Evolution

Now, I would like to note that most of my opponent's sources are youtube videos. I generally don't find youtube as a very credible source and would request that my opponent provide some credible articles. "There are four main points that are accepted as historical fact by the majority of New Testament historians regarding Jesus. " I would like to emphasize the "New Testament historians". This is implying that these historians already believe in Jesus which puts bias on their ideas. They already assume that Jesus existed, that he was resurrected etc. They are merely figuring out the details. I believe that they are not a valid source in this case. My opponent mentions other historians and that these facts "pass the tests of historical reliability". These "tests" do not make the Bible any more valid. In reality, my opponent is using the Bible as a source and saying it is valid because it explains the how, why, where and when of Jesus. So far, other than the Bible, my opponent has not provided any arguments for the existence and specialty of Jesus. In this case, the Bible is not a valid source because it is a religious text and is biased. That's like if we were debating Christianity vs. Islam, and I was using the Quran (Koran) as a source. Of course the Quran would support all of my arguments. The Bible is not a valid source in this case. My opponent provides several Youtube videos as support for the Shroud of Turin which, in turn, is support for Christianity/Jesus. The Shroud does not even pass the most basic test, carbon dating. . http://www.webpronews.com... . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... "Well, if God did raise Jesus from the dead, we have in the first case evidence for God, and thus creation by God becomes more probable as an alternative to evolution. " This is nothing more than an assumption. My opponent has not managed to prove that Jesus was raised from the dead. If there is evidence for God, why does that debunk evolution? I, for instance, believe that there is a God but that evolution is also in play. Just because there is evidence for a God does not mean evolution is a "no go". So far, my opponent has not managed to prove Jesus' existence or specialty, using only the Bible and Youtube as a source. My opponent then moves to what is truly the subject at hand, evolution. "As for evolution, there is no proof of evolution, because first of all, the dates of the fossils given in millions of years cannot be proven. Most are based on decay rates of one element into a daughter product which takes place over thousands of years for even a tiny sample to decay. " Yes, it is called carbon dating. I don't see the problem. According to your logic, we cannot determine the distance form Earth to the Sun because no man has gone there and back to count the miles. That is just absurd. . http://ncse.com... "However, the accumulation of these small changes have never amounted to any radical difference," Because these experiments have not been conducted for long periods of time. Changes that occur are typically very small and it will take time before it amounts to something "radical". The example my opponent provided (the Wikipedia article) talks about E. Coli evolution. The experiment has only been conducted for TWENTY YEARS. It takes millions for evolution to occur on a bigger scale. The experiment has only been going on since 1988. Even then, there were changes observed. Why do you think you need to get vaccines from the same virus multiple times in your life? Because it changes. It evolves so much that a once-effective vaccine no longer affects the species of bacteria or virus. "Based on such observations, I can say that within another 60 million generations they will remain e-coli. " So, you're saying that since the E. Coli didn't turn into algae (for example) within 60,000 generations, that nothing will happen in 60 million? Even though large adaptations and changes have occurred? That is like saying that since humans haven't managed to create a flying machine in 1,900 years, then they won't be able to in 2 million years. That was obviously proven false. You cannot expect evolution to occur on a radical scale in twenty years. It is a long, gradual process. "Evolution teaches that life evolved from simple beginnings, but a simple beginning has never been found. " People may consider simple beginnings a possibility, but evolution does not "teach" that life evolved from simple beginnings. This is the definition of evolution from biology-online. org Evolution Definition noun, plural: evolutions (1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. (2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny. . http://www.biology-online.org... Nothing is said about "simple beginnings". "Language studies show that ancient languages are more complex than modern ones, which would not happen with evolution which goes from the simple to the complex. " That has nothing to do with biology. That is human psychology and society, and cannot be used to disprove the theory of evolution. There is much evidence for evolution, and I will start with DNA, the universal genetic code. Any life form, from your white blood cells to the cells of tree leaves are able to read the DNA from any life form on Earth. The fossil record, of course, also shows gradual changes in organisms over long periods of time. Humans have 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, 90% with cats, and 80% with cows. This doesn't mean that we came from cows or cats, but it does show that we had a common ancestor. These similarities can even be observed in human embryos. In early stages of development, humans have gills. They do not actually function, but slits form on the side of the embryo's throat which later close up again. Humans also have webbed hands and feet when in early stages of development. . http://evolutionfaq.com... All of these things show that we have common ancestors. Species have so many similarities between each other and it would be silly to say that it is all just a coincidence.