Debate: Creationism, Evolutionism and the 15 questions

Hello. I attentively read the 15 questions that evolutionists apparently cannot answer, and I reflected about the whole issue for some time. I have not studied biology in sufficient detail to attempt to answer any of the questions, and therefore I will not do it. But, instead of answers, new questions appeared in my mind, and they are aimed to both creationists and evolutionists. My goal is not to push or discredit any particular belief, but rather to promote thought, conversation, and a sincere search for knowledge.

For the sake of this argument, let us narrow down the scope of our debate: we are speaking about the origin of LIFE in our debate. So, to evolutionists I say: sorry, but the question "How was life born from lifeless matter" cannot be evaded. To creationists, I say: sorry, but geological concerns, the age of the Earth, the Big Bang Theory, the creation of the Universe, etc., are not part of this debate. We are talking about LIFE.

In this debate thread, you can clearly expose your ideas, in a calm, civil and clear way, whether they are for or against creationism. I don't care if you believe in God, if you believe that no God exists and life was born out of sheer chance, I don't care if you believe that we live in a giant computer simulation. As long as you expose them in a clear, sincere and CIVIL way, I welcome ALL your ideas.

In order to give more food for thought, here are some thoughts that appeared in my mind while reading those famous 15 questions.

1. Sometimes, science is a religion. By that, I mean that we believe in what we read in scientific papers and websites without a scientific mindset. If we want to be scientific, we must keep an open mind to all possibilities, no matter how small, even if they contradict our beliefs. We must use our brain to see whether a theory makes sense, and not just accept it passively - whether it's creationism or intelligent design or anything else. God (or, for the non-believers, Chance) gave you a brain --- use it!

2. Proving the other side wrong does not mean you are right. By that, I mean that it is easier to criticize arguments from the Other Side, rather than come up with your own arguments. But if you had the incontestable proof that Evolution is wrong, you still wouldn't have proven Intelligent Design. And if you were to prove the non-existence of God, you still wouldn't have proven Evolution. The real answer may very well be something we never thought about or considered.

3. Intelligent Design may be non-Christian, and even non-religious. What I mean is that we often take "Intelligent Design" to mean "Creation by God", and often, "Creation by the Christian God". But, as a matter of fact, it only means "design by one or more intelligent entity". Such an intelligent entity might be non-omnipotent and non-omniscient. It might very well be aliens. We might also be self-aware parts of a virtual simulation; in which case, our "God" would just be the programmer(s) that created such simulation. As bizarre as these ideas might sound, they ought to be analyzed scientifically, and not just written off as ridiculous.

Finally, a tip to everyone contributing to this thread: provide sources for what you claim. Which means, don't just say "there's a HUGE fossil record as evidence, just go look at it", but point out at actual examples. Don't just cut short and say "read the Bible", but provide the actual passages that you think matter, as well as the reasons why you believe that the Bible is an unerring text even in matters of science. And most of all, be civil, and respect ideas you disagree with! Now let's get started! --Leo-from-France 11:47, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Arguments against the Theory of Evolution

Abiogenesis

It still hasn't sufficiently explained by which chemical processes simple organic compounds could have transformed in a self-replicating entity. The hypotheses that have been so far proposed are very improbable.

Objections

"Improbable" does not mean "impossible": improbable things do happen. Also, the fact that scientists don't have a satisfactory explaination now does not mean that they never will.