How does someone debate creation vs evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ustaio
  • Start date Start date
U

Ustaio

Guest
From what I have noticed in most debates of creation vs evolution neither side has defined what it is they are debating. I have posted this elsewhere but here it is again. There are 6 types of evolution.
1. Cosmic evolution- formation of space
2. Chemical evolution- formation of of elements(can't fuse past iron)
3.Stellar and planetary evolution- formation of stars and planets
4.Biological evolution- origin of life
5. Macro evolution- 1 kind of animal into another different kind of animal.
6. Micro evolution- variations within the kinds.

Most evolutionists when debating this topic are speaking of number 6. Most creationists tend to think they are discussing number 5. Numbers 1-5 are purely religious and the god of that religion is called "time." Number 6 does happen but there are limits. Dogs will always produce dogs, and humans will produce humans. The question is for anyone that wants to answer..When you are talking about this topic what number are you talking about and why?
 
None of them are religious, and 1-4 aren't considered evolution in standard terminology.

Stay off drdino.com, you'll just embarrass yourself when you start using information from it to back yourself up...

As for "dogs will always produce dogs", well no sh*t. Seperate out a group of dogs, breed them in isolation from other dogs for a couple of thousand years and what you'll have won't be Canis lupes familiaris though.
 
I don't know where you got your definitions ... but they are not the same as used by scientists.

1. Awkward, but OK. You could call that "cosmic evolution." But that would also include the formation of elements. (It would be a much longer discussion to get into whether you can fuse past iron ... so let's leave that alone for now.)
2. Incorrect. "Chemical evolution" is the stage of evolution after the origins of replicating chemicals, but before the origins of cells.
3. OK. Stellar and planetary evolution are accurate terms.
4. Incorrect! "Biological evolution" is *NOT* the origins of life. That is abiogenesis, which is followed by chemical evolution.
5 & 6. Incorrect! That is *completely* inaccurate use of the words "microevolution" and "macroevolution". These are NOT two separate processes from each other, let alone separate from biological evolution.

The terms microevolution and macroevolution are NOT two separate processes *in nature*, but two different areas of *focus* by scientists, on the *SAME PROCESS* ... biological evolution. (Think of the words like 'microbiology' vs. 'macrobiology' ... or 'microgrowth' vs. 'macrogrowth' ... these are about the way humans *STUDY* the same processes, but should not be mistaken for *DIVISIONS IN NATURE*.)

>"Most evolutionists when debating this topic are speaking of number 6."

No they're not. They are referring to biological evolution, and do not make a distinction between microevolution vs. macroevolution as separate *processes* of nature.

'Evolutionists' only make that distinction when debating creationists. They recognize that Creationists accept the concept of small-scale evolution that can be measured in years (because it is the type of change that can be reproduced in a lab experiment) ... but that the Creationists try to draw the line at long-term evolution that includes *speciation* (because it is more conducive to *inferential* observation ... but they fail to understand that *speciation* itself can also be reproduced in the lab). To refer to these separate questions as 'microevolution' vs. 'macroevolution' is an incorrect use of terminology ... but 'evolutionists' will go ahead and discuss them for purposes of addressing the Creationist's arguments, and will demonstrate that macroevolution (long-term evolution that includes *speciation*) does indeed occur.

>"When you are talking about this topic what number are you talking about and why?"

The problem is that you are asking 'evolutionists' to accept your terminology and numbering ... which are misuses of scientific terms. Your terms and numbering are already drawing divisions that scientists do *NOT* recognize, and misusing scientific terminology in completely incorrect ways.

Again, as an example, when you say that "biological evolution" = "origins of life" ... you are *completely* incorrect.

Evolution is about how life *changes* ... NOT how it started.
 
It appears you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of evolution. The answer to your overall question is you can't debate creation vs. evolution in any meaningful way and achieve a resolution. The reason is that creationism is based purely in faith, with absolutely no means to prove, via scientific means, that it is the way things happened. On the other hand, evolution is a phenomenon that actually can be observed in the lab, and is scientifically proven. However, evolution only goes so far, and does not yet do a very good job of explaining the origins of life. For what its worth, my philosophy is that perhaps a higher being, "God", or whatever you want to call it, set things in motion, and then sat back to see what happened; evolution is part of the "master plan".
 
#5 is not religious. I'll explain why.

The fossil record contains numerous examples of transitional species. Back when Darwin first published his theory of evolution, only a few transitional species were known, such as archaeopteryx and neandertal. Archaeopteryx has numerous features peculiar to dinosaurs, yet it also has feathered wings--the very definition of a bird. No modern bird has as many "primitive" features. Furthermore, several of the archaeopteryx specimens (there are at least half a dozen very good ones) had at one time been misclassified as dinosaurs.

Darwin hoped to find legged cetaceans, but never did. Today we know of several, intermediaries between land animals and whales. Why would God create fossils of legged whales, if She wanted us to believe all species were created simultaneously, independently, and recently? Why neandertal, so close in resemblance to us, who also made tools and used fire?

Cosmic evolution is generally not considered part of biological evolution, but most people willing to accept the billions of years established for the age of the earth by geologists and nuclear physicists, and billions more for the age of the universe established by cosmologists, are also willing to accept the gradual changes in species occurring over millions of years proposed by biologists.

You make an excellent point about chemical evolution. We perceive a paucity of metals (elements heavier than helium) in the light from the most distant galaxies, which should only be the case in a universe that is chemically evolving--stellar nucleosynthesis. This flies in the face of a 6000 year old instantaneous creation. Why would a Creator who WANTED us to accept that the universe is only 6000 years old create trails of information encoded light back to galaxies billions of light years away? What would be Her motive there?

The fact that all of these things have occurred, of course, in no way implies a "Creator" does not exist. It simply delineates the most likely method of creation (if it occurred).
 
Back
Top