Evolution is a sound scientific concept

Rebuttals… It appears that Con Is Perhaps under a very grave misapprehension of what we are discussing here. “ Evolution is a sound scientific concept? We are debating if Evolution is a logical scientific concept that is supported by evidence and observation as I earlier stated in round one. ”Now take note I will not be debating if Evolution is true, simply if Evolution is a sound scientific concept.” The implications of this are rather simple I must present a case for evolution that is a. Based on valid reasoning: a sound observation. b. Free from logical flaws: sound reasoning. (Sound) . An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs or a logical, mathematical statement describing the consistency that applies to the phenomenon. (Scientific Concept) . Con has yet to provide a case against why and evolution should NOT be considered a Sound scientific concept. Now unto Cons absurd “Standards of Logic”. My esteemed opponent proposes the fallacious argument… “Transcendental argument for the existence of God” Voter’s keep in mind we are NOT debating the existence of god(s) at all that is irrelevant to if evolution is a sound scientific concept. While I have qualms with Cons argument I need not address them since they are irrelevant neither if Con prefers to take a solipsistic view of reality that too im afraid is again irrelevant. However I will demonstrate why Cons argument fails. If principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false. Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God . Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false. However keep in mind the existence of god(s) or imaginary beings is irrelevant to this debate. This debate is about science. Very Basic Terms of Logic Logic might be minimally defined as: The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning. http://dictionary.reference.com...\ Example of logic as it indeed seems needed. 1. All As are Bs 2. All Bs are Cs 3. Therefore, all As are Cs 2. Principle of Non-Contradiction The law/principle of Non-Contradiction suggests that contradictions do not occur; that two propositions that are contradictory cannot both be true. It was famously stated by Aristotle: "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time." That is, it states "not-both": ~(p & ~p) An example: It cannot be the case that I am a human and that I am not a human. Voters surely that will suffice as examples of logic. Unto con’s “Definitions and Understandings” “With this body of Evolution doubters, we do not say that mutations and natural selection does not happen. We know that new species can be created. For example, we see many types of dogs, and over time speciation occurs. With dog breeding, we can use natural selection to keep the traits that are desired, and produce the traits that are unfavorable. However, natural selection only selecs information that is already there. It does not account for a mechanism that can produce a new kind of animal. “ Con has all but Conceded at this point. This is equivalent to saying I believe in inches but not feet.Keep in mind our first rule. This is a Non sequitur. Also keep in mind as I stated in round one. I will be attempting to show that Evolution is a sound scientific concept we are not debatingabiogenesis. Unto Con’s “Evolutionary Misunderstandings” These are all not only arguments from authority but false claims as well. As theta_pinch pointed out and myself also researched thoroughly Cons quotes are only found on biased sites that advocate creationism.Keep in mind creationism is again irrelevant to this debate . “So I looked up that Stephen J. Gould quote Lupricona gave and could only find it on sites that advocate creationism.” We can simply dismiss all of Cons quotes as they are not only arguments from authority but are also fabrications. On David Raup's quote alone which presented by Con. Nearly all those quoted were taken either out of context or misinterpreted by Creationists. http://www.zootorah.com... Here is the Rational Wiki page on David Raup, it mentions Creationist Quote Mining. http://rationalwiki.org... What the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) merely does is quote mine past and existing Scientists to find paragraphs and phrases to take out of context. This is the only real research the ICR has ever undertaken. Funny name for a supposed Research center that does absolutely no real scientific research. Unto con’s “Time is Not the Hero of the Plot” Con” Some Evolution doubters are Theists who uphold a view that there was a worldwide flood around the time of Noah, some 4300 years ago.” “standard dating methods are not reliable or accurate. (9)” Not only is this incredibly absurd but again this is irrelevant to evolution however I will address it. Evidence has convinced scientists that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (plus or minus about 1%) . This value is derived from several different lines of evidence. P2. The reliability of radiometric dating The atoms of radioactive isotopes are unstable have a fixed decay over time by discharging particles at a fixed rate, transforming the material into a stable substance. For example, half the mass of carbon-14, (the hardest substance known to mankind) Is an unstable isotope of carbon, and decays into nitrogen-14 over a fixed time period. The regularity of this decay allows scientists to determine the age of extremely old organic materials. With a high degree of precision. The decay of uranium-238, has a half-life of nearly 4.5 billion years, enabled geologists to determine the age of the Earth. Many scientists, including Marie and Pierre Curie, Ernest Rutherford and George de Hevesy, have tried to influence the rate of radioactive decay to try and test the true accuracy of dating by radically changing the pressure, temperature, magnetic field, acceleration, or radiation environment of the source. No experiment to date has detected any change in rates of decay. However voters keep in mind this is irrelevant to the case at hand. Con’s “Evolution's Biggest Problem” “Evolution requires abiogenesis” Absolutely a false claim as I stated in round one. Abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary theory this has no impact on evolution. Con has yet to make a logical scientific case against why Evolution is NOT sound scientific concept Which is what con must do in this debate. Conclusion. Evolution is a rational logical and sound scientific concept backed by evidence and observations any oppositions of it merely survive on wishful thinking. Vote Pro. SOURCES. [1], The Futility of Non-Christian Thought, Antithesis, Vol II, July/August, 1991, pp 40-42, Keith Parsons, Is Non-Christian Thought Futile? Antithesis, Vol II July/August, 1991, pp 42-44, [2]Con’s fallacious arguments. [3]Logic. [4]http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org... [5]http://www.talkorigins.org... [6]http://tinyurl.com...... [7]http://en.wikipedia.org...http://dictionary.reference.com...; http://infidels.org...http://www.pbs.org...http://atheism.about.com...