Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debating evolution
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 1 of 91 (310579)
05-09-2006 6:07 PM


I'm just a teenager and I'm debating with another teen... I am supporting evolution and he is a Christian. I mentioned that even in the last 100-200 years, our feet have gotten quite a bit bigger on average, so I asked him what kind of changes could have happened over a much longer period of time... this was his response:
quote:
If you look at a painting of a person that that lived about lets say 2,000 years ago. The only difference you see is that He is a little shorter and had slightly smaller feet. Wow, 2,000 years and thats all thats happened. Not even any new special parts or aspects to us even being formed.
Can someone help me respond to this?

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 05-09-2006 6:47 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2006 9:15 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 27 by Funkaloyd, posted 05-10-2006 11:44 AM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 3 of 91 (310581)
05-09-2006 6:23 PM


Thanks, sorry.

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 4 of 91 (310583)
05-09-2006 6:29 PM


Something else he said. The only response I can think of is something along the lines of ... "nu-uh!!" and since I know everyone on here is really smart from past experience... can someone explain this to me?
quote:
They may be scientists but they cling to their findings cause they want to refute the creationism. They want to make a name for themselves and be famous. Some, a verry small few, actualy look to find answers. Those are the ones that end up realizing after comparing the facts that evolution is false.
He told me that when scientists actually look into stuff, they find out that God is real. Which, he says, is why most real scientists are Christian. I know that's completely untrue but... examples?
Anyone have a question I can ask as a super-stumper for him?

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 05-09-2006 6:46 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 7 by jar, posted 05-09-2006 6:51 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 9 by Quetzal, posted 05-09-2006 6:59 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 11 by Cthulhu, posted 05-09-2006 7:04 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 16 by nator, posted 05-09-2006 9:30 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2006 9:36 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 87 by truthlover, posted 05-15-2006 3:53 PM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 8 of 91 (310593)
05-09-2006 6:54 PM


Where can I look for proof of the Earth's age? Or at least... findings.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 05-09-2006 7:01 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 12 by Coragyps, posted 05-09-2006 7:38 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 13 by jar, posted 05-09-2006 7:48 PM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 18 of 91 (310632)
05-09-2006 11:02 PM


Great helps! I threw in some of this information. I don't know what it is about him, but he really loves to take little bitty things, completely irrelevant... throw them into the debate to get me off track. Then we have pages of discussion that has NOTHING to do with evolution, but more with the percent of scientists that are Theistic.
I am using this as a learning experience.
Thanks again for your help...

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by kuresu, posted 05-09-2006 11:20 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 05-10-2006 12:00 AM SR71 has not replied
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2006 3:28 AM SR71 has not replied
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2006 7:14 AM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 26 of 91 (310708)
05-10-2006 9:54 AM


I need to be able to tell him how we evolved from a single-celled organism.
quote:
My arguement on the single celled organism was on topic and deserved an explanation. You need to explain to me how materials formed together in the perfect shape with perfect materials, and to just start moving as one as a living object.
My argeument on how can a single celled organism evolve into multiple cellular orginisms which have a completely different make up then the original cell. If this is even possible that would not be a gradual process but a quick jump concidering you are doubling the size of the object.
What I've said is that they didn't just evolve into the perfect animal... and in fact, the original creatures are not around because they were imperfect.

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 05-10-2006 5:46 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 05-10-2006 6:10 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2006 7:02 PM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 31 of 91 (310987)
05-11-2006 9:57 AM


I told him all that cellular stuff and he told me that I'm contradicting evolution because if the cells were immune to predators, and they had nutrients then they were perfect. And since we aren't perfect then that means we got worse. Uggghhhhh
I gave him several links to resources talking about the earth's long age... and here was his (long) response:
quote:
Proof of a Young Earth
K you wanted facts on the earth being younger then a you think here is some facts
(1) The sun is shrinking in mass. Since this is true this means that over billions of years the sun would of shrunk enough to the point where the gravitational balace would be upseted. If that is umbalanced then the earth would be not capable of supporting life. SO in total the sun is shrinking in mass. So according to your measures of time it is not possible.
(2) There is a thing called the coriolis effect. This is proportionate to the speed of the earths rotation. Do to these prevailing winds, the sahara desert is the process of desertification, Expanding approximately 4 miles per year. Calcualtions based upon the rate of the Saharas expansion shows that he earth cannot be billions of years old cause the the oldest desert in the world is only 4,000 years old.
(3)The population itself is evidence of a young planet. In 1810 the population was 1 billion. within less then 200 years the population grew to 6 billion. This meants that according the rate at which population grows at a certain rate according to poplation size. Through this study the earth can't even be a million years old.
(4)In the past 140 years studies have shown that the magnetic field is at a rate of decay, and according to the decay rate the earth could not be 1 billion years old cause. That the total life spand of the magnetic field would amount to aproximately 25,000 years. Do to the consistant rate of decay makes the earth not even possible of being old at all.
(5) The moons gravitation pull on the earth has been slowly causing the days to lengthen. Because both gravitaional forces and friction loss can be computed, then we can determine how close the moon could orbit before resulting in lunar destruction or eradication of life on earth. With this in mind the eath/moon relationship could not possible be more tan 1.2 billion years old, and geologic evidence indicates that it is much younger. geologic evidence is not the carbon dating or anything along those lines but the evidence I have provided to you.
I just supplied 5 aspects as to how the earth cannot be as old as you claim. As a matter of fact they all point to the earth being the sambe proxiamte age. The bible says that the earth is 6,000 years old. These prove that it can. Look it up. These peices of evidence were not found on the web but in a book. All these aspects were founded by scientists. You supplied one reason why which is inaccurate in which I supplied an article earlier that stated how all of them are invalid accept the carbon-14. Which has obviously been proven false cause there is 5 methods i named which there are more. That refute the findings of carbon-14.
I need help. I guess I got in over my head on this one. But also, you guys said it's a good learning experience, so you're teaching me. And in turn I'm teaching him, lol. Thanks for all of your help.

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-11-2006 10:01 AM SR71 has not replied
 Message 33 by jar, posted 05-11-2006 10:11 AM SR71 has not replied
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2006 10:20 AM SR71 has not replied
 Message 35 by Quetzal, posted 05-11-2006 10:29 AM SR71 has not replied
 Message 37 by Chiroptera, posted 05-11-2006 5:40 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 38 by nator, posted 05-11-2006 5:42 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 05-11-2006 7:13 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2006 9:57 PM SR71 has replied
 Message 60 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-12-2006 5:17 AM SR71 has not replied
 Message 88 by Cthulhu, posted 05-15-2006 4:26 PM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 36 of 91 (311064)
05-11-2006 3:35 PM


I posted some of this stuff. Thanks again.
That Talk.Origins young earth page is excellent. It's a lot of pages but I think I'm going to print it off so I can (a) read it all and (b) have it there in front of me for responses.
He is now attacking Atheism, lol, saying that an atheist can't have morals without God. Of course this is easily disproven, but it's funny that this has come up in a debate over evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 05-11-2006 5:45 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2006 6:00 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 41 by Chiroptera, posted 05-11-2006 6:02 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 42 by jar, posted 05-11-2006 6:19 PM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 46 of 91 (311241)
05-11-2006 10:33 PM


He wants to know how a species without logic can evolve and gain logic. Here's his exact words:
quote:
With that said how does a single cell organism without a thought process and logic evolve a logic that is able to comprehend and learn. You cannot use the fact that humanities logic has increased over years as part of this argument. Simply cause the increase in knowledge is the fact that we are capable of comprehending and learning.
In order for you to believe this you have to believe in God so this isn't really that arguementive. God does draw on our hearts to do good. Wether you believe in God or not he can still use you to do his will.
IMO, we have a logic simply because we have the most developed brains. Am I not right --- is it not that simple!?

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2006 10:42 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 49 by jar, posted 05-11-2006 10:45 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 50 by Chiroptera, posted 05-11-2006 10:50 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2006 7:25 AM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 51 of 91 (311254)
05-11-2006 10:50 PM


quote:
2)It does cause it has proven over time the winds have caused a desert to form. Since we can prove accurately today that the winds cause the deserts growth, we can obviosly conclude that the winds had the effect to create them. Since the oldest desert in the world is only 4,000, which you didn't prove false but yet supported, it is rational to conclude that the earth is not billions of years old cause deserts would have been formed far earlier then it. Since winds have always been here do to the rotation of the earth. If this is false prove how deserts were formed and how they couldn't of been formed earlier.
He says the Coriolis affect IS proof that the earth is young because of these reasons. These were his words, and I simply replied with "the last glaciation period...?"
Was that correct?

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 11:24 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 54 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 11:28 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 90 by Alasdair, posted 05-18-2006 7:03 PM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 53 of 91 (311277)
05-11-2006 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
05-11-2006 9:57 PM


Re: coral - ations and mathematical models.
RAZD - all of that was extremely interesting about the moon/earth gravitational field. Thanks!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2006 9:57 PM RAZD has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 55 of 91 (311284)
05-11-2006 11:35 PM


Still waiting on HIS next response but I will keep it in mind. Thank you!
What do you people do for careers? Like I said I'm a teenager and if I could be this knowledgable I would definitely choose to.

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2006 11:38 PM SR71 has not replied
 Message 59 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 11:51 PM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 57 of 91 (311289)
05-11-2006 11:42 PM


To crashfrog
Good point. But obviously people like RAZD and yourself don't just ask questions and read to understand these subjects so well...?

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 05-11-2006 11:46 PM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 62 of 91 (311378)
05-12-2006 10:25 AM


I told him, thanks to Talk.Origins, that his argument is based on the assumption that the sun has always been decreasing. So he told me this:
quote:
Simple as this man. E=Mc squared. Energy equals mass. The sun is dispersing heat energy and so its mass is slowly decreasing. I never said that the sun's decreasing mass had anything to do with the tides. Common sence. Energy equals mass, disperson of Energy equals dispersion of mass. Here is the link that states the 1 tenth a percent.No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/AckermanYoungWorldChap06.htm
(Am I right to say that he is completely misusing the theory of relativity??}

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by NosyNed, posted 05-12-2006 10:49 AM SR71 has not replied
 Message 66 by jar, posted 05-12-2006 11:04 AM SR71 has not replied

  
SR71
Member (Idle past 6216 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-07-2006


Message 64 of 91 (311383)
05-12-2006 10:49 AM


It's interesting. Whenever I thoroughly pommel his arguments, he turns to something like "but my source is NASA and your source is just scientists."
Proof is proof.

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by NosyNed, posted 05-12-2006 10:57 AM SR71 has not replied
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2006 8:16 AM SR71 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024