Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Debate: Does science support biblical creation or Darwinism?

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 1 of 1
 [ 7 posts ] 
Debate: Does science support biblical creation or Darwinism?
Author Message
AndiferousUser avatarPosts: 2727Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:00 amLocation: Laputa Gender: Time Lord

Post Debate: Does science support biblical creation or Darwinism?

Debate between micah1116 and qball17 on "Does science support biblical creation or Darwinian evolution?"

As customary, debate rules are available here.

The analysis is in the general forums here.
"As there seemed no measure between what Watt could understand, and what he could not, so there seemed none between what he deemed certain, and what he deemed doubtful."
~ Samuel Beckett, Watt
Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:02 am
micah1116Posts: 58Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:12 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Debate: Does science support biblical creation or Darwin

Okay qball17, I'll go ahead and make my case against evolution and would like to see if you have a rebuttal for me with some empirical data to back it up.

Evolution contends that all phylum of life share a common ancestor and all body plans derive from other body plans. For example, evolution contends that fish evolved into amphibian tetrapods. You have claimed in a previous conversation that natural selection is evolution, but that can't be further from the truth, and in fact creationists thought of natural selection first. Natural selection SELECTS, it's doesn't create anything, it can't turn a fish into an amphibian tetrapod. All it is is a population shift, that weeds out the inferior organisms and preserves the ones that are fit to survive, it doesn't effect the morphology of the organism at all, it can't.

Now what you are confusing with evolution is a process of variation. For example, the 250 varieties or so of dogs, there may be more than that. We know they all came from a population of wolves. They call wolves and domestic dogs different species, yet they are morphologically the same, there isn't a single structure that one has and the other doesn't, it's the same kind of animal.

Now Ken Miller makes the claim that changes in allele frequency is evolution, again, this is far from the truth. Changes in allele frequency changes the frequency in which already existing genes are expressed, your not evolving new genes, this process will actually lead to a loss of entire genes. This is how you get variety.

It cannot be claimed that micro evolution as it's called, will lead to macro over long periods of time, since the mechanism for micro is entirely different than what would need to happen for macro to occur. There isn't even a known mechanism for morphological change. Evolutionists have claimed that random genetic mutation is the mechanism, yet it's never been observed. The past 70 years of genetic emperiments to do this very thing have utterly failed, and something interesting happens too. When deformities occur, the organism will revert back to their wild type within one to several generations due to DNA recombination, it's a literal error correcting system. Why would we evolve something that would prohibit us to evolve? :lol:

Evolution has never been observed, it's not science. You believe that long ago and far away it happened, even though all the observble evidence shoots down that claim, so you indeed do have a religion, or atleast a faith. If you think we have observed evolution, I would really like to see it.
Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:12 pm
qball17BannedUser avatarPosts: 9Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 4:03 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Debate: Does science support biblical creation or Darwin

'Evolution has never been observed, it's not science. You believe that long ago and far away it happened, even though all the observble evidence shoots down that claim' umm elaborate?

what have you actually proved with this post? nothing..

so many contradictions.. yet again you claim that evolution science is a religion.. so you just wrecked yourself because you are relgious, more so by far than scientists.. so basically you are a religious person that believes it with no evidence, and then you spend your time trying to argue that science is religious.. which it isn't ..

the theory of evolution is the most accurate hypothesis that science has to give. it does make sense. it is OBVIOUSLY hard to observe evolution with the small time frame we have to observe it.. what is your point there?

however we have made links with different animals/humans in history to now and we see similarities and differences.. we can look at dna and see how different species compare.. there are many examples that show evolution.. the human monkey tendon, black people have dark skin and they lived in hot conditions.. each species adapts to there environment.. the evidence is MASSIVE.. i don't understand what you are trying to prove..

how about you display some evidence for a change that adam and eve existed, that the earth/universe is 10,000 years old, that everything was made in 7 days.. just because science makes hypothesis' that are not always certain doesn't all of a sudden mean that the bible is true..

do you actually believe that the bible is the word of god? because if you do you are an absolute fool considering many parts in the bible have been proven ridiculous..

what are you studying in college?

now i don't know everything about biological sciences and don't claim that i do. unlike you. you are stating that all the biologists that follow evolution are wrong .. yet you are the 19 year old with no qualifications that get there information from both the bible and biblical websites..

you should go to a university and talk to a professor in the correct field and debate with him... i'm not in this science field, i'm an engineer.. you are, well nothing, so before you make outrageous claims you should wipe your religious belief and look at science with an clear mind, which is what science bases itself on.. whereas you make out that you know everything (religion) and then try to apply basic science to prove it... you are a sad case.. hate to say it
Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:30 am
micah1116Posts: 58Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:12 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Debate: Does science support biblical creation or Darwin

So I'm assuming you can't give me an instance where we have observed evolution, maybe I missed something...

"so many contradictions.. yet again you claim that evolution science is a religion.. so you just wrecked yourself because you are relgious, more so by far than scientists.. so basically you are a religious person that believes it with no evidence, and then you spend your time trying to argue that science is religious.. which it isn't .. "

I NEVER claimed science is a religion, you don't seem to get it, evolution isn't science. I never said religion was science either. I simply examine the claimes made in the bible and look for scientific evidence for them. Ofcourse, some of my beliefs are just that, beliefs. But many others are based on scientific evidence. For example, the bible says the world was globally flooded, this is definetely not blind faith. The bible also says everything was created in 6 days, which would mean dinosaurs too, which again isn't faith based. There is tremendous evidence for both, which I would like to address.




"the theory of evolution is the most accurate hypothesis that science has to give. it does make sense. it is OBVIOUSLY hard to observe evolution with the small time frame we have to observe it.. what is your point there?"

So your saying the reason we don't observe it, is because it takes too long. That's not science, you have faith that it'll happen over long periods of time. How do you know it takes long periods of time? Your answer is because we don't observe it. So a lack of evidence, according to you, is evidence. :lol:


"however we have made links with different animals/humans in history to now and we see similarities and differences.. we can look at dna and see how different species compare.. there are many examples that show evolution.. the human monkey tendon, black people have dark skin and they lived in hot conditions.. each species adapts to there environment.. the evidence is MASSIVE.. i don't understand what you are trying to prove.. "

Comparing similarities and differences isn't evidence for one side or the other, it's assumption. Black people having black skin because they live in a hot climate isn't evolution, it's just increased pigment in the skin, if I go out and sit out by the pool all day and get a tan, is that evolution? Where is the new structure here?

And if you want to talk about DNA, we defintely can, but your going to have to give me some specific examples.

"now i don't know everything about biological sciences and don't claim that i do. unlike you. you are stating that all the biologists that follow evolution are wrong .. yet you are the 19 year old with no qualifications that get there information from both the bible and biblical websites.. "

I am claiming that evolution has never been observed, and therefore doesn't qualify as science. When I first started researching this topic, I had an open mind and looked at what both sides had to say, and the creationists were always right.

"how about you display some evidence for a change that adam and eve existed, that the earth/universe is 10,000 years old, that everything was made in 7 days.. just because science makes hypothesis' that are not always certain doesn't all of a sudden mean that the bible is true.."

It sounds like your saying that there is no evidence for evolution. I'll gladly give some evidence for my side.

Now my belief that Adam and Eve were the first two humans, is faith based, I admit that, but I don't think it's too unusual to think that all humans come from a man and a woman, if you know of another way it could happen, please let me know.

As far as the earth being made in 7 days, I see no other way to explain symibiosis relationships. Example, termites can't digest wood, the bugs that live in their stomach digest the wood. The bugs can't live without the termite, and the termite can't live without the bugs, which one evolved first? There are probably hundreds of thousands of examples of this, if not more. Flowers need bees to live, and the bees need flowers to live, which one evolved first? The flowers can't even reproduce without being pollinated by bees. Saying that these organisms evolved over millions of years is simply nonsense, they wouldn't even be alive.

As far as the universe being 10,000 years old, there is ample evidence for that claim, I'll give you some articles for you to read.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

As far as creation in general, there is one peice of biological information that cannot be explained in any other way, other than being designed. I'd really like to see you try and refute this.

http://creation.com/meta-information

And here's a video that I'd really like you to try and refute too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGZVohQHf-Q

You are claiming that evolution is supported by science, yet you can't give me one specific example, you can't just make broad statements without giving examples, or this debate isn't going anywhere. You didn't refute any of my claims in my opening statement, not a single one, what's the delay?
Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:14 pm
qball17BannedUser avatarPosts: 9Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 4:03 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Debate: Does science support biblical creation or Darwin

i'm sick of this bullshit.. i agree with the other people commenting on this debate. you are jjust repeating the same old debunked claims on a less knowledgeable person to try to get an upper hand on me.. however, i may not know much about biology but i know a shit load about physics.. so lets step away from biology and step into physics.. explain to me the physics behind the universe/the earth being 10,000 years old..

and to the other people commenting on this thread.. go eat a dick and get a life cunts..

cheers
Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:44 am
micah1116Posts: 58Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:12 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Debate: Does science support biblical creation or Darwin

LOL! And ofcourse these people sending you comments won't dare refute my claims.

If you don't have any knowledge on the subject, then why do you so blindly believe in evolution? It defintely sounds like your the one with the blind faith. Since this is a debate your supposed to actually respond and try and refute my claims, instead you've resorted to name calling. :roll:

You haven't refuted a single claim I've made. :lol: Maybe you should actually do some research before believing anything.

If you want to talk about the age of the earth and universe we can:

Taken from: http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/

Receding Moon

It takes but one proof of a young age for the moon or the earth to completely refute the doctrine of evolution. Based upon reasonable postulates, great scope of observational data, and fundamental laws of physics there is proof that the moon and the earth are too young for the presumed evolution to have taken place.

There is an easily understood physical proof that the moon is too young for the presumed evolutionary age. From the laws of physics one can show that the moon should be receding from the earth. From the same laws one can show that the moon would have never survived a nearness to the earth of less than 11,500 miles. That distance is known as the Roche limit.1 The tidal forces of the earth on a satellite of the moon's dimensions would break up the satellite into something like the rings of Saturn. Hence the receding moon was never that close to the earth.

The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies this recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon would be much farther away from the earth than it is, even if it had started from the earth. It could not have been receding for anything like the age demanded by the doctrine of evolution. There is as yet no tenable alternative explanation that will yield an evolutionary age of 4 billion years or more for the moon. Here is as simple a proof as science can provide that the moon is not as old as claimed.

How does an evolutionist reconcile this proof that the moon is too young for the presumed evolution to have taken place? This known dynamical limit in the earth-moon system is a great problem to knowledgeable evolutionists. Robert C. Humes in his book Introduction to Space Science (John Wiley, 1971) acknowledges the problem and states that "The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative." Dr. Louis B. Slichter, Professor of Geophysics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology treats this problem in great detail and concludes that "the time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem."2

It turns out that the earth-moon tidal friction causes the earth's spin rate to be slowing down. Lord Kelvin used that changing spin rate, assumed an initial molten earth, and proved that the earth could not be a billion years old, or the earth's present shape would be different.3

Hence from theoretical and observational considerations there are two proofs that the earth-moon system can not be as old as a billion years.

1) The earth-moon spacing and recession rate refutes that long age.
2) The shape of the earth refutes that long age.
Lunar Dust Depth

The prelunar landing predictions of evolutionary scientists gave great concern to the astronauts. Their predictions were that due to a presumed 4.5 billion year age of the moon and the rate of influx of dust and the lunar physical processes of rock break-up, the astronauts might be lost in a great depth of dust on the moon.4 Fortunately the evolutionary predictions of great dust depth were wrong. Our astronauts were not lost in the predicted "quicksand" of age-accumulated dust on the moon. The creationist predictions of only a thin layer of dust were correct.

This false prediction from evolutionary scientists lends support to the author's contention that the doctrine of evolution is a barrier to progress in science. Additional support for that contention can be found in the continual negative results of the evolutionary experiments to detect the presumed "evolved life forms" in space. Apparently one of the astronauts considered the lunar receiving laboratory to be a waste of time and money. To disprove the notion of evolved bacteria on the moon he offered to eat some of that dust. One should carefully note that the great successes of the NASA space program, of which we are all proud, were made possible by the tremendous advances in technology, not by evolutionary science. That technology is founded upon the proven laws of physics and chemistry and ingenious developments from the various fields of engineering.

Radiometric Evidence of Rapid Creation

Dr. Robert V. Gentry has radiometric evidence that the basement rock of the earth was formed in a cool state, not in a molten condition. A cool initial state of the earth gives support to a young age for the earth. His research involves the study of pleochroic halos (colored spheres) produced by the radioactive decay of Polonium 218. He analyzed over one hundred thousand of these halos in granitic rocks which had been taken from considerable depths below land surface and in all parts of the world.

Two very important conclusions were drawn from this research 1) The Polonium 218 was primordial, that is to say, this radioactive element was in the original granite. 2) Because the halos can only be formed in the crystals of the granite, and the Polonium 218 half-life is only 3 minutes, the granite had to be cool and crystallized originally. The Polonium 218 would have been gone before molten granite could have cooled. It would take a very long time for a molten earth to cool.

The final conclusion can be summarized in this brief quote from one of Gentry's technical papers: "The simple evidence of the halos is that the basement rocks of the earth were formed solid." "Halos in other minerals can be shown to give equally startling evidence of a young earth."5 One needs to read some of Gentry's technical articles to see how clearly he established his conclusion that the Polonium 218 was primordial. That in itself presents problems to conventional radiometric dating. The conventional radiometric dating postulates would not jibe with this initial state which Gentry has identified.

Magnetic Evidence of a Young Earth

The known decay in the earth's magnetic field and the inexorable depletion of its energy clearly point to an imminent and inevitable end of the earth's magnetic field. A Department of Commerce publication lists evaluations of the strength of the earth's dipole magnet (its main magnet) since Karl Gauss made the first evaluation in the 1830's. It states that the rate of decrease is about 5% per hundred years. It then states that if the decay continues the magnetic field will "vanish in A.D. 3391."6

This decay has some harmful environmental effects. The earth's magnetic field extends into the space around the earth. This provides a protective shield against cosmic rays and solar wind. The half-life of this decaying magnetic field is 1400 years (meaning that every 1400 years its strength is cut in half). The field strength is now only about one third as strong as it was at the time of Christ. More harmful radiation is penetrating down to the surface of the earth. This is an irreversible degradation of our environment.

Horace Lamb predicted this decay in an 1883 theoretical paper on the source of the earth's magnetic field. Looking backward in time, in the light of his theory and the present known decay rate, and assuming the maximum plausible initial strength, puts an age limit on the earth's magnet of only a few thousand years.7

Evolutionary geologists assume that there is some type of dynamo mechanism sustaining the earth's magnet. No one has yet come up with an acceptable theory for such a dynamo. That mechanism is supposed to be able to reverse the direction of the earth's magnet. They assume that this magnet has not been decaying continually but has reversed back and forth many times for billions of years. They must hold to a long age or it is the death knell for the whole theory of evolution. Reversal phenomena are "read" into the magnetization of accessible rocks in the crust of the earth. The literature shows real problems and some self-contradictions with those interpretations.8

Conclusion

The age of the earth and moon can not be as old as required in the doctrine of evolution, as has been shown when the great laws of physics are applied to observed large scale phenomena such as:

1) The recession rate of the moon and the Roche limit.
2) The faster earth spin rate in the past.
3) The rate of lunar dust build-up.
4) The decay of the earth's magnetic field.
5) The pleochroic halos in the earth's basement rock.

And a basic logic question, why did all agriculture and writing start 5200 years ago?


And here's some more on the polomium 218, here is his website:

http://www.halos.com/
Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:43 am
AndiferousUser avatarPosts: 2727Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:00 amLocation: Laputa Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Debate: Does science support biblical creation or Darwin

Appears that this debate has been finished.
"As there seemed no measure between what Watt could understand, and what he could not, so there seemed none between what he deemed certain, and what he deemed doubtful."
~ Samuel Beckett, Watt
Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:58 am
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 1 of 1
 [ 7 posts ] 
Return to Debates Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests