So I'm to debate a creationist. What are some good resources for someone with no formal biology training?

Question

Preferably internet-based or readily available from a university library.

Answer 1

Well first you could go through and try to show how the evidence for evolution is purely subjective.

1. Homology. A ford and a chevy are similar, this in no way provides proof that one evolved into another. There is converjent evolution but these similar systems, like sonar - wings - eyes - bioluminescence - electric fishes - ect. only provide more proof that every system was independently designed.

2. Embryology. In the 1800's a liar fraud named Earst Hackel forged a bunch of embryo drawings to show similarity in between the earliest stages of development. He was actually convicted of fraud by his own university. His fraud drawings are still in textbooks today. Even if the drawings were not a fraud, this still would not provide evidence for evolution. Just because a 4 week old embryo is similar to a different kind does not show that one came from the other. They are only 4 weeks form being one cell. They are only a rough head and a spinal column, give um a break, they are just forming. Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny is disproven. Also, human embryos do NOT  have gill slits. They are just folds of skin in the neck and have NOTHING to do withe fish.

3. Fossils. Just the fact that there are billions of fossils, mostly soft bodied is proof for a flood. Dead things do not normaly fossilize. They rot or are eaten. The fossils don't prove evolution. Lining up fossils to show a dinosaur turning into a humming bird is subjective conjecture that grossly oversimplifies a complicated process. It actually begs the question of evolution and assumes it correct. You can't prove those bones had any kids. You can't prove they had DIFFERENT kids, and why would you assume a bone you found in the dirt could do something that all animals for the entire recorded history cannot do? That is have different kids.

4. DNA. DNA actually proves a designer. Dr.Francis Crick stated "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they observe was not designed but rather evolved." This is because any rational man, not following the religion of Naturalism, would scientificly conclude that DNA had to be though up, designed and created. There is no natural physical laws that tend for molecules to align in a informational code. There is no informational code in the universe that was not designed. DNA is the most magnificent informational code every invented. The information in one microscopic cell would fill 4,000 books of 500 pages each. All in one nucleus of one cell. The information contains the building plans for the most complex and magnificent machine we have ever seen or could imagine. The human body. One cell is more complicated than the most sophisticated space shuttle in the world. Any similarities between basic kinds of animals is only due to similar structures or functions which would have similar building plans.

5. Dating techniques. Dating techniques are not independent measurements. The dates have to match the pre-concieved dates set by evolutionary theory. If they don't they are rejected. Then another sample is taken, manipulated, and calibrated in order to come up with a date that fits. Then that date is printed as an independent measurement.

6. Vestigial organs, there are no vestigial organs. The list started out over 180 and is now only a few. All those organs have a function so they are not vestiges. Even if they did not have a function that would not tell us how we gained everything. You can't loose everything to gain it all.

Here are some things that will falsify evolution.

1. Life cannot spontaneously generate. ALL experimentation and observation has shown us that this cannot happen. I don't want to hear wishful stories of how it could have or may have, it is proven impossible thus far. Any stories to the contrary are propaganda.

2. Animals don't change into different kinds. For over 5,000 years of recorded history there is not one example of a basic kind of animal changing into a different kind. Corn still makes corn, dogs still make dogs, cows still make cows.

3. Random changes don't orginize new informational systems.

4. Mutations are always a loss of information and the vast majority are harmfull. The only functionally benifitial mutations are a loss of information. Like not having arms so you can't be handcuffed and hauled away to be killed. It is a loss of information everytime.

I would conclude that if you are going to put the theory that birds and bananas are related up against the clear observational, testable, repeatable, and mathematically proveable theory of creation. You are going to have a tough time. My heart goes out to you.  

Answer 2

google evolution theory.

Answer 3

The point you most will want to raise is: while Creationism and Evolution/Survival of the Fittest both require a leap of faith (nobody was there to witness either one), Creationism is based solely on an unverifiable event that cannot be repeated experimentally.  The chief problem with Creationists' arguments is that they cite the Bible as evidence, then they declare that the Bible is the Word of God and hence is authoritative.  That's a logically circular argument.

Survival of the Fittest can be demonstrated - there are numerous contemporary examples like MRSA and other bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.

Evolution can be demonstrated also - the rhino virus (common cold) and the influenza virus mutate readily.  That's where new strains keep coming from.

Bacteria and viruses are good ways to talk about the processes of Darwinian evolution because they reproduce so quickly that it's possible to see the effects of natural selection and mutation in a reasonable period of time (years instead of millenia).  While it's certainly true that beneficial, transmittable mutations cannot be reproduced (they happen when they happen), it's also true that they can be documented as having occurred and analyzed after the fact.  It's not possible to document the Creation event; moreover it's not possible to demonstrate that Creation actually occurred or that it can be ascribed to an almighty diety.

You don't have to be strong on biology to argue with a Creationist.  Fundamentally, their approach falls apart under simple logical scrutiny.  Get the help of a Philosophy professor to put together a chain of logic that demonstrates the phallacy of a Circular Argument.  Go in armed with this and then be prepared to do real-time analysis as your opponent lays out their case.  You'll have to think on your feet because there are a number of variations to the "God said it, so it's a fact." contention.

Do not get trapped into biological nit-picking.  Stick to the big points, especially the facts.

Answer 4

I hope this isn't for a science class.  Creationism has no place being taught in a science course and it ends up being a huge waste of time.

Here are some links to get you started:

1st link to Prof. Ken Miller's evolution website.  Ken Miller is a biology professor at Brown University and he has testified in court against creationism several times.  

2nd link is to UC-Berkeley's evolution page.  It gives simple explanation and examples of evolution and natural selection.

3rd link is to some arguments against creationism and it highlights some of they main ideas you will likely hear from your adversary.  It should help to familiarize yourself with them.

The rest are to scientific journal articles.

Answer 5

Talk Origins has everything you'll probably need:  http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html  Try the NCSE site too (http://www.natcenscied.org/link.asp?cate... ).

Answer 6

Firstly, there is a list of logical fallacies. If you study the arguments of creationists, they tend to make a lot of logical errors. Their chief mistake is the "Straw Man Fallacy", but they make many others as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fal...

In terms of material on evolution, try these:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

This one specializes in countering the arguments of creationists:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-...

You should also look at the source material the creationists use:

http://www.creationism.org/articles/inde...

http://www.icr.org/

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/

Also, check out many of the evolution posts both here in Biology and in Religion and Spirituality. You tend to see the same arguments repeated.



Good luck.

P.S. This sums the whole debate up quite well I think:

http://www.thoughttheater.com/ScienceVsF...