It's for a Creationism VS Evolution debate.
I'm on Creationism's side. Fortunately for me, the evolution team didn't do its homework and we're in the lead. (For now, anyway.) I need some evidence that disproves evolution so that I can answer and fully rebutt their points in the debate.
2007-12-17 12:11:39 · 12 answers · asked by M313R 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
I saw a presentation on evolution about 20 years ago that stated that there wasn't enough time. Neither the atmosphere nor the ocean are old enough. I am not sure how to verify this today.
Some questions come to mind when I think about evolution:
1) How long did it take for the first neuron to evolve? Or the first bone?
2) How long did it take to go from a single cell to an octopus? Think about the enormous complexity of an octopus' nervous system. Along the way, there had to be a lot of evolution to provide food for all of the iterations between single cell and octopus. And a lot of evolution for those things to eat, etc. etc. etc.
3) If all of the creatures on land came from the ocean, then plant eaters must have come first. Which means that there had to be plants for them to eat, which means that evolution took place on land just in time for the plant eaters climbing on to the beach. How likely is this? Or did plants climb out of the ocean first?
4) Either there was only one creature that came out of the ocean, which all of the other land creatures evolved from (including aphids and elephants), or many creatures evolved legs and feet. How long did it take to go from fin to foot? How likely is it that many creatures all evolved the same appendages? And, how long did it take them to develop the ability, and then the necessity, of breathing air?
5) At some point, predators appeared. Did they evolve from plant eaters? Or did they climb out of the ocean also? If they did, their timing had to be good or they wouldn't have anything to eat.
I have heard some of the arguments of Creationism, and there is one that causes many people to reject it. That is the idea that the earth was created in 6 24 hour days. No one, who doesn't already believe it, will take it seriously.
You need to spend some time researching this. Realize that today's versions of the Bible are not originals, and that the original Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not English. Look into the possible definitions for the Hebrew words used.
I would suggest that you present it as 6 periods, as opposed to 6 24 hour days. Even in English, you will have a challenge. In the New Testament we read that one of God's days is a 1000 of our years, so now we are up to 6,000 years.
I'll be praying for your success!
2007-12-17 13:02:37 · answer #1 · answered by Gideon 4 · 1⤊ 5⤋
maximum people who question evolution at the instant are not clever adequate to realize that Christianity and evolution have compatibility. All you're able to do is understand that there is a few area of allegory and metaphor interior the bible and it unexpectedly comes sharply into concentration. i'm a christian who believes in a God who set up a mind-blowing plan. Evolution.
2016-11-03 21:56:24 · answer #2 · answered by serpa 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are no fallacies on either side because both are hypothetical and theoretical. Either one in theory could be possible, however, there is no existence of any presentations declaring validity of substance. Therefore the issue remains totally entrenched in debate. Ultimately your team or the other team will never prove or disprove the theories but will gain points based on the amount of supposed evidence supporting the theory. Evolution has not been proved and therefore continues to be called "The Theory of Evolution". The "Creation Theory" as well has not a shred of proof of it's validity but has yet to be disregarded as a possibility of our primordial beginnings. Evolutionary proponents usually purport themselves as being brainiacs, who are actually so self absorbed cannot see beyond their own scientific perspective and totally ignore the spiritual aspect which is obviously inherent in human existence. They have yet to provide proof beyond doubt that evolution is definitely exclusive and conclusive. The fact is that maybe evolution was a creation by a higher intelligence. You see it goes on and on and on.
2007-12-17 12:26:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Creationism vs. Evolution is like debating Aluminum vs. Gold: it's just so one sided in favor of evolution. Obviously if anyone knew how to disprove evolution it wouldn't be so widely accepted. But since you're doing this for school I'll just assume that you were randomly assigned a team in order to learn how to debate.
I recommend doing a few internet searches on topics such as: creationism, intelligent design, criticism of evolution
There are tons of websites dedicated to disproving evolution, so it should be easy to find ample material.
2007-12-17 12:17:40 · answer #4 · answered by Somebody else 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Searching for file: "Fallacies of evolution"
Searching...
Searching...
Searching...
Error: File Not Found.
If your biology teacher truly is holding an "evolution vs. creationism" debate, then he or she is doing you a disservice. I don't care what kind of school you attend (public, private, home, etc) creationism is not science, and anybody who entertains it as such has no business teaching science. That's all there is to it. If you don't know what you're teaching, get out of the classroom.
2007-12-17 13:12:30 · answer #5 · answered by Lucas C 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well, the absence of the missing link for one. The missing link, if it exists, could disprove creationism, but none has ever been found. The missing link, as it is called, will be remains or fossil evidence of a creature that is in the midst of change. Evolution states that creatures evolved from one form into another. Like a dinosaur evolving into a bird.... Why haven't we ever found a fossil of a dinosaur that was half bird, half something else.... We have plenty of fossils of dinosaurs but none have ever been considered the missing link.
2007-12-17 12:19:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Sorry, there's no evidence that disproves evolution - but there are plenty of people who don't understand science. And if the evolution team are among them, this site should help you win. http://www.answersingenesis.com Of course, this site debunks that site, but they don't know that. http://www.talkorigins.org
2007-12-17 12:15:15 · answer #7 · answered by eri 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
What kind of moronic biology class are you in? Creationism has not one scintilla of evidence in support of it. I am an evolutionary biologist and could not even conceive of an argument in support of your position; unless I were to lie.
2007-12-17 12:23:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
The 'Cambrian explosion' is difficult for evolutionists to explain. Before the 'explosion' lifeforms were pretty simple and not diverse, but afterward there exists precursors for pretty much all life that is around now. It is a vast diversification that occurred over such a miniscule time period that it is hard to contend with even now. Darwin cited it as one of the biggest objections that could be proprosed to his model.
2007-12-17 12:23:30 · answer #9 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Is this a religious school or a public school?
2007-12-17 12:58:17 · answer #10 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋