Evolution

"F for Fossils" You're wrong. Fossils can also be preserved imprints of living things that have decayed since, and we actually have plenty of preserved imprints of the trilobite's ancestors (http://www.trilobites.info...). You claim that "it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator". It also takes a lot more ignorance. Like I said, the Creator and evolution can coexist. Science doesn't explain the basis of evolution: exactly why would the DNA mess up in its replication? Religion can easily explain this as divine intervention. Religion and Science can coexist, and science has way too much evidence to just toss out. You also spent a long time discussing missing transitional forms. However, in everything that you wrote, you failed to give even one valid example of this. There are LOTS of transitional forms of Dinosaurs growing feathers (e.g. Velociraptors), fish growing legs (e.g. Ichthyostega), and reptiles getting hair (e.g. Therapsids). "A for Assumption" If you haven't noticed, it takes thousands of generations for even small changes to become evident within a population, and MILLIONS of years for a totally new species to evolve. Evolution was discovered approximately 150 years ago, which is not nearly enough time for us to observe even a small change in an animal population. And like I said before, we HAVE witnessed new species of bacteria evolve from old ones. Example: penicillin became an obsolete antibiotic around the late 1900s as certain species of bacteria EVOLVED to be resistant to it through the use of a new enzyme. It is only rational that Darwin wouldn't act too sure of his idea, because at the time he was proposing it, it really was only a theory based on common sense and logic. In addition, he didn't want to offend the Christians too much, so he tried not to be too defiant. Since then, scientists have confirmed it over, and over, and over again through fossil evidence, genetics, and microbiology. You claim that Evolution is still only a theory. But honestly, so is virtually every other scientific idea in the world. You can't be 100% sure of anything, and that is what allows science to change itself when part of it is discovered to be wrong. They always want to leave some room for error so that more can still be discovered. This does not make it inaccurate, though. Right now, there is 0 evidence against evolution, which is why it is accepted as correct. There is a LOT of evidence against the Bible's validity, though, and I would share it with you if that were the topic of this debate. But it is not, so I will save it for another debate (which I WOULD like to have, by the way). "L for Life" What does the "Chicken-Egg Dilemma" have to do with evolution? It's a philosophical question! Biologically speaking, the egg came first because animals have been laying eggs for hundreds of millions of years, whereas the chicken is a comparatively recent development... "S is for Symbiosis" Scientists are not "stumped". Such symbiosis has already been explained and proven. Flowers first appeared in the late Cretaceous period as a new way of plant reproduction. Insects had already been around for a very long time and took advantage of flowers as a source of food, accidentally pollinating the flowers in the process. Eventually, a species of insect evolved that specialized in getting food from flowers and inadvertently pollinating them at the same time: the bee. It seems that you don't know much about evolution, because you keep on declaring evolution hasn't figured out the answers to problems which it actually already has... And now to rebuttal you rebuttals: "Websites everywhere around the web. It is the same as saying: where do you find proof for the fact that we don't make these things up?" Like I said before, you obviously didn't explore the web enough because you keep talking about how inadequate evolution is by providing problems which scientists supposedly haven't figured out, but in reality scientists HAVE figured all of them out. "Please provide a link for this. How do we know that it is simpily just another animal that looks like those animals that were hunted to death, and had no realtion to elephants and giraffes whatsoever?' Very well. Elephants: http://www.eleaid.com... Giraffes: http://www.giraffeworlds.com... "So, all of us likely know about genes. Our mothers and fathers carry genes, and we get them. But by evolution, not many of these genes could've existed. It would've always been the dominant trait to win, and we'd all look the same." No, not at all. If you have ever learned about Punnett squares, you would know that the only time there is a 100% chance that the offspring will have the genotype BB is if both the parents have genotype BB. If both parents have genotype Bb (carrying the recessive trait but displaying the dominant one), then off spring will still stand a 25% chance of displaying the recessive trait through genotype bb Please don't keep making false statements about evolution. Evolution has vast scientific evidence for it; otherwise, it would not be so widely accepted by the scientific community.