(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Discuss whether you believe that all life evolved from simple organisms in the primordial soup or whether you think that all animals were put on this planet individually. (Either by God or any other reason.)

I, personally, believe in evolution. There's so much evidence to support it, yet there is a small amount of evidence that could be used to discredit it. But evolution makes so much sense!

Discuss........

Evolution all the way IMHO. There are examples of it all around us, from Peppered Moths to Humans.

This is too vague. Evolution will happen, now the real question is about trans-species evolution as that is more of a debate. The best we have for that is fossils resembling each other. Which is a debate on itself as many times we recreate the fossil, so who's to say we put it together correctly.

Biology isn't my strong point, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming in favor of evolution. Down to a tee everything seems to conform. It's a brave man than me that tries to argue against it.

The debate should mainly be on macro-evolution and speciation, as we've already observed micro-evolution happening so it's not really deniable. The Vatican even announced their support for micro-evolution and Darwin's theory. Organisms change over time, that's already determined, it's just the scope of the change.

I personally believe in both micro and macro evolution as micro has been proven, and macro has overwhelming evidence in the fossil record, DNA sequencing, embryology, homologous/analogous/vestigial structures.



Agreed except there's way more proof than just fossils resembling each other, and we put it together correctly because of radiometric dating.

Yes, but fossil dating is inaccurate and is based on fixed conditions.

Again, lolwhut. Explain to me how it's inaccurate? It's necessary to use different elements to date different things, but how is it inaccurate?

It is based off nothing contaminating the specimen. Meaning it must be a closed system. It must contain no daughter products meaning if your using carbon dating if the species had Nitrogen it could alter the dating process. If there were any great changes took place in the past it would effect the half-life. That could mean cosmic rays, electrons entering the atmosphere, etc... So it means that there are problems with fossil dating. Some scientists have even said the same thing.

I still don't understand, please link me to a source with these facts. The only argument against carbon dating in particular I've heard is that it assumes that the relative abundance of Carbon-14 has stayed the same from way back then to now, however it has also been tested against radiometric dating using different elements, and it turns out to be correct. Unless somehow the ratio of unstable carbon-14 to stable changed dramatically, and somehow just happened to be changed at the same rate as many other unstable isotopes, this wouldn't happen.

And isochron dating completely removes this factor anyways, which means it is extremely accurate. I can understand if you say using radiometric dating to predict the exact age of something can be problematic, as there is a slight chance, but to say that it doesn't even measure the relative age is absurd.

And let me just point out your arguments make NO sense.
1) Nitrogen is found within many organisms, but what the hell does that have to do with the half life of carbon?

2) Electrons entering the atmosphere? What the hell are you talking about? Electrons are always present in the atmosphere...

3) Cosmic radiation? Again, what does that have to do with carbon's half life or its relative abundance?

4) Closed system? Again lolwhut? No organism has a "closed system" if you mean no interaction exterior of itself.

Sorry didn't mean nitrogen. Thats for Uranium. Dude just google it. A closed system means the substance has no changes after dying. And has no abnormalities in the dating process.