Origin of Species paper coming up

[sasori345]

The 'evidence' AGAINST evolution is so overwhelming as to render the theory laughable.

-Evolution is something old turning into something new, on its own with no outside influence, strictly by random chance. I just don’t see how believing such a thing is any more logical than believing some alien in the sky makes it happen.

-Building blocks don't build themselves; mutations in already existing genetic material don't explain where that genetic material came from in the first place; information content does not arise on its own and then increase without intelligent input; natural selection works on what's already there, and does not improve survivability, but rather narrows it; life can not arise spontaneously - oh, excuse me - 'abiogenetically'; wings and things don't just magically appear on animals and magically function just right; there's no reason things had to get bigger or more complex; and on, and on, and on.

-Did YOU see Michelangelo create the statue? That's the question. Whether he had observers or not isn't the issue. Are you going to believe some 500-year-old document that says Michelangelo sculpted the statue? I mean, after all, if the book or whatever is 500 years old, it can't be telling the truth, right. And you've just blown your own argument, because nobody saw evolution take place from particles to people like you who fall for it. According to evolution, what makes you YOU popped out of "thin air" and thin air is exactly what's still keeping darwinism afloat. But the baloon has been popped now. You'll have to accept that.

-I also love the evolutionary mythological stories about how flight developed.There's a big display on how flight evolved in birds. A big, dumb display. Because it only talks about wings, and there's a whole lot more to flying than just growing a pair of wings, but these fanatics doesn't want you to think about that. Just look at the display and let them do the thinking for you.

Flight is more than just wings. It's like saying if you just put wings on a big, wide, long tube, it'll be able to fly people across the world. Birds need more than wings to fly. They need just the right feathers, the right bones, the right muscles, the right respiratory system, the right weight, the right shape, and – get this – the ABILITY. Or did they just evolve that from thin air ( a pun, yes, a bad pun)? They need their brains to be wired up for flight. So, where did THAT come from? An explosion? THINK about this stuff. DON'T JUST ACCEPT IT.

-The fossil record shows nothing but fully formed, fully functional organisms. It's a well-known embarrassment to the evolutionary community that evolutionary "trees" show fully formed, fully functional organisms at the tips of their branches, but nothing in between.So it should show millions upon millions of flawed, useless things evolving while evolution was "weeding out" the "stuff" that would not work and honing each living entity into the one with the most "survivability." In other words, there would be teeth showing up on knees, and wings on noses, and fingernails on tails, and lungs on ears, and so on, till evolution got it all right, and got the wiring to the brain all correct so it would all function together. Instead, we see a fossil record where functionality and form rules, not chaos.

-What they are doing is taking two organisms that ALREADY exist, and two systems of reproduction that ALREADY exist, and drawing an IMAGINARY line extrapolating backwards, and saying "this is where it evolved from." That is IMAGINATION. It is NOT science. NOT testable. NOT repeatable. It's already done, and you're just building your creation mythology on it.

-The appearance of the universe from nowhere and nothing, and its subsequent assembling of itself into everything we know, is not testable, repeatable, falsifiable, or observable in the present. Therefore, any attempts to "prove" it happened that way by performing laboratory experiments designed, executed and interpreted by an intelligent being (often thousands of them) fall flat.

-Experiments performed in a lab that SUPPOSEDLY DEMONSTRATE OR PROVE EVOLUTION do not emulate nature, because they have a designer, a creator, and a superintendent who runs the experiment to make sure everything works properly and gets results, and then an intelligent being interprets and applies the results. That's completely contrary to the notion that nature created itself and runs itself, with no outside information, no outside intelligence, and no outside guidance, and no purpose other than that which we assign to it.

-Natural selection can only work with what already exists. There is no instance EVER of natural selection creating something completely new. In order for evolution to progress from nothing to everything, something other than natural selection had to be at work, and there is no mechanism that could have produced everything from nothing. I really don't get why evolutionists are not able to grasp that truth. That's why evolutionists break every established scientific law, from the laws of thermodynamics, to gravitation, to spontaneous generation of life, and so on.

-Time, she is the goddess of evolutionary miracles. Can't deny it. Given enough Time, anything can happen, right? Like, if I let a dime sit there, given enough Time it'll turn into a dollar bill. Well, in evolution, that's exactly what will happen, because Time works evolution's miracles.

-Evolution is not true for any species of life. Species change and adapt, but that has nothing to do with evolution from particles to pandas to palms to Peter. The adaptation ability is inherent, already built into the genetic structure of the species. For evolution to occur, new information would have to arise, that had not been there before. Doesn't happen.In any event, the theory has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[Disquiet]

Awesome. I usually research both viewpoints (since one side of the argument may often ignore a key argument), but here's some things you may be interested in.

You must be registered for see links

^You can also follow the link to 15 questions for evolutionists, but don't stop there, you can read the answers evolutionists normally give. They have links after links, after links. Good luck reading all that, but you're going to be much more knowledgeable on the subject from that alone, even if you don't necessarily support either side.

And of course, visuals never heart.





The most interesting part to me in that video, is his argument on why so many scientists support it. If you've debated this subject enough, you'll often see arguments like, "But there's so many intelligent scientist that believe!"

He makes an interesting point (It begins at 23:50 and ends on 29:50 if you're interested in that, and perhaps never even suspected such a thing before).


Also, you can find Stephen Meyers (the guy Sir Derp Obito referenced) videos on Youtube. His books/articles most likely give more details though.


Don't forget, you may find some interesting things on your own on google. I hope you have as much fun as I normally do when researching all this =D.

 

[Henchman24]

I love how OP did not intent for this thread to be a debate and it became one anyway.

 

[Flakez]

I doubt you'll find any logical argument about creatonism.

 

[minato93]

@Wall-E and @sasori345
I want to thank the both of you and everybody else who helped me out. Now it's time to process all this info and get started on this debate for school.

 

[EnDash]

i think if you throw away the bible and the idea that the universe is only 6000 years old (as ken ham thinks) it becomes much easier to argue in favour of creationism. i don't know of any scientific paper on this but i think that you should try and present creationism as a rivaling theory to evolution and not a replacement. i.e. this is possible, and this is also possible. the most importent thing is to not claim proof when you don't have any, this is where creationists and evolutionists stumble most of the time.

darwin stated himself that if there were mathematcle order in the universe that his THEORY (not proof) of chaos would be disprovin

interesting, because apperently there is no "mathematical" order to the universe. quantum mechanics uses randomness everywhere, and information is as much a physical property as motion or energy. not to mention that math is flawed in itself in many cases.

 

[valandil988]

I know, it's an up hill battle trying to find good sources; right now, I'm trying to find weakness in dating techniques and others. Trying to find the flaws of the big bang theory, I'm trying to understand this law of thermodynamics that can disprove it--but thermodynamics is complicated.

Its very simple to "disprove" or at least find gaps in it, considering the big bang is an incomplete theory, not only that it doesn't actually explain "how" the universe can begin from nothing, as in true nothing. I define "nothing" as the absence of even mathematics, IE there are no rules to abide within "nothing" as there is no reality in anyway shape or form.

How do you create 3 or 4 dimensions is the first question you should always ask, the fact is nobody can conceptualize "how" 3 dimensions can actually come about its a limitation of our tiny brains atm . We can "assume" they are there, that they simply exist but "creating" them from nothing from scratch is a little bit more esoteric.

Most theories that try to solve this revolve around the idea that "something" existed before the big bang, they then go onto explain how this resulted in the latest iteration of the "universe" or "verse". Ie in the end it does not explain anything at all about how you can get something from nothing.

The true "question" as I see it is this:

You can have an empty Box or a Box filled with junk. What is special and constant in both examples is the Box; how was it made? Where did it come from, all the other junk is interesting yes but the basic fact is the most important aspect of both scenarios is the box that holds everything in its bundle.

Reality as a set of rules and limitations is all governed by the "Box", IE only a limited number of things can fit in the box, it imposes a set of volume limitations.... rules....

The same can be said of the Universe, even although it is an infinitely more complicated "thing" the basic concept is that its not much different from a Box. It enforces a lot more rules than say our humble box but in the end that's exactly what it is.

The next big question is this:

Can we probe outside the Universe?

Is there measurable evidence of "something" effecting our Universe from outside?

If either of these are true then we are likely in some manner of universal cycle that just keeps going around in circles onto infinite. In this case its quite possible we will never find the truth of how the Universe came to be, as the original data is likely lost or inaccessible to us.

However if both of these questions are answered with "No" then we can say we are "probably" (or at least its more likely) the first existence to ever exist. Hence we arrive back an square one. How do you get something from nothing?

My answer to this would be chance. I know its cheating a little bit considering "nothing" lacks any mathematical rule of any kind. But I like the idea that the universe exists in a constant state of "It Exists" and "It Doesn't Exist". Kinda like Schrodinger's Cat. Its both dead and alive. Ergo the universe both exists and doesn't at the same time. Ergo you never got anything from "nothing" you still have nothing.

Gotcha. .......

Lol Sir derp knows how to confuse people.

What he actually means if you strip out all the fancy words is this:

Cause & effect and measurable effects encompass all possible phenomena.

All things that we see that are unexplainable or incomprehensible is explainable through logical analysis of evidence.

Its a bit of an arrogant statement, yes this is true in concept as long as you can get data but in many cases you can't get data. And that you are smart enough to understand said data well enough .

Yes, and also, strong reductionism argues that we do not have Qualia aka qualitative experience, we are merely "strong A.I" according to them, read Mervin Minsky and Daniel Dennett regarding the material reductionist's view of consciousness.

This statement is interesting too, essentially its saying that Daniel Dennett doesn't think Human's are "alive" or at least we are as close as it gets to being what we term a conscious being.

However I have to disagree with Daniel Dennet about his two points of contention:

a) it is possible to know that a change in qualia has occurred, as opposed to a change in something else; or that

I have "felt" this quite distinctly through my life, my consciousness has for lack of a better term "changed" over time, this does not mean improvement or advancement or even degradation, it is simply different. The "taste" of existence, the mellow overtones of my existing in the world has changed steadily over my life. Ie I believe I have become different "person" over time, but not because of experience but simply because stimuli that originally created prior states of being no longer provoke the same effects within my mind.

I define this as my own consciousness "changing" rather than the environment changing. Listening to the same music should always elicit the same reaction in Qualia by that definition. It doesn't.

Using music and my own memories I can "remember" and summon up the taste my prior consciousness had. The reason I use the word "taste" is because I have no better word to describe the sensation. It colours your entire perception of the world, like rose tinted glasses. Ergo I can tell I have changed and consciously realize the difference between my different "consciousness states"

b) there is a difference between having a change in qualia and not having one.

I do not believe you can have a "non change in Qualia" by definition all consciousness are always marching towards the future, towards different states. Either that or I am not understanding the statement well enough.

 

[Cornson]

Can anybody give me a good scholarly journal or paper that defends creationism

No one can give you what does not exist, evolution is a proven fact, you can ignore the evidense, or try and denie it, but that does not change the fact (and it is a fact) that evolution is true.

or gives major flaws of evolution--from an origin of human standpoint or any standpoint

If there wore any flaws in evolution it would not be regarded as a fact (sins there wore flaws in the theory...)

(like the big bang)

your joking right? how the universe was created have nothing to do with how life evolved on our planet.

Creationism sources are the hardest thing to find; I mean good one's from educated people.

It's because there aren't any mate...

 

[Cornson]

The 'evidence' AGAINST evolution is so overwhelming as to render the theory laughable.

If there are so much evidence against evolution why dont you publish it so we can either modifie, change or discard the theory? (and could you atleast show us some of it?)

-Evolution is something old turning into something new, on its own with no outside influence, strictly by random chance. I just don’t see how believing such a thing is any more logical than believing some alien in the sky makes it happen.

"yes "evolution" is the change that accure between every generation, minor mutations, and how minor changed can change a species over several (hundres, thousands of generations) and if you don't see how believing how that is more logical than "aliens" using technologi to change every single creature to a minor degree compared to its parents, well then i feel sorry for you...

-Building blocks don't build themselves; mutations in already existing genetic material don't explain where that genetic material came from in the first place; information content does not arise on its own and then increase without intelligent input; natural selection works on what's already there, and does not improve survivability, but rather narrows it; life can not arise spontaneously - oh, excuse me - 'abiogenetically'; wings and things don't just magically appear on animals and magically function just right; there's no reason things had to get bigger or more complex; and on, and on, and on.

And.... So what? It's true that evolution does not explain how life was "created/formed/started" but it dosent have to, evolution is the theory of how life change over time, not how life started, its like asking why the theory of gravity don't explain why you burn yourself if you stick your hand i a fire (okay its not just like that, but asking any other question about how life evolved on our planet when refearing to Evolution is mute, because that is all that theory explains)

-Did YOU see Michelangelo create the statue? That's the question. Whether he had observers or not isn't the issue. Are you going to believe some 500-year-old document that says Michelangelo sculpted the statue? I mean, after all, if the book or whatever is 500 years old, it can't be telling the truth, right. And you've just blown your own argument, because nobody saw evolution take place from particles to people like you who fall for it. According to evolution, what makes you YOU popped out of "thin air" and thin air is exactly what's still keeping darwinism afloat. But the baloon has been popped now. You'll have to accept that.

look yourself in the mirror, you have just seen evolution, you are the next step from your parents, and if you get, there have been several thousands of experiments have have proven that evolution is true, it have been "seen in action" by thousands of people, all the evidence is there, you have just chosen to ignore it, there are no excuse to not know that evolution is a fact.

-I also love the evolutionary mythological stories about how flight developed.There's a big display on how flight evolved in birds. A big, dumb display. Because it only talks about wings, and there's a whole lot more to flying than just growing a pair of wings, but these fanatics doesn't want you to think about that. Just look at the display and let them do the thinking for you.

calling the rational people fanatics only makes you look even more ignorant.

Flight is more than just wings. It's like saying if you just put wings on a big, wide, long tube, it'll be able to fly people across the world. Birds need more than wings to fly. They need just the right feathers, the right bones, the right muscles, the right respiratory system, the right weight, the right shape, and – get this – the ABILITY. Or did they just evolve that from thin air ( a pun, yes, a bad pun)? They need their brains to be wired up for flight. So, where did THAT come from? An explosion? THINK about this stuff. DON'T JUST ACCEPT IT.

It happened over hundreds/thousands of generations...

-The fossil record shows nothing but fully formed, fully functional organisms. It's a well-known embarrassment to the evolutionary community that evolutionary "trees" show fully formed, fully functional organisms at the tips of their branches, but nothing in between.So it should show millions upon millions of flawed, useless things evolving while evolution was "weeding out" the "stuff" that would not work and honing each living entity into the one with the most "survivability." In other words, there would be teeth showing up on knees, and wings on noses, and fingernails on tails, and lungs on ears, and so on, till evolution got it all right, and got the wiring to the brain all correct so it would all function together. Instead, we see a fossil record where functionality and form rules, not chaos.

First of all, no, just no, its not a well known embarrassment to scientific community (there are nothing called the "evolutionary community because such a community does not exist)

there are only the people that acknowledge the fact that the theory of evolution discribes how changes occure in spicies every generation and how those changes over a long period of time can create new species.

those that do not know (because they are ignorant about the subject)

and those that know about the subject but chose to not care about what is true, but rather what they want to be true.

-What they are doing is taking two organisms that ALREADY exist, and two systems of reproduction that ALREADY exist, and drawing an IMAGINARY line extrapolating backwards, and saying "this is where it evolved from." That is IMAGINATION. It is NOT science. NOT testable. NOT repeatable. It's already done, and you're just building your creation mythology on it.

your wrong, i have no other way to put it, your just wrong.

-The appearance of the universe from nowhere and nothing, and its subsequent assembling of itself into everything we know, is not testable, repeatable, falsifiable, or observable in the present. Therefore, any attempts to "prove" it happened that way by performing laboratory experiments designed, executed and interpreted by an intelligent being (often thousands of them) fall flat.

How the universe was created have nothing to do with how evolution works, and you bringing it up just shows your ignorance about the subject.

-Experiments performed in a lab that SUPPOSEDLY DEMONSTRATE OR PROVE EVOLUTION do not emulate nature, because they have a designer, a creator, and a superintendent who runs the experiment to make sure everything works properly and gets results, and then an intelligent being interprets and applies the results. That's completely contrary to the notion that nature created itself and runs itself, with no outside information, no outside intelligence, and no outside guidance, and no purpose other than that which we assign to it.

"intelligent breeding" does not change how evolution works, and not all experiments regarding evolution is done like that.

-Natural selection can only work with what already exists. There is no instance EVER of natural selection creating something completely new. In order for evolution to progress from nothing to everything, something other than natural selection had to be at work, and there is no mechanism that could have produced everything from nothing. I really don't get why evolutionists are not able to grasp that truth. That's why evolutionists break every established scientific law, from the laws of thermodynamics, to gravitation, to spontaneous generation of life, and so on.

If natural selection created something new, the whole theory of evolution had to be discared, because it had just been proven wrong... evolution is just minor changes betwean every generation, nothing more nothing less.

and please stop saying evolutionists... it just makes you look soooooooo stupid -.-' (would you not think I was stupid if i called you a "gravitanalationist")

Because you believe in the theory of gravity? that is how stupid you make yourself look when you call other people a "evolutionist" and no this is not a personal attack on you, this is me telling you how other people feel about you when you post about this subject.

-Time, she is the goddess of evolutionary miracles. Can't deny it. Given enough Time, anything can happen, right? Like, if I let a dime sit there, given enough Time it'll turn into a dollar bill. Well, in evolution, that's exactly what will happen, because Time works evolution's miracles.

Well, you do need time, because species don't procreate instantly after they are born now do they?

-Evolution is not true for any species of life. Species change and adapt, but that has nothing to do with evolution from particles to pandas to palms to Peter. The adaptation ability is inherent, already built into the genetic structure of the species. For evolution to occur, new information would have to arise, that had not been there before. Doesn't happen.In any event, the theory has been thoroughly debunked.

Your wrong evolution is a fact, for every single species that have ever existed on our planet, even the ones that are extinct, and no, you did not in any shape or form debunk evolution with your ignorant and dilusional ramblings, and had I been your Evolutionary Teacher in highschool I would have flunked you, because you clearly diden't pay any atension to what was either said by the teacher or what was in your books, maybe if wore willing to learn something you might undestand evolution one day, but if you keep ignoring what evolution actually is and just spout the nonsence your parents/paster/favorite creationist says you will forever be ignorant about the subject.

 

[Flakez]

Looks like this turned into a religious debate..... Delusional creationists incoming.

You must be registered for see images

Ya'll need to watch Bill Nye.

 

[Lili-Chwan]

My favorite theory against Evolution is the Omphalos Hypothesis, going against the idea of Macro-Evolution, though it is quite a cop out. Besides, the overwhelming evidence of Micro-Evolution, which is observable in a few generation's time, is quite enough to disprove it. But, either way the Omphalos Hypothesis essentially states that God created the world already "mature", with all the trees and canyons and rocks and fossils. In a sense, using this theory, we could claim the world is only 5 minutes old, but god created us already with "memories" and personalities and age (and that 5 minutes theory is actually a branch of the Omphalos Hypothesis). While it is quite extremist to think of it this way, rationally, it cant be disproved either, an almighty being with the power to create life, could very well create life with such complexity as a non-existing past live, with memories and decay to go with it. And because of that, at any argument people throw at you, you can simply dismiss it as planted there immediately post-creation, be it memory, history books, fossils and even evolution itself.

Either way, here's the Wikipedia Link:

You must be registered for see links

Under references, you can find a few scientific/philosophical articles to support your paper.



If you would like to accommodate Creationism with Evolutionist, you'll find you'll be much luckier, since the two broad theories aren't necessarily antagonists of each other. Darwin himself was a Christian, and believed that God was behind the Evolution. Those who wish to believe in God as the creator and force behind Evolution and Natural selection, should do so, those who wish to believe in Randomness as the force behind Evolution and Natural selection, should do the same. There is no possible evidence to either disprove or verify either, as it is beyond us.

 

[Disquiet]

@OP, let us know how the debate went. Or, VM/PM me if you want, I'm interested. I'm surprised your school is even doing a debate of Creation vs Evolution.

 

[minato93]

@OP, let us know how the debate went. Or, VM/PM me if you want, I'm interested. I'm surprised your school is even doing a debate of Creation vs Evolution.

Definitely, will do.
I'm a legal studies (pre-law) major. The point of the assignment is to see how well you can defend your point. 100 points for debate paper, 100 points for debate performance. This is 40% of our grade.
He gave us a long list of a wide range of topics and everyone picked a side. Then he "randomly" chose two people for each of the range of issues for them to debate. The girl I'm debating against is really smart and bright, she's about to graduate, she's already gotten into Law school, made a high score on the LSAT, and the teacher said that no topic has a right or wrong answer, your score will depend on: preparation, debate performance, and whether or not you won the debate "in his eyes"--my professor is a former lawyer and he practiced law for 30 years.
To be honest with you, I'm focusing extra hard on the debate paper, because my opponent, as smart as she is, is going to feast on my soul in this debate.

 

[Disquiet]

Definitely, will do.
I'm a legal studies (pre-law) major. The point of the assignment is to see how well you can defend your point. 100 points for debate paper, 100 points for debate performance. This is 40% of our grade.
He gave us a long list of a wide range of topics and everyone picked a side. Then he "randomly" chose two people for each of the range of issues for them to debate. The girl I'm debating against is really smart and bright, she's about to graduate, she's already gotten into Law school, made a high score on the LSAT, and the teacher said that no topic has a right or wrong answer, your score will depend on: preparation, debate performance, and whether or not you won the debate "in his eyes"--my professor is a former lawyer and he practiced law for 30 years.
To be honest with you, I'm focusing extra hard on the debate paper, because my opponent, as smart as she is, is going to feast on my soul in this debate.

Awesome! Can't wait to hear how it went.

Sounds like you're going to have your hands full, try not to be too intimidated by her and maintain some confidence. I'd recommend trying to get creative with your debate, thinking outside the box. If people were to try and play the same jokes on me every time, I'd be ready for it. Evolution vs Creation have been going on for a long time, and a lot of the same arguments are used. Not too long ago, on another forum, a chemist (little did I know) PMed me about what I had written of evolution in my profile, she definitely caught me off guard because she seemed to be extensively knowledgeable of everything I was throwing at her, and you can kinda tell when you're dealing with the real deal when you write them a wall of text, and they reply to it lightning fast lol (unlike other evolutionist I've previously debated against). She was also making her own arguments up to throw me on the defensive (rather than simply countering mine). After a while though, I managed to make her concede on several things by using a little creativity, and she ended up admitting that she didn't do a good job in debating everything. As exhausting as it was, I'm glad I had that debate with her though because I managed to learn several things. The most important, which I'm going to share with you, is that no matter how smart they (evolutionist) appear, they are often just repeating things that has been taught to them (I noticed she was failing to use any logic of her OWN). Critical thinking, as in many debates, is a huge factor when debating against an evolutionist or even a creationist.

So, I guess I'm saying try to mix it up a little.

For me, seeking knowledge for the sake of truth have always been better than seeking it for the sake of debate/showing it off (even though truth can manifest itself within a debate) xD. The last can be very rewarding though when you're debating against the right person, hope you learn a lot from this, despite it being for a grade.

@Bold, LOL

 

[sasori345]

Minato i'll pm you something, it makes the fanatic evodelusionists look like fodder Lol

 

[minato93]

Awesome! Can't wait to hear how it went.

Sounds like you're going to have your hands full, try not to be too intimidated by her and maintain some confidence. I'd recommend trying to get creative with your debate, thinking outside the box. If people were to try and play the same jokes on me every time, I'd be ready for it. Evolution vs Creation have been going on for a long time, and a lot of the same arguments are used. Not too long ago, on another forum, a chemist (little did I know) PMed me about what I had written of evolution in my profile, she definitely caught me off guard because she seemed to be extensively knowledgeable of everything I was throwing at her, and you can kinda tell when you're dealing with the real deal when you write them a wall of text, and they reply to it lightning fast lol (unlike other evolutionist I've previously debated against). She was also making her own arguments up to throw me on the defensive (rather than simply countering mine). After a while though, I managed to make her concede on several things by using a little creativity, and she ended up admitting that she didn't do a good job in debating everything. As exhausting as it was, I'm glad I had that debate with her though because I managed to learn several things. The most important, which I'm going to share with you, is that no matter how smart they (evolutionist) appear, they are often just repeating things that has been taught to them (I noticed she was failing to use any logic of her OWN). Critical thinking, as in many debates, is a huge factor when debating against an evolutionist or even a creationist.

So, I guess I'm saying try to mix it up a little.

For me, seeking knowledge for the sake of truth have always been better than seeking it for the sake of debate/showing it off (even though truth can manifest itself within a debate) xD. The last can be very rewarding though when you're debating against the right person, hope you learn a lot from this, despite it being for a grade.

@Bold, LOL

Thanks, I will definitely use some of my creativity.
@Bold: That's not going to be her at all; she knows all about using her own logic. She is my pre-law tutor as well, and she kinda says the same things you just said. Also, she's a creationist, the only reason she's debating evolution is because when the teacher gave us the long list of issues, she checked off the opposite of her beliefs for all the issues. I asked her why, she says: she wanted to be challenged by debating and researching different view points. Plus I've seen her debate before, she's good--she isn't a mouthpiece at all.

@Underline: I have, learning from different people, both creationist and evolutionists, and realized that this is going to be a good debate.
As far as the grade is concerned, the teacher being a former lawyer only values good arguments and who won the debate. Good argument with all the points of preparation in things is a maximum of an 85, the winner gets the additional 15.
I'm confident now that my arguments will be solid, so I think I can pull off a B.

My favorite theory against Evolution is the Omphalos Hypothesis, going against the idea of Macro-Evolution, though it is quite a cop out. Besides, the overwhelming evidence of Micro-Evolution, which is observable in a few generation's time, is quite enough to disprove it. But, either way the Omphalos Hypothesis essentially states that God created the world already "mature", with all the trees and canyons and rocks and fossils. In a sense, using this theory, we could claim the world is only 5 minutes old, but god created us already with "memories" and personalities and age (and that 5 minutes theory is actually a branch of the Omphalos Hypothesis). While it is quite extremist to think of it this way, rationally, it cant be disproved either, an almighty being with the power to create life, could very well create life with such complexity as a non-existing past live, with memories and decay to go with it. And because of that, at any argument people throw at you, you can simply dismiss it as planted there immediately post-creation, be it memory, history books, fossils and even evolution itself.

Either way, here's the Wikipedia Link:

You must be registered for see links

Under references, you can find a few scientific/philosophical articles to support your paper.



If you would like to accommodate Creationism with Evolutionist, you'll find you'll be much luckier, since the two broad theories aren't necessarily antagonists of each other. Darwin himself was a Christian, and believed that God was behind the Evolution. Those who wish to believe in God as the creator and force behind Evolution and Natural selection, should do so, those who wish to believe in Randomness as the force behind Evolution and Natural selection, should do the same. There is no possible evidence to either disprove or verify either, as it is beyond us.

Thanks, this is an interesting perspective.

The debate is tomorrow, a little to late to incorporate it into my paper. But maybe the debate itself depending how I feel the debate is going.

Minato i'll pm you something, it makes the fanatic evodelusionists look like fodder Lol

=D

 

[Disquiet]

Thanks, I will definitely use some of my creativity.
@Bold: That's not going to be her at all; she knows all about using her own logic. She is my pre-law tutor as well, and she kinda says the same things you just said. Also, she's a creationist, the only reason she's debating evolution is because when the teacher gave us the long list of issues, she checked off the opposite of her beliefs for all the issues. I asked her why, she says: she wanted to be challenged by debating and researching different view points. Plus I've seen her debate before, she's good--she isn't a mouthpiece at all.

You're welcome.^^

I didn't expect her to be a creationist lol. So she likes challenging her own beliefs, she's smart and wise, and thinks like me in a way. She sounds very interesting =D.

I'm glad you're not afraid of such challenges, but instead see it as a learning experience. You have my best wishes =D.
This is most likely considered as spam, so going to stop now xD.

 

[TheAncientCenturion]

Not too long ago I went on a binge of watching and reading articles on both, I'd suggest merely googling creationism and you'll get something.

But, for a specific debate I'd send you to Bill Nye's. I believe his was the forty to two hour one.