Creationism..?

Question

I have a debate topic in biology. I was put on the con side of evolution, which makes it the same as creationism. It's pretty hard, because you have all this evidence on evolution. Are there any strong statements supporting con-evolution? If so, what are they?

Answer 1

Evolution is a hoax!
Go to amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0684834936/sr=8-1/qid=1167384465/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-0037894-5780738?ie=UTF8&s=books
and get this book and read up on it.
You will easily be able to debate evolution with this.
Have fun...

Answer 2

No there isn't. I don't even know why your school is even debating this. There is no debate. Evolution is science and creationism is just pure religion. There is no contest and I'm afraid you are on the losing team. My advice to you is just to sit there and get through it as best you can. You can have a laugh with it and make it more fun by looking in the religion section on Yahoo Answers and take some funny creationism ideas from there. People will be so busy laughing that the comedy element might improve your grade. But I would go to the head and ask why your class isn't having a real debate and why is it debating a non-debate. Your teacher needs to come up with some better topics.

In answer to the guy above who said "only part of an eye doesn't offer any selective advantage". Yes it does. 25% of an eye offers a 1% advantage over 24% of an eye.

Answer 3

The gaps in the fossil record are adequately
explained. They are the result of three factors:
one, the rare circumstances under which a fossil is
formed at all; two, that new species are often formed in small populations over a short period of
time, further reducing the probability that any fossil
of them is formed; and three, that the appropriate
fossils have just not yet been found. The finds
of new intermediate fossils, such as those of whales, in recent years are a good example of the
latter.

The argument that some things are too complex to
have evolved is more a failure of imagination than
anything else. The fact that some creationist can
not imagine how something may have evolved is
no indication that it did not. The intelligent design
argument about "specified complexity" is a ruse.
Two of the favorite examples of things "too complex" to work if one component is missing have already been disproved. Both the bacterial
flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade have been shown to come in simpler varieties which work. The eye was never a good example, numerous simpler working varieties of it exist.

This, of course, makes your job more difficult, not easier. However, a debate is not about getting
at the truth it's about winning. The side that is
judged to have won a debate is not the one that
has the truth, just the one that is better at debating.

Answer 4

Although I wouldn't support creationism, the general arguements against evolution involve holes in the fossil record and the idea that some features are too complex to have evolved. An example often toted is of the bacterial flagellum which does not work if any of its parts are missing.

Answer 5

Of course there are the faith-based explanations of the creationism, but if you want to stick with scientific uncertainty about evolutionary theory, here's some of the conundrums that fuel debates:

- 'hopeful monster' - if a mutation gives rise to a new species, with whom does that individual mate?
- how does a complex organ like an eye evolve, since only part of an eye doesn't offer any selective advantage/
- the fossil record is a timeline that has more gaps in it than places with information.
- 'self organization' - How can organic life spontaneously originate from inorganic compounds?
- how do you account for organisms that suddenly appear in the fossil record, with no logical ancestor?

Answer 6

I think you have a big problem.

I can think of not one single rational argument in favour of a creationist explanation, and no empirical evidence in support. All you have is a single page of an unreliable religious text written over 2,000 years ago (so well before scientific method).

You could of course put on a dog collar and rant from a pulpit - its how the creationist argument is usually fought.

Answer 7

Only the fable of Genesis that reads like it was written by a grade school student.