User:Neocapitalist/evolution debates

Me

 * This is stupid. Science proves the Bible, and the Bible is the most reliable source of literature around. Even secular historians admit to this, and they use the Bible to confirm whether or not other literature is true. The more you study the Bible, the more you will realize that this book was written over hundreds of years, by different authors, and yet there is not one contradiction in it. This is a true work of God. If you have any other comments pm me, 'cause I don't check the message boards often and I might miss your response. Oh, just so you know that I'm "mature" enough to have a conversation with you I'm a junior. Sorry if I was harsh in this responce it just galls me to think that people still follow such a flimsy theory as evolution. Please pm so I can debate with you. I would love to hear any evidence you have for evoltion. I'll come with an open mind. Hope you get back with me!ttyl

Your entire argument begs the question -- your claim is science proves the Bible, and then restate your thesis as evidence by saying the Bible is the most "reliable source of literature around".

Him
First, lets start this good. My name is Arlo, what's yours? If were going to debate I'de like to know who I'm talking to. Sorry if this is an inconvienence. Second, do you have any solid evidence for evolution. Also, if evolution is the answer to how we became what we are, then why is it still a theroy, instead of a law? Third, the Bible was written over many hundreds of years, by different people, and yet their are no contradiction (if you or anybody you know think otherwise please tell me and we can talk about that too). Gettin off track a little, let me give you some background on the Bible and prophicy. If a prophets word were not 100% true, then the man was put to death. If you read the Bible, you will realize that not one of God's true prophets were put to death. Also, the prophicies about Jesus were very specific. These prophicies were made hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Some people would say thousands of years before He was born. But we'll go with a couple hundred years since the Dead Sea scrolls established this very firmly. All of the prophicies came true. Well, I'll stop writing so you can read what I have written and see if you disagree with any of it. I look forward to reading what you write back. Oh and, regardless of the out come of this debate I hope we can talk about other things and at least be internet aquaintances. Ttyl.

Me

 * First, lets start this good. My name is Arlo, what's yours? If were going to debate I'de like to know who I'm talking to. Sorry if this is an inconvienence.

My name is Neal -- pleased to meet you.


 * Second, do you have any solid evidence for evolution.

Certainly: humans are great apes. This indicates common parentage with other species of ape, especially chimpanzees. This is why humans have no organs the other great apes don't.


 * Also, if evolution is the answer to how we became what we are, then why is it still a theroy, instead of a law?

The scientific definition of a theory is quite different from the colloquial definition. Scientists define a theory as a cohesive framework which describes and predicts observations and gives a mechanism, and has -- this is important -- been tested over and over and over again. Laws, on the other hand, are simple, elegant mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Thus, you see, when a scientist says the "theory of evolution", he isn't saying the "guess of evolution" or the "evolutionary hypothesis"; he is actually saying the "tested, tried, and true statements of evolutionary descent".


 * Third, the Bible was written over many hundreds of years, by different people, and yet their are no contradiction (if you or anybody you know think otherwise please tell me and we can talk about that too).

Job 38:4: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

The earth doesn't have foundations -- a contradiction within the text of the Bible with that which we observe in reality. More:

Job 38:22 - 3:Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

This implies snow and hail are stored to be utilized during wartime. Naturally, we know know snow and hail are meteorological phenomona, which are created through the water cycle, and are certainly not stored anywhere.


 * Gettin off track a little, let me give you some background on the Bible and prophicy. If a prophets word were not 100% true, then the man was put to death. If you read the Bible, you will realize that not one of God's true prophets were put to death. Also, the prophicies about Jesus were very specific. These prophicies were made hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Some people would say thousands of years before He was born. But we'll go with a couple hundred years since the Dead Sea scrolls established this very firmly. All of the prophicies came true.

Interesting. I would be interested in seeing why a prophet is killed if he is not absolutely correct -- but for now, let's keep the discussion focused on evolution and interpretation of scripture, ok?


 * Well, I'll stop writing so you can read what I have written and see if you disagree with any of it. I look forward to reading what you write back. Oh and, regardless of the out come of this debate I hope we can talk about other things and at least be internet aquaintances. Ttyl.

That sounds good to me.

Also, did you have anything to say about my claim of circular logic in your post?

Him
Alright Neal, so were great apes huh. So should they put us in a zoo? j/k! Also Darwin believed that we evolved slowly right. So why are there not any species in between us and apes? Half man, half ape. We are not in any way like apes. Lets go with you intrests. Have you ever heard an ape speak chinese? Debate philosophy (spelling?)? Solve a tough math or science question or invent a new formula for calculating? Also the way apes reproduce is different from the way humans do. Also facial any body features are different. Although a theroy in science may have big words in the explaination, that does nothing to explain why evolution is not a law. If theroies are foolproof then why laws? why not just keep gravity as a theroy? why go throgh the extra trouble to make it a law? About the foundations of earth. This was not a literal thing (I don't think at least). But the earth has to be builsd on something. How else could it have a stable form? Well I gotta run. Excuse any miss spellings I may of had, I hate proof reading. Ttyl About the prophets. God was very strict in the Old Testament. This was because judgement was still on people. So if a person claimed to be giving a message from God this was serious business. So if the prophet said something it had better come true. If it did not the people stoned him to death. This helped to dicourage false prophets. I have a better understanding about the snow and hail. He is reseving His snow and hail for judgemnet. There is still precipitaion. God promised he would never flood the earth again. Yet it still rains. Do you think this is a contradiction?

Me

 * Alright Neal, so were great apes huh. So should they put us in a zoo? j/k!

linkza!! (link to BBC news humans in a zoo)


 * Also Darwin believed that we evolved slowly right. So why are there not any species in between us and apes? Half man, half ape. We are not in any way like apes.

Wrong. We share every internal structure, every organ, and 99% of our DNA with other great apes. We even look like apes. There's no reason not to consider men apes.


 * Lets go with you intrests. Have you ever heard an ape speak chinese? Debate philosophy (spelling?)? Solve a tough math or science question or invent a new formula for calculating?

Nope. Nobody ever claimed other apes have the same abilities as humans; rather, apes and humans have a common ancestor.


 * Also the way apes reproduce is different from the way humans do. Also facial any body features are different.

Wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo Quote:
 * Bonobos are the only non-human apes to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: tongue kissing, face-to-face vaginal intercourse, oral sex, genital rubbing between females, and "frottage" between males.

Furthermore, take a look at the face of the ape in the picture. Do you see the eyes? The lips? The ears? The hair? The facial features are slightly different -- which is only to be expected -- but not so different there is no similarity whatsoever. All the structures on the human face have close analogues on the primate face: because humans are primates.


 * Although a theroy in science may have big words in the explaination, that does nothing to explain why evolution is not a law. If theroies are foolproof then why laws? why not just keep gravity as a theroy? why go throgh the extra trouble to make it a law?

A law isn't a comprehensive framework -- i.e., it doesn't provide a mechanism. When I write F = G*m*m/r^2, it doesn't say anything about why the force is equal to the product of the two masses multiplied by the gravitational constant, divided by the square of the difference. Evolution, on the other hand, provides a mechanism, along with providing descriptions. This is the essence of a scientific theory. Don't think a law is superior to a theory, or a theory is superior to a law; that's comparing apples and oranges.


 * About the foundations of earth. This was not a literal thing (I don't think at least).

If Job can be read metaphorically, then why not Genesis?


 * But the earth has to be builsd on something. How else could it have a stable form?

Gravity keeps the Earth spherical, which is, in fact, the most stable form available. This doesn't require foundations or pillars.


 * Well I gotta run. Excuse any miss spellings I may of had, I hate proof reading. Ttyl

Oh, that's no problem, so long as I can understand you.


 * I have a better understanding about the snow and hail. He is reseving His snow and hail for judgemnet. There is still precipitaion. God promised he would never flood the earth again. Yet it still rains. Do you think this is a contradiction?

But snow and hail being stored up implies a location they are being stored. There's nowhere such things could be stored in the amounts implied by your analogy.

Challenge: if evolution is incorrect -- I am not saying it is, but proposing a hypothetical scenario -- then how would you replace it?

A request: could you reply to my points by quoting them? It's terribly inconvenient to have to cross-reference with my previous messages, as I'm sure it must be for you to do the same.

him
You came here for debate. Let us debate then, but no more of the dodging and shifting. We take one topic, one argument, and we stick with it. No Ad Hominem stuff either (that is, if you can). I don't want to see any more pontificating just cold hard facts. I want your silver bullet. I want your proof. Prove to me that my faith in the Bible is misplaced and that I should have faith in your gods.

You may not refer to books and articles but you may pull the relevant text from articles. I expect for you to do your homework and pull the essential arguments from the "many books I will never read" and post them here to back up your arguments. I will do the same.

The choice of topics is yours.

me

 * You came here for debate. Let us debate then, but no more of the dodging and shifting. We take one topic, one argument, and we stick with it. No Ad Hominem stuff either (that is, if you can). I don't want to see any more pontificating just cold hard facts. I want your silver bullet. I want your proof. Prove to me that my faith in the Bible is misplaced and that I should have faith in your gods.

I am not here to do that.


 * You may not refer to books and articles but you may pull the relevant text from articles. I expect for you to do your homework and pull the essential arguments from the "many books I will never read" and post them here to back up your arguments. I will do the same.


 * The choice of topics is yours.

Okay. Let's discuss the viability of Creationism -- the literal interpretation of the Genesis story -- as a scientific theory to replace evolution.

him

 * You came here for debate. Let us debate then, but no more of the dodging and shifting. We take one topic, one argument, and we stick with it. No Ad Hominem stuff either (that is, if you can). I don't want to see any more pontificating just cold hard facts. I want your silver bullet. I want your proof. Prove to me that my faith in the Bible is misplaced and that I should have faith in your gods.


 * I am not here to do that.


 * You may not refer to books and articles but you may pull the relevant text from articles. I expect for you to do your homework and pull the essential arguments from the "many books I will never read" and post them here to back up your arguments. I will do the same.


 * The choice of topics is yours.


 * Okay. Let's discuss the viability of Creationism -- the literal interpretation of the Genesis story -- as a scientific theory to replace evolution.

Would it be fair to state that your position is that it is improbable that the Creation account be taken literally due to the limitations imposed on the reading of the text through the framework of scientific discovery? In essence it is observably contradicted by scientific study?

Therefore it may be plausible that the earth is far older than the Genesis account records. The language is figurative rather than literal. This would mean that:

A. Either the Bible is patently false in it's account of the beginning of the world

or

B. The account is harmonious as long as one does not interpret Genesis literally.

Is this a fair statement of your position?

me

 * Would it be fair to state that your position is that it is improbable that the Creation account be taken literally due to the limitations imposed on the reading of the text through the framework of scientific discovery? In essence it is observably contradicted by scientific study?

That's part of it, though my position is a stronger statement: the Genesis account, taken literally in the form of "Creation Science", is not scientifically viable to replace the theory of evolution.

him

 * Would it be fair to state that your position is that it is improbable that the Creation account be taken literally due to the limitations imposed on the reading of the text through the framework of scientific discovery? In essence it is observably contradicted by scientific study?


 * That's part of it, though my position is a stronger statement: the Genesis account, taken literally in the form of "Creation Science", is not scientifically viable to replace the theory of evolution.

We agree. It is not scientifically viable. I have no problem with that statement.