Bull Ring Another Evolution vs Creationism Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Coloradomtnman

Rational and proud of it.
Oct 1, 2008
4,445
933
200
Denver
S.J.

Do you want to debate The theories of Evolution vs Creationism with me?

Moderation Note:

When you START a bull-ring thread -- you need to clearly specify the participants in the OP. AND -- you need to limit the thread either by time or number of posts. I will do that for you this time by editing the OP.

Other please refrain from posting.. (your certainly invited to set up YOUR OWN matches. :2up:)

In the future --- Use the BullRing Discussion forum to set up the terms --- and THEN put the gloves on and dive in.

Edit -- This thread will limited to 150 posts. And the "judges" can appointed at any time prior to reaching that limit -- if you'd like..

S.J. Coloradomtnman

Thanks..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure, if you think you can refrain from personal attacks and childish insults. I won't be online too much longer though, but if I leave, I'll come back later. I DO work.
 
One other thing...I want to hear you make a case for evolution in your own words. I don't intend to read volumes of somebody else's writings. I want YOU to be able to make the case, not somebody else. It's easy to copy and paste but that's a lazy way of arguing and it doesn't show that you know what you're talking about. If you really believe in it and understand it, you should be able to argue the theory on your own, without help from a book.
 
Oh well, looks like he wasn't serious. I'll check back later on just in case.
 
First, let me define some terms and parameters about evolution.

The theories of evolution do not address the origins of life, only speciation. There are a number of working hypotheses regarding how life came to exist, but nothing with sufficient work or success to be considered a scientific theory. These hypotheses are primarily the work of evolutionary chemists.

On the subject of scientific theories: these are not "guesses" or baseless speculation and neither are they proved. No scientific theory will ever be proved as that is not how science works.

Scientific theories are the best explanation and description of natural phenomena which fits the currently available data and with which accurate predictions are made.

Scientific theories are rigorously tested, none more so than the theories of evolution. The theories of evolution are supported by data and evidence from many different fields of science: biology, geology, chemistry, physics, and sub-disciplines within these fields such as genetics.

Evolution is an accepted fact, except by a loud minority. The theories are what explains the fact i.e. evolution through natural selection (which is only one theory of evolution and a non competing theory with the others like sexual-selection, genetic drift, etc.). Germs are an accepted fact. Gravity is an accepted fact. Relativity is an accepted fact. And atoms are an accepted fact. The theories are ways in which to better understand these facts. Germ theory, atomic theory, the theories of Relativity, and Gravity have been less challenged than the theories of evolution.

Lastly, science can not test for the immaterial. Science is inherently materialistic philosophically. God can not be tested for, put under a microscope, seen through a telescope, etc.

This is the #1 reason why creationism and Intelligent Design are not valid scientific theories.

I leave it there for now and let you address those arguments. I'll counter argue and then we can move on to the actual evidence which supports the theories of evolution.

Sound okay?
 
Last edited:
I'm not here to prove creation, I've never claimed I can. I'm here to have some questions about evolution answered that so far have been met with comments like "I would explain it to you but you're too stupid" or "Here, read this book" or "Well, at least I don't believe in a sky fairy" etc.

I WILL address creation but I'd like to have my questions on evolution answered first and I'd like to hear logical answers.

And can we take one point at a time instead of several, so we don't have to spend a lot of time on each post?

Just one point about your post, I think in order to make your case for evolution you have to address the origin of life. If the claim that all creatures came from one (the common ancestor), then you have to be able to tell me where the common ancestor came from. Otherwise, you can't dismiss creation. I'll be back in a while.
 
I'm not here to prove creation, I've never claimed I can. I'm here to have some questions about evolution answered that so far have been met with comments like "I would explain it to you but you're too stupid" or "Here, read this book" or "Well, at least I don't believe in a sky fairy" etc.

I WILL address creation but I'd like to have my questions on evolution answered first and I'd like to hear logical answers.

And can we take one point at a time instead of several, so we don't have to spend a lot of time on each post?

Just one point about your post, I think in order to make your case for evolution you have to address the origin of life. If the claim that all creatures came from one (the common ancestor), then you have to be able to tell me where the common ancestor came from. Otherwise, you can't dismiss creation. I'll be back in a while.

That's fair. I understand that we don't live on USMB, and other things in real life are more important than you and I debating this topic. We can start with evolution and then move on to creationism.

The theories of evolution don't encompass origin of life, the same way the theories of relatvity don't encompass the origin of the universe. The theories of evolution have to do with why life changes (evolves), not why life exists in the first place.

However, the origin of life and the origin of the universe, if or when these are discovered or theorized, had either fit with evolution and relativity, respectively, or we're wrong about origins or evolution or relativity or all of it. We aren't wrong about relatvity, at least not very wrong, as it is continuously tested: GPS satellites have to be re-calibrated constantly because of the effects of relativity.

No one knows the origin of life. It could be that it was seeded by extraterrestrials, that God did it, or that the early conditions of the planet were such that carbon-based, organic molecules spontaneously began to self-replicate. Either way, that does not have to do with how life evolves.

The theories of evolution are attempts at explaining bio-diversity, cancer, why species seem to fit their natural environments and adapt to new environments (like laboratories), why bacteria develop resistances to anti-biotics, fossils of life forms which no longer exist, why animals have certain forms and characteristics and are different not only to other species but between genders (beards, antlers, breasts, etc.) and yet have so much in common (fetal forms, organs, nervous systems, DNA, etc.).

When Darwin (and others at the time) came up with the theory of natural selection, it wasn't to explain how life came to be but how life forms came to be so different from eachother and yet so alike (Darwin's famous finches) and also seem to fit into their environments so well.

I don't dismiss creationism when it comes to a potential source for the spark of life. And if life was created, evolution undeniably happened to that life. That is a fact.

The theories of evolution, when examined, at this point seem very much on the right track if not 100% accurate. And they probably aren't 100% accurate. Even if they are, we will never know and it will never be proved to be.
 
Ok, it sounds like you're talking about adaptation. Correct me if I'm wrong but most people who push the theory of evolution claim that ALL creatures evolved form a common ancestor. Am I wrong?
 
Ok, it sounds like you're talking about adaptation. Correct me if I'm wrong but most people who push the theory of evolution claim that ALL creatures evolved form a common ancestor. Am I wrong?

No, you're not wrong. Common ancestry would be the proof of the theories of evolution. I can't believe we will actually discover this common ancestor so it is purely theoretical.

Adaptation is evolution.
 
We've never found evidence of any living organism crossing over to a totally new genus of life. Cross-genus evolution is without support from science and with the discovery of DNA, we now understand why that is the case.
Exactly my point. There is no "common ancestor". The most that's ever been verified is adaptation.

Adaptation is evolution, like I wrote earlier. Common ancestry is inferred, which is a perfectly legitimate scientific process.

Let me illustrate for you how the inference works and why it is so widely accepted: you aren't identical to your parents. Your children are/will not be identical to you. Play that out over hundreds of thousands of generations and the very last one of your line will not even be recognizable as the same species as you if the traits favored for the survival of your line (in other words naturally selected) are not the traits selected for when it came to you. That's why a few ancient species still remain, they fit their environment very well and their environment hasn't changed. Any mutations were not selected for and the species are largely the same. But that is the exception.

DNA is essentially code. Anything can and does corrupt that code, i.e. cancer, viruses, birth defects, congenital defects, etc. If a particular species' code is corrupted enough times over enough years, it will no longer be recognizable as that species. Go long enough and it won't be recognizable as that genus. Even more time, let's say 200 million years, and the original DNA will code for an organism for which we don't even have a kingdom classification.

Remember that the categories into which we place animals are entirely in our minds. Carl Linnaeus came up with the current system based on morphology and it works very well for when we need terms to discuss biology and organisms. However, all organisms belong to a single, fluid, changing process called life.
 
Moderation Note:

When you START a bull-ring thread -- you need to clearly specify the participants in the OP. AND -- you need to limit the thread either by time or number of posts. I will do that for you this time by editing the OP.

Other please refrain from posting.. (your certainly invited to set up YOUR OWN matches. :2up:)

In the future --- Use the BullRing Discussion forum to set up the terms --- and THEN put the gloves on and dive in.

Thanks..
 
Tell ya what, CMM, I want to answer your last post but I think maybe we should move this to the CDZ. I like the idea of limiting the number of posters as it keeps the shit slingers from derailing the thread but limiting the number of posts or the amount of time doesn't make sense to me. Also, I don't care about "winning or losing" because that's just a matter of opinion anyway.
I just want an honest and substantive discussion without some asshole constantly butting in with personal attacks and insults. I don't care if others want to comment as long as it's done constructively and with civility. In fact, I WANT to give others a chance to answer some of my questions, I just don't feel like sifting through countless posts from idiots who have to include a personal insult with every comment they post.
If the mods keep an eye on the thread, maybe we can actually discuss this without it getting derailed by the trolls (something I've yet to see happen with this subject).
So, are you ok with that?
 
Tell ya what, CMM, I want to answer your last post but I think maybe we should move this to the CDZ. I like the idea of limiting the number of posters as it keeps the shit slingers from derailing the thread but limiting the number of posts or the amount of time doesn't make sense to me. Also, I don't care about "winning or losing" because that's just a matter of opinion anyway.
I just want an honest and substantive discussion without some asshole constantly butting in with personal attacks and insults. I don't care if others want to comment as long as it's done constructively and with civility. In fact, I WANT to give others a chance to answer some of my questions, I just don't feel like sifting through countless posts from idiots who have to include a personal insult with every comment they post.
If the mods keep an eye on the thread, maybe we can actually discuss this without it getting derailed by the trolls (something I've yet to see happen with this subject).
So, are you ok with that?

Totally fine with that, moreover it will allow me to properly school some of fellow nonbelievers on what the theories of evolution actually mean and what science actually does. Misunderstandings of science are a personal pet peeve.
 
Tell ya what, CMM, I want to answer your last post but I think maybe we should move this to the CDZ. I like the idea of limiting the number of posters as it keeps the shit slingers from derailing the thread but limiting the number of posts or the amount of time doesn't make sense to me. Also, I don't care about "winning or losing" because that's just a matter of opinion anyway.
I just want an honest and substantive discussion without some asshole constantly butting in with personal attacks and insults. I don't care if others want to comment as long as it's done constructively and with civility. In fact, I WANT to give others a chance to answer some of my questions, I just don't feel like sifting through countless posts from idiots who have to include a personal insult with every comment they post.
If the mods keep an eye on the thread, maybe we can actually discuss this without it getting derailed by the trolls (something I've yet to see happen with this subject).
So, are you ok with that?

Totally fine with that, moreover it will allow me to properly school some of fellow nonbelievers on what the theories of evolution actually mean and what science actually does. Misunderstandings of science are a personal pet peeve.
Ok, if you have time to start it up I would appreciate it. I have to go do some work but I'll be back tonight.
 
Tell ya what, CMM, I want to answer your last post but I think maybe we should move this to the CDZ. I like the idea of limiting the number of posters as it keeps the shit slingers from derailing the thread but limiting the number of posts or the amount of time doesn't make sense to me. Also, I don't care about "winning or losing" because that's just a matter of opinion anyway.
I just want an honest and substantive discussion without some asshole constantly butting in with personal attacks and insults. I don't care if others want to comment as long as it's done constructively and with civility. In fact, I WANT to give others a chance to answer some of my questions, I just don't feel like sifting through countless posts from idiots who have to include a personal insult with every comment they post.
If the mods keep an eye on the thread, maybe we can actually discuss this without it getting derailed by the trolls (something I've yet to see happen with this subject).
So, are you ok with that?

Totally fine with that, moreover it will allow me to properly school some of fellow nonbelievers on what the theories of evolution actually mean and what science actually does. Misunderstandings of science are a personal pet peeve.
Ok, if you have time to start it up I would appreciate it. I have to go do some work but I'll be back tonight.

I asked flacaltenn just to move it to the CDZ. That way we don't have to rehash any of the above.
 
Tell ya what, CMM, I want to answer your last post but I think maybe we should move this to the CDZ. I like the idea of limiting the number of posters as it keeps the shit slingers from derailing the thread but limiting the number of posts or the amount of time doesn't make sense to me. Also, I don't care about "winning or losing" because that's just a matter of opinion anyway.
I just want an honest and substantive discussion without some asshole constantly butting in with personal attacks and insults. I don't care if others want to comment as long as it's done constructively and with civility. In fact, I WANT to give others a chance to answer some of my questions, I just don't feel like sifting through countless posts from idiots who have to include a personal insult with every comment they post.
If the mods keep an eye on the thread, maybe we can actually discuss this without it getting derailed by the trolls (something I've yet to see happen with this subject).
So, are you ok with that?

Totally fine with that, moreover it will allow me to properly school some of fellow nonbelievers on what the theories of evolution actually mean and what science actually does. Misunderstandings of science are a personal pet peeve.
Ok, if you have time to start it up I would appreciate it. I have to go do some work but I'll be back tonight.

Well, they won't move the thread so I'll just start a new one over in the CDZ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top