1. Is there reason to suspect that evolutionary science is biased?[/b][/quote]
Consider the following:
“The fact that scientists sometimes might cheat and can fail to be objective is something that is very well known,” said Daniele Fanelli, a scientific fraud researcher at the University of Edinburgh. “Research is full of conflicts of interest”….. “More than a third of scientists admitted to at least one instance of engaging in "questionable research practices" - basically scientific misdemeanors that include “dropping data points based on a gut feeling” and “changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressures from a funding source,” the report stated.” (source: http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=157268)
...you realise of course you are citing a scientific study in the hopes of discrediting scientific studies.
What's the plan here? Is it like a WarGames argument? You are going to prove evolution is bad science, by first demonstrating that science itself is bad science and the only way not to do bad science is not to do science at all?
..Because that's kinda brilliant from a debate perspective...
Seriously though do you have any idea how much funding there is available for disproving evolution?"Paving new ground" is to science what "finding an untapped market" is to marketing.If there is any bias to satisfy doners, it is pushing scientists in the other direction.
Also, Cross apply My B1 to this.
If that's the case, Why is Francis Schaffer Playing their game?
P.S. You know who Jonathan Wells is right? He credits his anti-darwinian slant to reverend Sun-Myong-Moon. And he has come out publically saying he doesn't believe in AIDS...But to his credit, he does have a peer reviewed paper about "Xenopus eggs"... So you know.. take that for what it's worth
2. Back to basics for a bit- The Fossil Record
Now, granted, there have been fossil discoveries of creatures that contain peculiar mixtures of traits from more than one animal, yet evolutionary science will often indicate that it represents “proof” of evolution.
Once again. What you really need is some evidence that evolution is bad science. This is just an argument against an argument I made. Only you decided to make it one of your main points.
Even if you are completely right about the fossil record it won't demonstrate evolution is false. All it will do is dismantle my argument B4 subsection I.
I really really really really really really don't need that argument.
I am morbidly curious about this though
as an example, the great Archaeopteryx….considered by many to be a crucial part of the “missing link.” I had the occasion recently to discuss this creature with a biologist who is very familiar with it and, in the end, he was compelled to admit that this creature is not an irrefutable example of transition.
"not irrefutable" eh?
And you took that as support for your side?
Okay, well just let me know. because it loks transitional to me. What is it? Is it a bird, or a dinosaur? I can't tell.
While your at it also let me know what Lucy is, the a apherensis
. Is that a little girl with some kinds deasease? or a big monkey with some kinda...slowly developing head...
I would also ask, why is that virtually every fossil presented as evidence for evolution is a vertebrate? Does it have anything to do with the fact that only .01% of the fossil record? Why is this? Food for thought.
Spinal chords developed while life was still in the oceans. We don't need invertebrate fossils to demonstrate transitional species because ocean life is so diverse and plentiful. We have living transitional animals.
You know trilobite though. He's an invertabrate.
There is much within the fossil record to explain why we see new species arising so abruptly and how it corresponds to a Biblical account of creation.
How is that actually? you lost me.If we hold to a 6 day creation shouldn't we see no new species arising at all? ( i mean except for the first couple hours of course) I just sort of assumed you believed that all life was created about 6000 years ago pretty much at once and then burriedin the flood. Which would mean no new species ever arrive except during those first 6 days.
Now me? I believe new species arise all the time, and have been for millions of years, I think God makes them, praise God. You though... I don't know how you want to explain that...
3. Speciation as a means to prove Creationism
So much of evolutionary science points to Intelligent Design.
Remember now.I believe
in intelligent design. I'm a theistic
evolutionist. ID arguments help me rather than hurt me.
Christian-Evolutionists such as my opponent are compromising their Biblical beliefs for no good reason.
I believe in the unique divine inspiration and the entire trustworthiness and authority of the bible. Just what in your opinion have I compromised?
The Bible explains why we observe so many different species in our world
Yes, God made them. I believe that.
There is simply no reason to believe that any of the studied forms of evolutionary speciation are even necessary.
That's the first true thing you've said all morning!
It's true. Evolution was not necessary. God could have made us all in an instant, or in 6, 24 hour days, or not at all! Totally unnecessary.
But something does not have to be nesisary in order to be reality.
Was it necessary that I just ate 6 Jack In The Box Tacos?
Was it even a good idea?
but that doesn't change the fact that it happened
As a Christian, my opponent knows that the Bible teaches a sudden and instant origin to the birth of man.
I believe that too!
for a while there were only monkeys, and then BAM! a human!
That was my God of course.
Now to be clear. I'm not terribly sure about your exegesis. Because if you're refering to the passage in Genesis and taking it literally i think you had better rethink it.
But instant. Yes!
That's what we call in debate, a "bright line"
Consider this: The bible we both read says God created Adam "from the dust"
Now I can only speak for myself, but when I used to take that "literaly" I believed that there was a garden, and God like... Madea breeze blow, and dust kicked up into the air into a dust cloud the approximate height of a human, and then god sort of magically made a human inside that dust cloud.. like out of the dust.
But dust is primarily Silicon Dioxide. To make a human, you need a lot of Carbon and hydrogen. Now maybe there was some ash in the dust, I'll buy that, but the hydrogen is really an issue. I meanof course god could have just MADE the hydrogen, or used the air, but then Adam isn't really "literaly" being made from the dust now is he?
So then if i want to take that passage literally, what i need to believe is that God created a Nuclear fission reaction to transform the silicon atoms back into single proton parts. Well a typical fission reaction releases a couple million eV per event (that's per atom of hydrogen) Now a TNT explosion is only 1 or 2 eV depending on how much you use. So basically we're talking about a much larger explosion than an Atomic Bomb Here. For a human you would need several mole of hydrogen. One mole is equal to a bit more than 6.022 X 10^23.
For perspective. 1 mole of marshmallows would be enough to make a layer of marshmellows covering the whole earth 12 miles thick. 1 mole of pennies could be distributed to all the currently-living people of the world so that they could spend a million dollars per hour every hour (day and night) for the rest of their lives. A mole is a very big number. It's important that you understand this, because we are going to need several mole on hydrogen to make Adam, and for every atom we are now creating a much larger explosion than an atomic bomb.
So I'm not exagerating, when I say that in order for God to "literally" make Adam from dust, he would literally
have to blow up the universe
I think the passage was figurative
The Bible gives no indication that we evolved over millions of years
It also gives no indication that in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. What's your point?
so how does he resolve to accept a blended version of evolution and creationism?
I don't adopt a "blended" view. "blended implies i believe half of each. I don't. I believe all of both. Creationism is true. 100% God made the world and everything in it. Evolution is also true, the best science is that he did it through a gradual process of evolution by natural selection.
4. Popular belief
I cannot help but respond, at this point, to my opponents assertion that evolutionary science is good science simply because “most scientists accept it.” While I see his point, it is a weak pair of legs for such a weighty belief, don’t you think?
Well that's exactly the point buddy. I don't NEED a good argument. A weak one will do just fine, because I just won my main contention "There is no reason whatsoever not to believe in evolution" at the point where i win that, you could solve this debate with a coin toss. and so if i give anything
to defend evolution, no matter how weak, even if it's just "the word evolution sounds cool" I win the debate.
Right now your opening comments have included
A: Macroevolution is speciation
B1:Science Itself might be biased
B2: Your B4/I argument is wrong
B3: Intelligent design is true
And B4: Your B1 is weak
Literally none of that helps you prove evolution is bad science. (unless you want to run with the war games argument from your B1)
A doesn't matter. b1 hurts you as much as it hurts me, b2 and 4 are just rebuttals that you've repurposed as openers, and B3 Is something I already believe.CONCLUSION:
If he honestly believes that evolutionary science is “good science,” he must successfully demonstrate, for the purposes of this argument, that it has and is giving some recognition to a Creator as means of explaining the complex occurrence of "speciation"
God created the world and everything in it by means of evolution by natural selection. The wonderful diversity of species came about, because of Him, by this means. Praise God.