Evolution vs Creationism

== Rebuttal == R1) Claim: sperm and eggs disprove evolution Fact: there are a few key problems with this argument. (1) Even if the argument were true that mutations cannot occur in eggs, mutations in sperm cells caused by environmental factors (like gamma radiation) would be sufficient to explain evolution. For evolution to happen, an individual only needs to inherit a mutated gene from one parent. If the trait is dominant, it will be expressed in the individual. If the trait is recessive, the individual"s offspring will have a survival advantage over time. (2) The argument wrongly assumes that environmental factors are the only ones that can cause mutations. There are actually two ways that genes can mutate: (a) environmental factors (e.g. radiation, carcinogens) and (b) transcription errors. My source #1 from the previous round says that the vast majority of mutations are from transcription errors, not environmental causes. And transcription errors can and will occur even in the oocytes that are formed in a human female prior to birth. The DNA transcriptase simply makes a mistake when creating the oocytes. (3) The argument is wrong as a matter of fact. Prior to being born, a woman has all of the primary oocytes in her ovaries that she will ever have. [1] However, during estrus each month, the primary oocytes undergo two more divisions before they form a mature ovum. [1] During these two divisions, additional transcription errors can occur. [1] (4) Lastly, the argument misunderstands how environmental mutations work. This type of mutation causes changes in *already formed* cells" DNA, without the need for cell division. For example, scientists have used radiation on already formed seeds (the analog to an already formed human ovum) to induce mutations for plant breeding (called "radiation breeding"). It doesn't matter that the seeds have already undergone cell division (meiosis) at this stage and are fully formed. Radiation can still induce mutations. R2) Claim 2: Biblical "prophecies" prove that the Bible is inerrant (1) First of all, we need to remember what Con needs to prove here, i.e. that *every word* in the Bible is true. I never claimed that the *entire* Bible is false. My argument was that if the Bible contains falsities, it is not the inerrant word of God, so there is no plausible reason to believe the Creation story over evolution. Some things in the Bible may be true, and Con tries to point to some of them. That doesn"t prove that every word in the Bible is true. Con fails the BOP on that. So there"s no reason to believe that the Creation story is one of the true parts. (2) Nothing Con said is really a prophecy. The Bible is an enormous work that makes a variety of claims. If you claim enough things, you're bound to be right about some of them (even a broken clock is right twice a day). For example, if you claim both that the Earth is flat (as in the three passages I cited in the previous round) and that the Earth is a sphere (as Con claims of Isaiah 40:22), *one* of those has to be right. That"s not really impressive enough to prove the Bible had knowledge that was ahead of its time. (3) Now, let's parse these passages. Isaiah 40:22 says the Earth is a "circle," not a sphere. A circle is a two dimensional object, meaning it can still be flat. Isaiah 55:9 says, "the heavens are higher than the earth." That doesn't come close to predicting an infinitely expanding universe. 2 Peter 3:7 says, "the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment." That hardly predicts conservation of energy. That passage is actually saying that on judgment day, the known world will be burned (i.e. a fiery version of the rapture). Jeremiah 33:22's statement about "countless" stars is not impressive given that the vast number of stars is observable with the naked eye. R3) Claim: Radioactive dating is inaccurate I'm not sure what Con's argument is here. Carbon dating is used to accurately date objects that are less than 50,000 years old. [2] Uranium-lead dating is used to date older objects because uranium has a slower rate of decay, as Con's own source points out. Con's source also seems to claim that radioactive dating is inaccurate because the decay rate of a single molecule is not known, but the same source concedes that the half life of an entire sample of uranium or carbon is known. So we do known how long it will take half of the radioactive isotopes in a given sample to decay. That's the law of averages. The accuracy of carbon dating is confirmed by dendrochronology, which uses the size and shape of trees rings to date the age of a tree. Tree rings from a particular year have a particular size and shape based on environmental factors, like rainfall patterns that year. [3] Rings from different trees can be matched together and used to date forests going back more than 8,000 years (which itself disproves that the Earth is 6,000 years old). [3] In addition, using carbon dating on the trees and getting the same result as through dendrochronology proves that carbon dating is accurate. [4] Lastly, Con described a single experiment done by a creationist on zircon crystals. Basically, scientists had already dated the zircon crystals using uranium-lead dating as being 1.5 million years old. [4] A creationist calculated the age of the crystals based on the amount of helium they had in them as being only 6,000 years old. [4] However, there's a reason scientists don't use helium as a dating method. The diffusion rate of helium out of a crystal varies with temperature and pressure [4], so the diffusion rate assumed in the creationist's calculations was completely wrong. [4] In addition, Creationists all point to this one zircon crystal experiment to disprove radioactive dating. But if radioactive dating were wrong, there should be more than one simple calculation proving that everything we know about chemistry, radioactive decay, and half lives is wrong. It's just *one* experiment, whereas thousands of experiments have shown that uranium-lead dating can date objects between 1 million and 4.5 billion years old with an accuracy of +/- .1%. [5] We generally demand more proof than a single experiment before we jettison an entire scientific field. R4) Mythical creatures are just allegories Con says, "Some descriptions are symbolic and . . . were never intended to be taken literally." (1) The same thing could be said about the Creation story. Perhaps it is also just an allegory that is not meant to be taken literally. If some parts of the Bible are mythical works of fiction (e.g. Leviathans), then there's no reason to believe that the Creation story is not also just a myth passed down through oral tradition. Con's concession here that some parts of the bible are symbolic myths is an enormous concession for this debate. (2) At the very least, the description of the Leviathan was *not* a mistranslation and *was* meant to be taken literally. Job 41 describes the Leviathan in painstaking detail over the course of 34 sentences as a real creature that is too strong to be caught by a fishing hook, has a double coat of armor, and rows of fearsome teeth. Job 41:12 suggests that the passage is written as a firsthand account from someone who has witnessed a Leviathan. Con's concessions Con makes a number of key concessions here. (1) Con concedes that the Bible was wrong to claim in 6 passages that the Earth is stationary. It actually orbits the Sun. So the Bible is not inerrant. That's cold conceded. Con also concedes that redshifting of light proves that the universe is more than 6,000 years old. So another cold conceded argument disproving the Bible's inerrancy. (2) Con concedes that Creationism is implausible because we don't know where the story came from or how God "told" it to us. It's more plausible that ancient peoples just wrote down an oral myth story. (3) Con concedes that a fossil has never been found in a layer of rock in which it did not belong based on evolution's predictions, which proves evolution true and Creationism false, because Creationism would predict that all fossils would be evenly disbursed (since everything was created at virtually the same time). [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] Parrish, Randall R.; Noble, Stephen R., 2003. Zircon U-Th-Pb Geochronology by Isotope Dilution