Help Me!! We have debate tommorow........ And I Have to Defend My Side..... MY Side Is Creation.. How Can I Defend It??........ Give Some Evidences...
2007-12-12 21:37:08 · 14 answers · asked by Malupet 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Do what most creationists do ... lie, lie, lie.
For example:
You're lying about a "debate tomorrow" ... just as you lied 5 months ago when you asked the same question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmD2cszxflLUa0orn5S4PE7sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070727040034AADnHfv
2007-12-13 00:33:01 · answer #1 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think I would show that the two are not in the same realm. Creation attempts to answer the "why questions" and evolution attempts to answer the "how questions".
The whole debate violates the division between science and philosophy and is harmful to both.
Evolution cannot predict our planet's evolution. That is because it allows for ignorance in the very foundation when it says that natural selection is based upon random events such as genetic mutations. When science says that there is a random event, we get the idea that there is a causal agent called "random" but that is nonsense. A random event merely means "I haven't a clue as to what caused this to happen". By stating that something is random, science admits right there that it doesn't know whether God has intervened or not.
Could God have guided evolution to get where we are today? Of course, but such a question is not a scientific one. Any attempt to answer such a question is also not in the realm of science. Any attempt to say that nature is unguided is not science. Any question that includes, "why would an intelligent creator....?" has crossed into theology.
The rules of the debate have to be defined. If a scientific answer or question can cross into theology, then you can give a theological response.
2007-12-13 06:28:54 · answer #2 · answered by Matthew T 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just google "creationist arguments". I'm afraid you've been given the weaker side in this debate. The arguments are always the same. In a nutshell, the creationist rely on two main things for their arguments--ignorance of common scientific principles by their audience and the fact that few people have actually read the Bible from start-to-finish.
2007-12-13 07:15:23 · answer #3 · answered by TheSkeptic 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Creationism is not the alternative to evolution, ignorance is. Creationism and evolution are not two sides in a debate any more than astrology and astronomy are or oxygen and phlogiston. Evolution is science, creationism is religion. There is no evidence for creationism - none whatsoever - despite the best efforts of the lies-for-Jesus mob at Answers in Genesis.
2007-12-13 05:51:58 · answer #4 · answered by tentofield 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
You should point out that evolution does not account for how life came to be on the earth. However creation does. Because they are not describing the same thing, it is possible to recognize that evolution is a well-supported theory to the point that it is accepted as fact in the majority of the world while still retaining your own faith. And creation is based on faith, there is no evidence for it, because there is no way to test its truthfulness.
2007-12-13 10:28:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If Creationists had evidence, would they be trying so hard to poke holes in the theory of evolution? Sorry brother, I've got no evidence to give you. Now if you want to switch sides, I could recommend some great books.
2007-12-13 16:26:16 · answer #6 · answered by Lucas C 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a debate you don't have to tell real evidence . You must be creative.you must dazzle them by your ideas.As a example you can say , this type of evolution can't be happen in such a short period of time
2007-12-13 06:33:41 · answer #7 · answered by kumari r 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There aren't any haha
The only things you'll find online are very small flaws in Darwin's theory, but no "proof".
To give religion a bit of credit.. there was one guy that supposed the word "types" of animals in Genesis meant the main branches of species, not species. That kinda works since no new branches have formed.
2007-12-13 05:40:50 · answer #8 · answered by Persona 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes it was creation, but god didn't just go poof, and then there was man, it took awhile. Just like the planets, it all had to be sorted out.
2007-12-13 05:43:37 · answer #9 · answered by Alice C 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hmmm. intresting. what side are you actuly taking tho? the scientific side or the religious side?
because they both have a difrent thing to say. or you could just google it.
or you could just say what you think how humans were made. give the teachers somthing to actuly read about. rather reading the same thing from ever one.
2007-12-13 05:41:13 · answer #10 · answered by honiez_of_uk 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋