographical distribution of the fossil record
the bio-geographical distribution living animals and plants
The phylogenetic tree
Homology
Embryology
Atavisms
Vestigial organs
Genetics
pseudo genes
the fused human chromosome 2
Endogenous retroviruses

And that is all that I can think of off the top of my head after staying up all night.

The evidence for evolution is just absolutely overwhelming. But even more to the point is that there simply is no alternative scientific theory that explains the phenomenon that evolution explains.

 

[Pegg]

All right, in no particular order off the top of my head

The stratification of the fossil record
the geographical distribution of the fossil record
the bio-geographical distribution living animals and plants
The phylogenetic tree
Homology
Embryology
Atavisms
Vestigial organs
Genetics
pseudo genes
the fused human chromosome 2
Endogenous retroviruses

And that is all that I can think of off the top of my head after staying up all night.

The evidence for evolution is just absolutely overwhelming. But even more to the point is that there simply is no alternative scientific theory that explains the phenomenon that evolution explains.

how about the part that shows us how life began?

 

[fantome profane]

And I should also add that evolution has made a multitude of predictions that have turned out to be true. Including the prediction of DNA itself.

 

[fantome profane]

how about the part that shows us how life began?

It is interesting that the opponents of evolution don’t even seem to know what evolution is. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That is a different topic altogether.

 

[Pegg]

It is interesting that the opponents of evolution don’t even seem to know what evolution is. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That is a different topic altogether.

yes i know its a different topic

but one that is not mutually exclusive from evolution because without one you cannot have the other

 

[fantome profane]

yes i know its a different topic

but one that is not mutually exclusive from evolution because without one you cannot have the other

Without the origin of life you can't have creationism either. So what difference does it make?

 

[LuisDantas]

I beg to differ, Pegg. The Theory of Evolution is in fact quite capable of standing on its own without speculating on the origins of life itself.

It does hint of abiogenesis, but that is certainly not enough to make the two subjects reliant on one another.

 

[Pegg]

Without the origin of life you can't have creationism either. So what difference does it make?

but creationists have an origin to life...the bible states 'in the beginning God created' ...

so thats not an issue for us.

 

[Father Heathen]

LOL

have you never considered that the reason why creationists are convinced in creation is because of what they find in the bible and how the bible marries up with known scientific facts?


telling creationist they cannot use the bible is like telling an evolutionist they cannot use science

:slap:

But unlike science the bible doesn't hold any weight. The bible is only relevant to those who believe in its authenticity and who presume that literal interpretation was intended, whereas science is about experiencing, observing and testing the tangible.

 

[fantome profane]

but creationists have an origin to life...the bible states 'in the beginning God created' ...

so thats not an issue for us.

Fine, for the sake of argument I am willing to stipulate that. God created life. This works for evolution just fine. So the origin of life is not a problem.

 

[Pegg]

I beg to differ, Pegg. The Theory of Evolution is in fact quite capable of standing on its own without speculating on the origins of life itself.

It does hint of abiogenesis, but that is certainly not enough to make the two subjects reliant on one another.

I can agree with you to a point. However, you should realize that this is what makes creationists so skeptical of evolution in the first place.

We see things from the point of view of 'where they started' ... evolutionists see things from the point of view of 'where they are right now' and dont seem to be concerned with how they got there, iow, evolution is purely materialistic.