After reading many different articles for both sides, this is my conclusion (read the whole thing b4 commenting):
Biologist consider evolution a fact and do not debate its existance. What they do debate is the method through which this came about. I see this as the first mistake towards evolution. However, those that accept creation, are taking things in the bible literaly. For example, some believe that creation took place in 6 literal days. That is wrong and can be proven wrong in their own bible, since the bible says that "one day for Jehovah can be a thousand years for a human", which in other words would mean that creation days are more than just 1 literal day. The best proof for this is also in the fact that it says that God rested on the 7th day, and that we are still in that seventh day.
In any case, my point continues: Biologist do not want to debate evolution within itself, because they consider it a given. Being that so, it would be impossible to debate the other theories and tell them evolution is impossible, because they have evolution as a given. In other words, even if you prove one of their methods wrong, they will just try to bring in another method by which they believe that evolution is true, and thus the debate starts over again. First thing that has to be accepted, is that if you want to debate something, you can't consider something as a fact just because you believe that facts support it. Since there is no mechanism today to prove any of the existing theories to how man came to be, the two methods in question should be Evolution, and all of the theories that bring it about, and creation, and the current (albeit, maybe not as popular) beliefs as to how man came to be. This is how I see the two sides unfold:
Evolution: Explains that all living organisms proceeded in one form or another from another animal. Evolution is defined as: "changes in a population... that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next." - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986. That is the accepted definition by biologists.
Creation: Explains that all living organisms were premeditatively made and placed on earth by some unearthly force called God. Creation is defined as: the event in which all organism originated, through direct influence of an external force. Regardless of belief, this is what is defined as creation.
Cons for evolution: Evolution considers itself a fact before any theories are brought about. For example: looking at fossil history and current animals, biologist state that since so many different animals have similar features they must have a common ancestry. Irregardless of what this is, they jump to the conclusion that evolution is a fact and proceed to make claims as to how this happened. Proper procedure would be to look at all methods that could cause this and not to state that the animals are the way they are because of evolution. Having said this, here are some irregularities in the existing theories for evolution:
Abiogenesis: Theories as to how the first living cells came to be. Several theories exist as to how the original cells came to be, these are some of the most popularly accepted ones and their cons: Whole cell theories: Any theory that states that the original cell as a whole came to be. Any respectable biologist today can state a myriad of reasons as to why this can't be, and this theory lacks the backing it once did several years ago, but for completeness sake, here are some of its cons: 1. The proteins requiered to produce the first cell can't exist without the DNA and RNA requiered for its formation, and the DNA and RNA are so delicate that they cannot survive without the protective protein layers. In other words, the whole cell is too complex to come from nothing even in its simplest stage. 2. Atmospheric limitation: Some of the components of DNA cannot survive be made in an oxidizing atmosphere, which is what existed in primordial earth. If no oxigen was in the atmosphere, however, the radiation from space would have been enough to break appart any DNA molecules that form. 3. Even if some DNA molecules form, both left and right-handed molecules form simultaneously, and usable DNA can only be left-handed. When both exist, no reaction takes place. With that said, the whole cell abiogenesis theory bites the dust. The next theory for Abiogenesis is: RNA abiogenesis: States that instead of DNA, the original soup contained RNA (ribonucleic acid). This is sort of a form of working backwards: if DNA can't be made, then maybe RNA made DNA instead. RNA is just the counterpart of DNA, however, some of the same limitations of DNA apply to RNA. RNA needs some of the same conditions that DNA has to originate, and besides that, there are many many more RNA strands than DNA if a whole cell were to form. The RNA model has still many faults that are being worked out and hence still lies in its grave until they are worked out. In order for this theory to work, in fact, the RNA has to be self-replicating, which still has not been observed (due to my limited access to hard scientific data, I might be wrong about this one, and if so, I would appreciate e-mail: absent_minded@latinmail.com) For a whole cell, however, the RNA model has no legs to stand on. Abiogenesis evolution: The most recent, and due to the faults on the other two abiogenesis theories, the most accepted. It states that the first cell came to be from pre-cell forms that could replicated. These pre-cells had many of the properties of the now known complex cell, but lacked some or most of its qualities. The only basic information that is given about them is that, its a small amount of genetic information encased within a protein shell (like a virus). The pre-cell is so small that several hundred of these would be needed to equal the size of a modern cell. This theory is still in its very very early stages of development, and is experiencing some growing pains, such as: What came first, the protein coat or the genetic material, and: how much genetic material is necesary for a pre-cell to successfully have all the information it needs to make an exact duplicate of itself, that is able to accept genetic change (required for evolution) and still be able to produce a protein coat and the genetic material of the new pre-cell. The pre-cell is like a bare-bones (pardon the PC-expression) kit of the modern cell. Yet how much is bare-bones? The pre-cell needs to have a way to produce its energy, a way to obtain the materials needed to make energy, a method for protein production, and a method for DNA replication and division. This means that the pre-cell had to have DNA and proteins that we have already seen were not viable in early earth. If we add the RNA model into this, then the early pre-cells were made out of RNA and protein, which then leads us to ask: when did the change from RNA-pre-cells to DNA-cells occur (much too drastic a change to occur in one step). The current failure of Abiogenesis to explain how the first cells came to be is not a deterent for those who believe in evolution, for they just state that its their misunderstanding of the situation that causes it. so we will move on to talk about creation a bit, and then Evolution once again withing higher life forms.
Cons for creation: within creation, many people have different beliefs as to how we came to be. Within most of the world, the stories are so vast and varied and so unconcievebibly stupid, that one might think that a kid thought of them (an elephant holding up the world, or a woman givin birth to a river... obviously product of misunderstanding) Of all religios practices, those based on the Holy scriptures (Genesis to Revelations) seem to be the most accurately represent the generally accepted physics limitations. so we will start with how people interpret these. first of all, the time scale for creation. Obviously creation was not 6 literal days. The fact that we can see stars (which are millions of light years away)should be the only proof we need for that. The next con against the literal belief of creation (as opposed to a few that interpret the bible to mean different things) resides within when the animals were made. Some literalist interpret the scriptures as meaning that God was making the animals while he put man in paradise. Not only does this contradict the fossil records, but it also contradicts other parts of the bible that state that the animals were made on the days before man, and man was the last creation of the sixth day. Those who hold the belief that the creatures were made after man just don't have anything to support their claim. Adverse claims: Many people state that the story of Adam and Eve is just a fairy tale from a tribal community. To prove this, they state that after Cain killed his brother he ran of and married someone. Upon further inspection of the scriptures, one notices that Cain was 100 years of age when he killed his brother, and that Cain was the oldest of the all of Adam and Eve's kids. A female becomes fertile after she nears her teens, but for arguments' sake, lets say that they started to reproduce after 24 years of age, and lets say that during Adam and Eve's time, they had an equal ammount of boys and girls born (though history shows that there are always more women than men and if more women than men are being born, and a man can empregnate more than one woman, the amounts I am about to state, are drastically increased). If Eve had a kid, every year, (instead of every 9 months) then when 24 years passed: If Eve had a kid, every year, (instead of every 9 months) then when 24 years passed: She would have had 24 kids, and 1 grandchild, year after that: 25 kids and 2 grandchilds, the yeat after that, 26 kids and 4 grandchilds. The total population in the world 100 years into this would be well over 2700+ people. It would be more than justified for Cain to take a wife among them, and to fear for his life if anyone found him.
anyways, ran out of time today, I will continue this tommorrow (when i find the time).
™ Version 4.2
