The Instigator
yansmil
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
loveu157
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

All things were created by God and Human wisdom cannot explain everything

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
loveu157
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,107 times Debate No: 32491
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

yansmil

Pro

Science cannot explain everything around us
loveu157

Con

I accept lay it on me.
Debate Round No. 1
yansmil

Pro

Do you accept that science cannot explain everything?
loveu157

Con

It can explain everything what we know so far. I accept that it may not be able to explain all things that we know so far. But science can explain much more things everyday due to new advancements. It will be able to explain everything one day. Besides its a correct way to explain things, religion is not.
Debate Round No. 2
yansmil

Pro

As you have said that science can explain everything that we have know so far. The theory of evolution states that human came from monkey. My question is, why is it that there are still monkeys nowadays? If we came from monkeys, supposedly today there will be no more monkeys at all because they were already evolved?
loveu157

Con

Did you even study science?

we are similar to monkeys because of our features. We are infact not evolved from monkeys but evolved from a common ancestor that we share with monkeys. Monkeys are evolving today just as we are if you need a diagram look here.

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org...

This can be shown through hominoid fossils. these hominids were evolved from apes and they were really the first humans. Many of them posses ape like features and they start to decrease as you go further down the timeline. This is proof of evolution.
Debate Round No. 3
yansmil

Pro

Are you playing with me?

Your arguments are inconsistent! Why, because you said that we are not evolve from monkeys but we have common ancestors... Do you really understand the word common? When we say "common" with a very concrete example: RUNNERS - they start with a common point or starting point. That is "common" and you ask me if I study science? may be you are the one not studying science...

You said that we have common ancestors so it means that we are really came from apes, monkeys...

You said that apes, monkeys are decreasing, you are wrong!!! In africa there are so many apes, monkeys...

Your reasons are too weak.
loveu157

Con

I am laughing very hard right now

Why:
In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.[1][2]
Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in On the Origin of Species, twice stating the hypothesis that there was only one progenitor for all life forms and ending with "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one".[3] The theory asserts that all currently living organisms on Earth share a common genetic heritage with each being the descendant from a single original species, though the suggestion of substantial horizontal gene transfer during early evolution has led to questions about monophyly of life.[1]
The last universal ancestor (LUA) (also called the last universal common ancestor, LUCA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms,[1] is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago.[4][5]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I never said a common ancestor was an ape or monkey, I said that we are evolved from the same common ancestor as monkeys and apes and bonobos.

I also never said that there are decreasing apes and monkeys(but there is). I said they are evolving just like us at very slow increments.

http://iloveprimates.com...

Also there are decreasing numbers of apes.

So my arguments are very strong and yours are very very weak.
Debate Round No. 4
yansmil

Pro

Thank you for laughing very hard. When you are in a race don't rejoice that you are ahead with the others because the race is not yet finish. Our race is the end of our life. God will judge us of what we have done.

Go back to our topic.

I have read your arguments that we are not evolve from monkey but you said that we came from "COMMON" ancestor. And I also introduce what is the meaning of the word "common" with an example.

You have given me a link to wikipedia about Darwin's theory. One thing you have not noticed, that the we "came from only one progenitor of all living organisms on earth".

You have to answer my questions:

1) Do you understand the statement "only one progenitor of all life forms"?
2) What particular name of species we originate as the theory states?
loveu157

Con

Yes I do.

In this debate you have failed to use any proof and site evidence.

I believe that for the 3rd time people are going to vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
I don't even...

Well it was hilarious reading Pro's arguments.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by SavedByChrist94 3 years ago
SavedByChrist94
yansmilloveu157Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: YHWH exists
Vote Placed by JonMilne 3 years ago
JonMilne
yansmilloveu157Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con answered every single one of Pro's arguments and explained very clearly how things work. Pro was acting under the Argument from Incredulity, which massively damaged his case, and Con used actual sources too.
Vote Placed by Ian159 3 years ago
Ian159
yansmilloveu157Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: You need to be more open minded, pro.
Vote Placed by Kwhite7298 3 years ago
Kwhite7298
yansmilloveu157Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct -- tied. Neither one of you deserves anything here. You both personally attacked each other. Not OK..............spelling/grammar -- tied....arguments -- con. Pro, the theory of evolution does NOT state that human came from monkeys specifically. Neither side was fantastic on arguments, but slight edge goes to Con. Sources -- tied. con cited sources but they were not valid. (wikipedia, any .org, iloveprimates??) Disappointing debate
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
yansmilloveu157Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Wolfman's votebomb.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 3 years ago
wolfman4711
yansmilloveu157Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro obvuisly doesn't have the foggiest idea of what science is