The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Jerry947
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Biology Curricula Should Focus Equally On Creationism And Evolution

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 1 vote the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,009 times Debate No: 85681
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (156)
Votes (1)

 

MagicAintReal

Con

*No acceptance round; just start debating.
*No round rules


Resolution
US public schools' biology curricula should focus equally on creationism and evolution.

Pro
Has the Burden of Proof and 4 sets of 10,000 characters to AFFIRM the resolution that US public schools' biology curricula should focus equally on creationism and evolution.

Con
Has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to NEGATE the resolution that US public schools' biology curricula should focus equally on creationism and evolution.


*Definitions can be changed, in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as both Pro and Con agree.

Otherwise...

*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.


Definitions

US public schools - schools that are maintained at public expense for the education of the children of a community or district and that constitute a part of a system of free public education commonly including primary and secondary schools in the United States of America.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

biology - the study of living organisms, divided into many specialized fields that cover their morphology, physiology, anatomy, behavior, origin, and distribution.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

curricula - the subjects comprising a course of study.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

should - used to indicate obligation,
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


focus - an act of concentrating interest or activity on something
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

equally -
to the same extent or degree
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

evolution - the process by which different kinds of living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

creationism - the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Jerry947

Pro

Three reasons why biology curricula should focus equally on creationism and evolution...

a. Creationism fits the evidence just as well as evolution does (if not better). The main evidence for evolution is the nested hierarchical tree in the fossils. But this can easily give evidence for a common designer. The "clear, organized arrangement of living things into groups and sub-groups is evidence for intentional forethought. For instance, man-made vehicles are obviously intelligently designed, and yet we can organize them into a clear tree structure, with groups inside groups. For instance, we have the main groups: airplanes, buses, trains, ships, and automobiles. Inside of automobiles we have cars, trucks, minivans, SUVs, jeeps, etc" (http://www.christcreated.com.........). Evolutionists are always bringing up the fact the chimpanzees and humans share common DNA and then make the assumption that they have a common ancestor. But it is also obvious that this could also mean that they were both created by the same designer.

b. Creationism teaches people that we have a purpose in life. And without a creator, there is no purpose in life (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...). There would be no point to cure or help people since it wouldn't achieve anything. All people would just die and we would be no better than the animals. So I think it is better for people to be taught that they do have an actual purpose instead of what evolution teaches us. Evolution teaches that humans aren't special beings created in the image of a God. Instead it teaches that we evolved from earlier animals and are just as without purpose as they are. My question is as follows: why teach children something like this when it is all conjecture? It is quite possible that instead of a common ancestor, there is a common designer. So therefore since both are equally possible it seems logical to teach both points of view.

c. Creationism does a better job accounting for the existence of morality. Without a God, there can be no objective moral code. According to evolution, morality is just some instinct (http://www.theatlantic.com...). But this is just not true. The problem with this argument is that morality is the thing that decides between which instincts to follow. For example, if a person were to hear a gun shot and a cry for help, people would most likely have two instincts. One would be to run away from danger; another instinct would be to run to help the person. Morality might push a person to choose the weaker instinct, which is to choose to help the person instead of saving themselves.

That said, if my opponent claims that his "moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better? (https://carm.org...). And if my opponent claims that his moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then how do you know it is getting better without committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying that things are getting better because they are evolving? (same link just mentioned).

Since evolution cannot explain the existence of objective morality (http://www.reasonablefaith.org...), and since creationism teaches people they have a purpose in life, and since creationism can offer a viable alternative to the evidence provided by the fossils, it would seem that it would be fair to teach creationism equally with evolution.

Note: I did not defend the existence of objective morality due to the fact that my opponent has affirmed it's existence in a past debate. That said, I would be more than happy to make a case for it if so desired.

I thank my opponent for creating this debate. I have already had one fun debate with MagicAintReal and I look forward to this one as well.
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Con

In US public schools, biology curricula should not equally focus on Creationism and Evolution, because Creationism is unscientific and does an extremely poor job of explaining the biodiversity of life on earth, and Evolution by way of natural selection and descent with modification is a fact and has great explanatory power with regards to the biodiversity of life on earth.

...and I'm a public high school teacher in Maryland, USA, so I'm directly associated in this debate.

1. Creationism is not science.

Science is the collection of observations of natural phenomena.
Biology incorporates and studies natural explanations for the structures and biodiversity of living organisms on earth.
By incorporating "rather than natural" explanations, we are by definition out of the scope of biology and other observations/explanations of natural phenomena; creationism is by definition unscientific.

There is also no evidence or mechanistic explanation of anything divine or of divinity's isolated effects on natural phenomena, so creationism is irrelevant in any science subject, because science is the study of natural--not supernaturally divine--phenomena.

Without any MECHANISTIC explanation of HOW a divine agent accomplishes things, there's no reason to believe that anything "rather than natural" is occurring.

There is also no need to infer divinity when it comes to scientific explanations, because explanations seek to solve mysteries; divinity is not an explanation, rather it's an attempt to solve a mystery by appealing to another mystery, which is divinity itself.

2. Creationism does not fit the evidence and does an extremely poor job of explaining the biodiversity of life on earth.

All of the evidence suggests that current lifeforms on earth are all evolved descendants of prior life forms on earth, and, while Pro has not provided a mechanistic explanation of creationism yet, descent with modification is in fact antithetical to creationism's explanation that ALL lifeforms originated, in their current form, by some divinity, rather than by natural processes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Creationism presupposes that the biodiversity of life that we can examine today has been that way always, because some divinity created it that way; creationism is "rather than natural processes" so the original lifeforms that were created by some divinity CANNOT change naturally and all have completely separate lineages.

When we teach the distribution of diverse genetics and anatomies across the vast landscape of earthly life to our students, explaining that "the differences were created that way and are all unrelated to each other" is dishonest, reprehensible, and if it were the case that teaching required me to support such dishonesty, I would leave the school system.

You mean to tell me that spiders and crabs have non linking lineages?
http://www.pnas.org...

Aside from the above fossils, spiders and crabs have great homology, or structural similar from inheritance, which can be explained by a common descent with modification.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

We should be teaching our students that evolution can explain these homologous structures in crabs and spiders, because that's what the fossil, genetic, anatomic, geologic, and radiometric evidence has all indicated; inherited homologous structures are a large portion of the evolution unit of the biology curriculum.

Creationism simply does not allow an evolution of crab-->spider; this evidence would negate that the spider was divinely created at the same time as the crab, without a link betwixt.

For these reasons, Creationism doesn't deserve equal focus in a biology curriculum.
We should focus the curriculum on something that actually explains the biodiversity of life with science, so that students can understand the principles of biology more coherently; that is the goal after all.

I'm saying that creationism does not lead us to understanding biology any more coherently, it doesn't fit the evidence, and this is unacceptable for our public school students.

3. The Biology Curriculum.

You know, the other day I was asking kids if they remembered some of the terms we had gone over last class:
Me: Hey Johnny, you remember the cell structure vocab?
Johnny: Yeah...somethin' bout nucleus or mitochondria...
Me: Yeah that vocab...you should study that for tomorrow, and do you remember the DNA questions from the genetic engineering article?
Johnny: Uhh yeah, the double helix thingy?
Me: Yeah, study that too, but more so the conversion of gene sequences, because it's on the test.

You know what absolutely didn't happen next?

Me: So, Johnny you should really study up on purpose and morality, because the state assessment on biology is gonna be loaded with questions about morality and purpose, but it's a good thing we covered that in our creationism unit right?
Johnny: Is this biology class?

Look, Pro, how are we to fit a unit on morality and purpose into a loaded curriculum?
Where do morality and purpose fit with the likes of:
1. cell structure
2. biochemistry
3. meiosis (cell reproduction)
4. energy flow
5. ecology genetics-mendelian/human
6. biotechnology-cloning/transgenic animals
7. function DNA fingerprinting/gel electrophoresis
8. evolution-population genetics
9. respiration
10. human/animal anatomy/physiology
11. cell cycle,
12. DNA replication/mitosis
13. taxonomy
14. protein synthesis
15. plant structure/function?

Yes, that's all one question.
If we're to teach "rather than by natural processes" equally to evolution and its sufficient constituents, we would be contradicting ourselves and would be failing to provide coherence to students on a number of biological concepts required by state assessments and integral to understanding basic biology.

I'm also pointing out that morality and purpose are irrelevant to a biology curriculum, so Pro's "b" and "c" arguments are irrelevant; we should not equally focus on morality/purpose and evolution in a biology curriculum.

Pro, why is morality relevant to a biology classroom?
Pro, why should we teach rather than natural processes in a curriculum that explains natural processes?
Jerry947

Pro

I will quote what my opponent said and then I will respond. That is how I will do things in this round.

"Creationism is not science. Science is the collection of observations of natural phenomena."

My response to this is to quote Kepler who said that "science is thing God's thoughts after him." On another note, creationism is not meant to replace science but it is meant to explain why these natural process exist.

"There is also no evidence or mechanistic explanation of anything divine or of divinity's isolated effects on natural phenomena, so creationism is irrelevant in any science subject, because science is the study of natural--not supernaturally divine--phenomena."

I already gave some evidence for creationism. Creationism is just as good as an explanation for the nested hierarchical tree in the fossils as evolution is. The explanation can equally be either a common designer or a common ancestor. Since my opponent has made no attempt to disprove this claim so far my point remains valid. So creationism should be taught equally.

"Without any MECHANISTIC explanation of HOW a divine agent accomplishes things, there's no reason to believe that anything "rather than natural" is occurring."

Well...a divine agent would do things supernaturally so no mechanistic explanation for creation is really necessary. And of course there is reason to believe in the supernatural. Only a supernatural being could have caused the universe to exist. But that is another topic that we have already discussed in a previous debate.

"There is also no need to infer divinity when it comes to scientific explanations, because explanations seek to solve mysteries; divinity is not an explanation, rather it's an attempt to solve a mystery by appealing to another mystery, which is divinity itself."

Well, lets take a look at what a mystery is. A mystery is "something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain" (https://www.google.com...). The problem here is that God is a mystery to you. If you don't understand a topic well enough, it may seem like a mystery. But God can be understood to a certain extent just like anything else.

"All of the evidence suggests that current lifeforms on earth are all evolved descendants of prior life forms on earth."

Yes, there is the evidence of the fossils and it can support a common ancestor. But again, the evidence can also be used to support a common ancestor like I argued in round one.

"Creationism presupposes that the biodiversity of life that we can examine today has been that way always."

Not quite right. Creationism acknowledges that species change as time goes on. In other words, there will be multiple breeds of dogs as different kinds of dogs mate with each other. Creationism merely won't allow the dog to become anything other than a dog. So creationism has no problem accounting for the biodiversity in life. A creator merely created thousands of different species.

"When we teach the distribution of diverse genetics and anatomies across the vast landscape of earthly life to our students, explaining that the differences were created that way and are all unrelated to each other."

Teaching children that the differences in genetics and anatomies from creationism perspective does no such thing. Creationism teaches that this differences were there because they were designed that way (so they are related by design). And this only shows the creativity of the creator. As for evolution, these differences are still related, but they happened by chance and nothing is really special about what happened.

"You mean to tell me that spiders and crabs have non linking lineages?"

I would tell you that they were created by the same designer and are hence related.

"Aside from the above fossils, spiders and crabs have great homology, or structural similar from inheritance, which can be explained by a common descent with modification."

Yes...but it can also be explained by a common designer. These two species do not have to have come from the same ancestor. They could have easily come from the same creator who made them similar.

"We should be teaching our students that evolution can explain these homologous structures in crabs and spiders, because that's what the fossil, genetic, anatomic, geologic, and radiometric evidence has all indicate"

It only indicates this if you make the assumption that there is a common ancestor. But again, the evidence can be equally seen from a different perspective as I have shown you time and time again.

"Creationism simply does not allow an evolution of crab-->spider; this evidence would negate that the spider was divinely created at the same time as the crab, without a link betwixt."

I don't see how the evidence doesn't allow these creatures to be created at the same time. Nevertheless creationism doesn't say that all creatures were created at the same time. This is a misconception my opponent has.

"I'm saying that creationism does not lead us to understanding biology any more coherently, it doesn't fit the evidence, and this is unacceptable for our public school students."

But it does fit the evidence as I have showed you.

"Look, Pro, how are we to fit a unit on morality and purpose into a loaded curriculum?
Where do morality and purpose fit with the likes of..."

Well, as you noted in round one, biology is also the study of human behavior (morality) and the study of our origin. Evolution doesn't explain the universes origin and it doesn't properly explain morality. So Creationism should have a part in the curriculum since evolution fails to account for these things. Also, knowing that everyone has a purpose in life also has a tremendous affect on human behavior. That would be a good thing to focus on.

Plus....all of those things you mentioned should still be taught. But a little time on Creationism is also helpful to the students.

"If we're to teach "rather than by natural processes" equally to evolution and its sufficient constituents, we would be contradicting ourselves and would be failing to provide coherence to students on a number of biological concepts required by state assessments and integral to understanding basic biology."

You are misunderstanding something very important. Creationism only talks about the origin of the universe. It provides us with an explanation for why life exists. It doesn't take away the natural processes that scientists have discovered. Creationism merely explains what evolution cannot and offers another (equally possible) explanation for why humans exist as they do now.

"I'm also pointing out that morality and purpose are irrelevant to a biology curriculum, so Pro's "b" and "c" arguments are irrelevant; we should not equally focus on morality/purpose and evolution in a biology curriculum."

They are not irreverent to the discussion. This is the second time in a debate you have dropped an (two in this case) argument I have made merely because you feel like it. Morality and purpose help us understand human behavior which is something biology is concerned with. The point is, biology cannot explain these things and Creationism can. So Creationism should be equally taught in the biology classroom.

"Pro, why is morality relevant to a biology classroom?"

Because it relates to human behavior. Having a purpose in life also affects human behavior. Are you going to address the arguments or do you acknowledge that Creationism does a better job explaining these things?

"Pro, why should we teach rather than natural processes in a curriculum that explains natural processes?"

This debate isn't about teaching children something over the other. The debate is about teaching creationism and evolution equally. Teach the natural processes and then teach creationism to explain the things that evolution can't. Evolution doesn't even have an explanation for why life exists. That seems to be an important detail since biology is the study of life.

Therefore Creationism should be taught equally with evolution since it can explain why life exists (evolution can't), it can explain morality, meaning in our lives, and can equally offer an explanation for the fossils that supposedly support a common ancestor.

At this point, my opponent has not addressed any of my arguments. So until he does...I really don't know what else to say.
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks Pro for that response.

1. Creationism and Science

I had mentioned that creationism isn't science, because science is the study and explanation of natural phenomena by natural processes, while creationism, by definition in this debate, is a belief that life originated "rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

So, then Pro says:
"creationism...is meant to explain why these natural process exist."

My response:
The AGREED definition of creationism clearly states "rather than by natural processes."

So, here's what Pro said:
"The belief that living organisms originate rather than by natural processes is meant to explain why these natural processes exist."

Really, Pro?
Creationism is a belief that exists in opposition to natural processes AND it also explains why these natural processes exist? Bogus.
Pro, if creationism claims that life originated RATHER THAN BY NATURAL PROCESSES, how does that then explain those natural processes?

Oh and I don't give a crap about what Kepler said about science and god; I don't just listen to scientists; I listen to evidence, and merely quoting Kepler to show that creationism is science is some whack appeal to authority, which I find silly here.

2. Cars evolve?

Pro had originally said:
"The main evidence for evolution is the nested hierarchical tree in the fossils."

My response:
Nope.
While fossils do an amazing job of classifying animals and proving evolution, the main evidence is in fact the genetic evidence that CONFIRMS the homology of inherited structures from ancestors.

Pro then says:
"The clear, organized arrangement of living things into groups and sub-groups is evidence for intentional forethought...for instance, we have the main groups: airplanes, buses, trains, ships, and automobiles. Inside of automobiles we have cars, trucks, minivans, SUVs, jeeps."

My response:
The problem with this analogy is that ships don't make other ships, airplanes don't reproduce airplanes, and, in fact, each and every car that is created doesn't require any previous car's existence.

Organisms are ONLY reproduced by organisms that precede them, so unlike designed automobiles, organisms descend from other organisms, and this is where their characteristics come from, which speaks to descent with modification.

ALL characteristics of an automobile are added by an external, non-genetically related agent.
Organisms descend from genetically related agents.
So, the way that we've classified living things, like vertebrates and tetrapods, has been done by inherited homologous structures indicated by fossil and genetic evidence.

Hey Pro, if I put a car engine inside of an airplane, is it still an airplane?
What if I add wings to a car, is it still a car?
Where's creationism's line between cars and non cars and how does it relate to organisms' genetic relationships within their taxonomic rank?

You see, this type of ambiguity doesn't exist in evolutionary/phylogenetic organizations of life, because if an organism can genetically reproduce viable offspring with another organism, they are in the same species.
If an organism's genetics have genetic remnants of their ancestors, which is predicted by the homology in their anatomic structures, we can make a greater classification that has that organism with other organisms who have inherited these similar structures from similar organisms.

Human designs don't genetically descend from their predecessors; organisms ONLY can descend genetically from predecessors, so nested hierarchy only makes sense with genetic DESCENT, which isn't the case with human mechanical creations or creationism.

3. What's a mystery?

According to Pro:
" A mystery is "something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain"

My response:
Ok.

Pro adds:
"Well...a divine agent would do things supernaturally so NO MECHANISTIC EXPLANATION for creation is really necessary."

My response:
Hey Pro, what's the difference between something that has no mechanistic explanation and a mystery?

Pro would have us believe that lacking a mechanistic explanation isn't a mystery, and that god is only a mystery to me.

Pro, save yourself right now and simply explain HOW god created life to remove the mystery of your divine agent's actions and existence; without an explanation, we still have a mystery as Pro defined.

4. Common Ancestry is conceded by Pro.

Pro admits:
"Yes, there is the evidence of the fossils and it can support a common ancestor."

My response:
Ok, so because we know that all organisms descend from pre-existing organisms, Pro conceding common ancestry's proof in the fossils is a concession of genetic common descent rather than descent by a common creator; this is a pretty major concession by Pro.

5. Creationism's agreed definition.

Pro ignores the definitions in this debate:
"Creationism acknowledges that species change as time goes on...accounting for the biodiversity in life."

My response:
The definitions have creationism as "rather than by natural processes such as EVOLUTION" yet Pro claims that species change as time goes on; sounds like evolution to me.

Hey Pro, what way exists "rather than by natural processes such as evolution" that allows for species to change as time goes on?
Even if you want to claim the stupid "microevolution happens but macroevolution doesn't" argument, both micro and macro evolution satisfy evolution's definition in this debate, which means Pro concedes that evolution occurs, which is not the position he agreed to defend; rather than evolution CANNOT include evolution.

Also Pro, can you explain the specific act of divinity, per the definition of creationism, that allowed for these changes that you agree take place?
Again, without a mechanistic explanation, we are left in the dark with your mysterious life-creating divinity and its actions.

And if Pro agrees that these changes happen by natural processes, Pro is no longer defending creationism for a biology curriculum, instead Pro is affirming that evolution occurs as predicted.

So, as I had mentioned, in round 2, creationism does a disservice to our students by "explaining that the differences in organisms were created that way."

Pro has a problem with this and says:
"[the] creationism perspective does no such thing...creationism teaches that [these] differences were there because they were designed that way."

My response:
Pro, come on man!
According to Pro, creationism doesn't teach that the differences in organisms were created that way, but it does teach that the differences were designed that way?
Bogus.
How can we teach equally that the differences between organisms happened by specific acts of divinity, rather than by natural processes such as evolution, AND continue to teach that these differences happened by natural processes such as evolution?
This should frustrate anyone who has agreed to the definitions of this debate.

Pro continues to distort:
"These two species [crab and spider] do not have to have come from the same ancestor.

My response:
Then why did Pro say, "the evidence of the fossils can support a common ancestor?"
Why does the evidence of fossils for crabs and spiders not support a common ancestor in this case Pro?
The evidence I provided shows such.
You already agreed that the fossil evidence indicates this, so why the inconsistency Pro?

6. Evidence needs not my assumptions.

Evolution explains ape-->human, for example, without my assumptions.

Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes.

Humans have 46 chromosomes, while the other great apes have 48 chromosomes.
Chromosomes, made of two identical chromatids, carry our genes, and give us all of our genetic, molecular, cellular, and skeletal structures.
A typical chromatid, one identical part of the chromosome, has two ends and a center.

The two ends are Telomeres (T).
The center is a Centromere (C).

T-C-T



However, the chromatids on human's 2nd chromosome each have four ends and two centers.

T-C-T-T-C-T



This shows fusion.
Since the telomeres are fused in the middle, we call this a telomere-telomere, or end to end fusion.
http://genome.cshlp.org...

How do we know what fused?

Base pairs on the ends of each chromosome are unique to that chromosome; if you find these unique base pairs, you then know which chromosome you have, similar to how a fingerprint identifies a human.

We found the base pairs that match ancestral ape chromosomes on our 2nd chromosome.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So, when you look at our 2nd chromosome, you see that our genetics have uniquely identifying remnants from our ape ancestors; we're genetically made from two fused ape chromosomes.

What assumptions were made here Pro?
How do fused chromosomes indicate that humans were created separately from apes?
Fused chromosomes CONFIRM common descent between humans and apes, yet Pro still claims that the evidence fits that the differences were created, not descended.

Organisms are not cars Pro.

7. Biology's definition.

Pro claims:
"As you noted in round one, biology is also the study of human behavior (morality)"

My response:
Nope.
The definition in this debate says biology is "the study of living organisms, [which] covers their behavior."
Nothing mentions morality, even though Pro conflated human behavior with morality, and nothing mentions HUMAN BEHAVIOR Pro.
It says behavior of organisms, and EVERY OTHER ORGANISM doesn't behave based on human morals, actually, behavior in biology doesn't mean interpersonal behavior at all, rather it refers to sleeping/eating habits, reproduction, and ecological role of an organism; this is organismic behavior in biology.

Human behavior is a topic for anthropology, not biology, and behavior of organisms is not interpersonal behavior, sorry Pro.

I'm out of characters, but next round, I will highlight the biochemistry portion of biology to help clarify the origins of earthly life; spoiler alert, it's a natural process.
Jerry947

Pro

My opponent didn't seem to understand a single thing I wrote in the last round. But we have spoken in the comments and I think we have come to some sort of understanding. So let us get right into it.

"Creationism is a belief that exists in opposition to natural processes AND it also explains why these natural processes exist? Bogus."

This is merely a case where my opponent does not understand the definition he gave of Creationism in round one. His definition states that the universe and living organisms ORIGINATE from specific acts of divine creation as in the BIBLICAL account. The Bible does record life originating by the supernatural acts of a deity...but notice how the Bible never takes away the natural processes that exist now? For example, even though God created Adam and Eve in a divine way he still commands them to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28). In other words, God tells them to mate. So the natural processes do not disappear with the creationism account.

"Pro, if creationism claims that life originated RATHER THAN BY NATURAL PROCESSES, how does that then explain those natural processes?"

You just answered your own question. Life (including natural processes) originated by supernatural means.

"Oh and I don't give a crap about what Kepler said about science and god; I don't just listen to scientists; I listen to evidence, and merely quoting Kepler to show that creationism is science is some whack appeal to authority, which I find silly here."

I was giving you another way people see science. Not everybody has the same assumptions you have about the world when you look at the evidence. People have different worldviews than you do.

"While fossils do an amazing job of classifying animals and proving evolution, the main evidence is in fact the genetic evidence that CONFIRMS the homology of inherited structures from ancestors."

I am going to need more explanation on that. I have always had the impression that genetics supports the biblical account. After all, you would expect more genetic diversity with evolution...

"The problem with this analogy is that ships don't make other ships, airplanes don't reproduce airplanes, and, in fact, each and every car that is created doesn't require any previous car's existence."

That is the point. It doesn't support evolution. The analogy supports creationism. The arrangement of living things into groups supports a designer instead of a common ancestor.

"Organisms are ONLY reproduced by organisms that precede them, so unlike designed automobiles, organisms descend from other organisms, and this is where their characteristics come from, which speaks to descent with modification."

The analogy was meant to show that the evidence of the fossils could be seen from a different perspective. The car analogy was meant to show that things are created into groups just like the fossils show. Of course cars cannot reproduce...but humans can. In other words, the analogy merely shows that life was designed. It was not meant to take away the fact that organisms descend from organisms that lived before them (not talking about common ancestry here).

"ALL characteristics of an automobile are added by an external, non-genetically related agent."

That is correct. What is your point? The car does however show that its designer was creative, resourceful, and etc...And humans would be the same way.

"Organisms descend from genetically related agents.
So, the way that we've classified living things, like vertebrates and tetrapods, has been done by inherited homologous structures indicated by fossil and genetic evidence."

I agree that organisms that exist now descended from organisms that lived in the past. In other words, I agree that humans that live now descended from humans that lived in the past. But the whole thing about common ancestry is just one way of looking at the evidence as I have already discussed at length.

"Hey Pro, if I put a car engine inside of an airplane, is it still an airplane?
What if I add wings to a car, is it still a car?
Where's creationism's line between cars and non cars and how does it relate to organisms' genetic relationships within their taxonomic rank?"

The link is that they were designed by the same creators (humans) and that they each reflect the creativity and the intelligence of the makers. These machines were also made of the same components (for the most part). The analogy wasn't meant to show the anything about an organisms taxonomic rank.

"If an organism's genetics have genetic remnants of their ancestors, which is predicted by the homology in their anatomic structures, we can make a greater classification that has that organism with other organisms who have inherited these similar structures from similar organisms."

Or we can say that the organisms were made similarly. Although, this is not to say that people do not inherit genes from their parents. I am just saying that species may be related in the sense that they were created by the same being. You don't have to look at the evidence and assume we all came from the same ancestor.

"Pro would have us believe that lacking a mechanistic explanation isn't a mystery, and that god is only a mystery to me."

Not quite. I would agree that humans can not completely comprehend how a creator created the universe. But the cause itself (God) is something we can understand (to an extent like everything else) as all powerful, all knowing, and etc...And knowing these things takes away some of the things we do not fully understand.

"Pro, save yourself right now and simply explain HOW god created life to remove the mystery of your divine agent's actions and existence; without an explanation, we still have a mystery as Pro defined."

First of all, evolution provides no explanation for the origins of life. So in this regard, I have the upper hand. So it looks like you have a mystery to solve. As for creationism, since God is all powerful and the most creative being in the universe, it is reasonable to say that he created life.

"Ok, so because we know that all organisms descend from pre-existing organisms, Pro conceding common ancestry's proof in the fossils is a concession of genetic common descent rather than descent by a common creator; this is a pretty major concession by Pro."

If my opponent bothered to read a single word in my response he would know that I said that the evidence of the fossils can equally support common ancestry and a common designer.

"The definitions have creationism as "rather than by natural processes such as EVOLUTION" yet Pro claims that species change as time goes on; sounds like evolution to me."

First of all, I did not ignore any definition. I already explained this at the beginning of this round. But my opponent just didn't understand his own definition. I said that species change in the sense that dogs will mate and produce new breeds of dogs. As for evolution, my job here is not to disprove any aspect of evolution. My job is to argue that creationism and evolution should be taught in a biology classroom equally.

"Even if you want to claim the stupid "microevolution happens but macroevolution doesn't" argument, both micro and macro evolution satisfy evolution's definition in this debate, which means Pro concedes that evolution occurs, which is not the position he agreed to defend; rather than evolution CANNOT include evolution."

I have no idea what my opponent is talking about. My job in this debate is to argue that creationism and evolution should be taught equally. My opponent seems to be changing the resolution of this debate. He did that in the last debate we were in as well. I have no problem with natural processes occurring today and neither does creationism. Creationism merely explains whether these processes came from (who designed them...although not the speculative common ancestry parts).

"Also Pro, can you explain the specific act of divinity, per the definition of creationism, that allowed for these changes that you agree take place?
Again, without a mechanistic explanation, we are left in the dark with your mysterious life-creating divinity and its actions."

The creator made life with these natural processes. It is that simple.

"And if Pro agrees that these changes happen by natural processes, Pro is no longer defending creationism for a biology curriculum, instead Pro is affirming that evolution occurs as predicted."

It depends on which changes you are referring to. Creationism would say that the natural processes that exist were developed by a designer. But some of the natural processes you have been talking about are mere speculation.

"How can we teach equally that the differences between organisms happened by specific acts of divinity, rather than by natural processes such as evolution, AND continue to teach that these differences happened by natural processes such as evolution?"

My opponent claimed that creationism should not be taught because the difference were created that way and that somehow makes organisms unrelated. I responded by pointing out that wouldn't be the case. They would be related in the sense that they had the same maker. And remember, creationism focuses on the origin of life. It doesn't take away natural processes that exist now.

"Why does the evidence of fossils for crabs and spiders not support a common ancestor in this case Pro?"

It can equally support a common designer and a common ancestor. That is why they should be taught equally.

"Evidence needs not my assumptions."

The evidence of the fossils show that organisms are related. You assume this means we all share a common ancestor and I assume we all had the same designer. I can talk about apes later...running out of characters.

"Nothing mentions morality, even though Pro conflated human behavior with morality, and nothing mentions HUMAN BEHAVIOR Pro."

Your definition did mention organisms behavior so my point still stands.
Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Con

Ok, so Pro and I have had some extra curricular disputes about what creationism is, so let me outline what Pro is claiming should be an equal focus to evolution in biology curricula.

In this debate, creationism is the belief that living organisms ORIGINATE (present tense indicative) rather than by natural processes like evolution.

This makes no mention how life ORIGINATED, in the past tense, rather it speaks to CURRENTLY, living organisms ORIGINATE, in the present tense, rather than by natural processes.

This is the creationism that Pro agreed to defend, and is the creationism that Pro is attempting to have taught to public school children; this is an idea that exists in opposition to natural processes such as evolution.

I do agree with Pro, in that evolution makes no real attempt to explain how life ORIGINATED (notice the past tense form of originate is NOT part of creationism in this debate), but we teach our students about biochemistry, and the natural origins of earthly life.

Pro would agree that natural processes that explain how living organisms ORIGINATED is in direct opposition to creationism, right Pro?

So...

*Earthly life originated by Abiogenesis.*

Compounds covalently (sharing electrons) bonded to carbon are organic.
Compounds not covalently bonded to carbon are inorganic.

Inorganic = H N C O (cyanate)
Organic = C 2 H 5 N O 2 (glycine, an amino acid)

You can tell that the difference between inorganic and organic carbon compounds is rather insignificant.
One more carbon atom, four more hydrogen atoms, and one more oxygen atom...that's it.

The Miller-Urey experiment in the 50's demonstrated that with an atmosphere, water salinity, electricity, and inorganic compounds likely of an earlier earth, inorganic compounds will produce organic amino acid compounds.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

That's what abiogenesis is...the idea that inorganic compounds can become organic compounds.

Though people agreed that lightning occurs without life and in atmospheres on other planets, people still complained that the atmosphere of earlier earth had more oxygen than the Miller-Urey experiment accounted for.
The replicated experiments of the Miller-Urey took that into account, and used:

1. H2, CH4, NH3, H2O, H2S and electricity, and yielded the amino acids cysteine, cystine, and methionine
2. CH4, C2H6, NH3, H2S and UV rays, and yielded alanine, glycine, serine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and cystine
3. CH4, H2O, H2S, NH3, N2, and electricity, and yielded methionine
http://www.pnas.org...

"When reduced gases, including CH4, H2S and NH3, are emitted from a volcano into a lightning-rich atmosphere, hydrogen cyanide, ethylene, and acetylene can be generated."
http://www.pnas.org...

So we know that amino acids, organic compounds, can come from inorganic compounds.
But what about genetic replication?

Amino acid chains (polypeptides) can fold onto themselves and become biologically active.
According to the NIH:
"The sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active."
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

So we have biologically active amino acids...how do they replicate?
Well amino acids tend to speed up reactions; they're catalysts.
So before there was life, there were pre-biotic catalysts, amino acids.

"catalysis in a pre-biotic network initiated...the emergence of RNA as the dominant macromolecule due to its ability to both catalyze chemical reactions and to be copied in a template-directed manner."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So, from inorganic compounds of earlier earth, we got organic amino acids, which, when folded, become biologically active, and can catalyze reactions that lead to the emergence of RNA, which is necessary for genetic replication.

Any primitive organism would be replicating with RNA and metabolizing with amino acids, but what might they be consuming?

"Sixty years after the seminal Miller-Urey experiment that abiotically produced a mixture of racemized amino acids, we provide a definite proof that this primordial soup, when properly cooked, was edible for primitive organisms."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Abiogenesis explains earthly life's natural origins, and unlike creationism, provides MECHANISMS that explain HOW this was done.

I've repeatedly asked Pro to provide the mechanism for:
1. How a creator created earthly life.
2. How the differences between species and genus were designed rather than formed by natural processes.

Here's what Pro has given us:
1. "a divine agent would do things supernaturally so no mechanistic explanation for creation is really necessary"

My response:
Well, no mechanistic explanation isn't something to be taught in a science class, because what is it that you would teach about this creation?
Hey kids, a divine agent created things, that's it, because I can't explain/know how, so now you're all ready for the test on creation.

2. " A creator merely created thousands of different species."

My response:
Pro, how can this even make equal time in a biology curriculum alongside the mechanisms of abiogenesis and evolution?
Seriously, Pro how are you to teach anything about this when you've admitted not knowing HOW it was accomplished.

3. "Creationism teaches that this differences were there because they were designed that way"

My response:
What is it that Creationism is teaching OTHER than your assertions Pro?
Speciation, gene fusion, mutations, and descent with modification are ALL natural processes that are in DIRECT contrast to this assertion, and unlike creationism, these natural processes have a mechanism that you can teach to students.
How does "they were designed that way" amount to equal time with evolution and its constituent natural processes WITHOUT a describable mechanism?

4. "[Creationism] provides us with an explanation for why life exists"

My response:
Really? What's the explanation? God did it, and that's it?
Pro, please give us something to teach other than assertions/speculations that would acutally take up space in a curriculum!

5. "Life (including natural processes) originated by supernatural means."

My response:
Ok, so Pro would have biology teach that mysterious supernatural means created natural means, and Pro would provide no idea or explanation as to HOW, so Pro would have the curriculum simply assert that this is the case, and expect students to repeat this assertion...there's no learning going on here Pro.

6. "The arrangement of living things into groups supports a designer instead of a common ancestor."

My response:
Nope, and Pro ignored descent with modification being the CORNERSTONE of the arrangement of living things.
Descent with modification ELIMINATES the need for an arranger; descent with modification arranges organisms naturally.

7. "I would agree that humans can not completely comprehend how a creator created the universe."

My response:
Well the creation of the universe is irrelevant to biology, because biology presupposes a universe, and only attempts to explain biodiversity.
It would seem that Pro admits AGAIN that he has no mechanism behind his magic creator, only his assertions.

8. "God is all powerful and the most creative being in the universe, it is reasonable to say that he created life."

My response:
Still no mechanism or explanation of HOW?
Then it is UNREASONABLE to say that he created life.

9. "The creator made life with these natural processes. It is that simple."

My response:
This enraged me beyond belief, because this is in DIRECT contrast with the position that PRO agreed to defend.
I asked Pro HOW did a creator create life rather than by natural processes, and Pro responded "with natural processes."

Pro may try to claim that he is using the preposition "with" to say that god created life ALONGSIDE natural processes" however, this is bunk.
If you ask someone HOW, which I have done upwards of a million times in this debate, and they respond with "with" that preposition is being used as "by."

Q - How does rain form?
A - With evaporation and condensation.

Q - How does a car move?
A - With a motor moving the wheels.

Q - How did you finish your assignment?
A - With help from my friend.

Q - How did god create life?
A - With natural processes.

Come on Pro, you equivocated, and now you are saying that life was created BY natural processes despite your prepositional switch up.

10. "I assume we all had the same designer."

My response:
I know, and that's why it shouldn't be taught in a curriculum...science is not in the business of assumptions, which is why we use MECHANISMS to explain HOW things occur naturally.

Pro would have you think that we merely teach assumptions about evolution, but, as I have mechanistically explained, abiogenesis and evolution eliminate assumptions about the biodiversity of life on earth.

Humans' chromosome 2 shows genetic fusion from older apes to us, proving common descent by modification, and all of the experiments and findings from abiogenesis adequately explain the origins of life on earth.

Pro, why should we teach creationism, which you agree has no mechanistic explanation, in a biology curriculum, when we have abiogenesis with LOTS of explainable mechanisms that adequately explain the origins of earthly life?

Creationism doesn't fill in the gaps in our knowledge, because Pro CANNOT and WILL NOT explain how creationism works, OR how there is a direct indication that the phenomena we observe today has any relationship to ANY supernature.

I reject the resolution, that creationism should have equal focus to evolution in biology curricula, simply because creationism is unscientific, there would be no substance to all of those UNEXPLAINED ASSERTIONS to even put in equal standing in a curriculum, and abiogenesis and evolution do MORE than enough to provide valid explanations of life on earth.

Organismic behavior =/= human behavior, despite Pro's conflation of the two concepts.
Jerry947

Pro

Definition of Creationism I agreed to in round one-"the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

"In this debate, creationism is the belief that living organisms ORIGINATE (present tense indicative) rather than by natural processes like evolution."

The word originate could refer to any period of time. My opponent's definition says that creationism is the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation. This game my opponent is playing with words ends here. The universe is not originating in the present tense. The definition makes it clear we are talking about the origins of the universe and of living organisms.

"This makes no mention how life ORIGINATED, in the past tense, rather it speaks to CURRENTLY, living organisms ORIGINATE, in the present tense, rather than by natural processes."

My opponent's definition says "that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account." Everything about this definition indicates the past (it mentions the universe!). The Biblical account only mentions how creation begun to exist in the past.

"This is the creationism that Pro agreed to defend, and is the creationism that Pro is attempting to have taught to public school children; this is an idea that exists in opposition to natural processes such as evolution."

I know what I agreed to and whoever reads this debate will know what I agreed to. As stated in the comments, my opponent meant to put this definition of Creationism in round one: "the belief that God is always supernaturally creating everything and is always supernaturally intervening with life, not what the biblical account says, rather I prefer my opponent to just agree with whatever I say."

"Pro would agree that natural processes that explain how living organisms ORIGINATED is in direct opposition to creationism, right Pro?"

No, I would not say that. Living organisms descend (not evolve) from organisms that existed in the past. The diversity comes from mating (get new breeds of dogs) and from God creating thousands of species in the beginning.

"Earthly life originated by Abiogenesis."

Note to voters/readers: This topic my opponent has brought up has nothing to do with Creationism or Evolution so it really shouldn't count towards anything.

a. The problem with abiogenesis is that is has many holes in the theory and there are still molecules that existed in this beginning that led to life. But then the question arises "where did the molecules come from" and then of course we are back to where we started.

b. Another problem with the theory is that it violates logic. Life only comes from life. It is literally impossible to get life from something that isn't living.

"The Miller-Urey experiment in the 50's demonstrated that with an atmosphere, water salinity, electricity, and inorganic compounds likely of an earlier earth, inorganic compounds will produce organic amino acid compounds."

That experiment only produced half of the necessary amino acids needed for life. It only showed that it was impossible for any chemical reaction to produce all the amino acids we need to live.

"So we know that amino acids, organic compounds, can come from inorganic compounds."

We know that half of the amino acids we need for life can come from inorganic compounds.

"Sixty years after the seminal Miller-Urey experiment that abiotically produced a mixture of racemized amino acids, we provide a definite proof that this primordial soup, when properly cooked, was edible for primitive organisms."

According to Jerry Bergman, "to duplicate what might have happened in a primordial soup billions of years ago, scientists would need to mix the chemicals currently believed to be commonly found on the early earth, expose them to likely energy sources (usually speculated to be heat or radiation), and see what happens. No-one has performed this experiment, because we now know that it is impossible to obtain relevant biochemical compounds by this means" (http://creation.com...). The link my opponent provided gave little information on the bacteria and to say that abiogenesis is anything but speculation is ridiculous.

"Abiogenesis explains earthly life's natural origins, and unlike creationism, provides MECHANISMS that explain HOW this was done."

Abiogenesis doesn't explain anything since there are still molecules that exist in the beginning of time which still need to have been caused by something. The miller experiment failed to produce all of the amino acids needed for life and it also assumed things about the earth that may or may not have been true. It also tries to claim that life can come from nonliving things which just doesn't make sense logically. I wish I could go into this further but this just isn't what the topic of the debate is about.

"Well, no mechanistic explanation isn't something to be taught in a science class, because what is it that you would teach about this creation?"

Allow me to remind my opponent that evolution provides no mechanistic explanation for why life exists. He has in fact already conceded that "evolution makes no real attempt to explain how life ORIGINATED." So evolutionist are going to have the same problem providing a mechanistic explanation for life. That said, creationism doesn't need one since life is assumed to have been created by supernatural means.

"Hey kids, a divine agent created things, that's it, because I can't explain/know how, so now you're all ready for the test on creation."

Then we have the evolutionist that says "hey kids, I don't know how life started, but my interpretation of the fossils is correct because I say so. My view of course means that your lives are meaningless...but you should believe whatever I make up about the origins of life just because you can!"

"Pro, how can this even make equal time in a biology curriculum alongside the mechanisms of abiogenesis and evolution?
Seriously, Pro how are you to teach anything about this when you've admitted not knowing HOW it was accomplished."

The debate wasn't about abiogenesis. We could have had another debate on that topic if you hadn't called me a liar multiple times in the comments of this debate. Evolution has no mechanistic explanation for why life exists and creationism doesn't need one as I have already explained.

"What is it that Creationism is teaching OTHER than your assertions Pro?"

We both have assertions and assumptions about how life exists exists now. The fossils equally indicate either a common ancestor or a common designer. All we have is our assumptions on the matter.

"How does they were designed that way amount to equal time with evolution and its constituent natural processes WITHOUT a describable mechanism?"

I don't even understand this question. Creationism explains why natural processes exist, why the universe exists, and etc...evolution only explains where humans supposedly came from.

"Really? What's the explanation? God did it, and that's it?

Yes, that is exactly right. Teach students that God did it by supernatural means that we don't fully understand at this point in time.

"Pro, please give us something to teach other than assertions/speculations that would acutally take up space in a curriculum!"

Again, we both have only provided our assumptions about the fossil evidence. You say common ancestor...I say common designer. Just teach in the curriculum that they can both explain where life came from.

"Ok, so Pro would have biology teach that mysterious supernatural means created natural means, and Pro would provide no idea or explanation as to HOW, so Pro would have the curriculum simply assert that this is the case, and expect students to repeat this assertion...there's no learning going on here Pro."

But of course, it is okay for my opponent to teach students that his assertions are fact. This is such a blatant double standard. Evolution is an explanation for life, but it has its problems and it provides no explanation for why life exists. I am for schools teaching both assertions and not teaching one as fact over the other since the evidence could go either way.

"Nope, and Pro ignored descent with modification being the CORNERSTONE of the arrangement of living things.
Descent with modification ELIMINATES the need for an arranger; descent with modification arranges organisms naturally."

For the one thousandth time, my opponent makes the assumption that the evidence shows descent with modification (common ancestor). If you make this assumption about life, then of course that would eliminate anything supernatural. But not everyone makes the same assumptions about life that my opponent has.

"Come on Pro, you equivocated, and now you are saying that life was created BY natural processes despite your prepositional switch up."

Now this is incredibly dishonest. I made it very clear that God developed natural processes by supernatural means. We even conversed in the comments and I made myself very clear. The fact that my opponent still claims that I said this is wrong and this only shows that my opponent is only interested in winning debates instead of actually learning anything. Con should lose a conduct point hands down.

Creationism should be taught for the three reasons I gave in round one. My opponent never refuted my point about the evidence of the fossils equally supporting evolution and creationism. He ignored my other two arguments because he felt like it and made this a very unenjoyable debate by continuing to misrepresent me even after clarification. Now I am done this debate and I thank anyone who reads this entire thing.
Debate Round No. 4
156 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Word, thanks.
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
Thanks for that Magicaintreal. I should do my best in the future to make sure I know what the burdens are. No hard feelings. I do learn a lot from you in these debates for whatever it is worth. Not in a sense that you change my position, but in that I understand some of the science better.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Fair assessment, and in the future, I will clarify the burden for this type of debate.
Jerry, I was wrong for calling you dishonest, and I should have been clearer...you were right Jerry, I was wrong. I really thought you were being dishonest here, but re-looking at the burdens, not the definitions, really does make your point seem honest, not necessarily relevant, but honest nonetheless.

So, again, I was wrong to call Jerry dishonest, and thank you whiteflame for pointing out where our frustrations/confusions were coming from.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I don't think Jerry was dishonest in this debate. From the looks of it, the problems in this debate stemmed from a misunderstanding regarding burdens, something that was eventually clarified but needed to be made clear early in order to solve this.

What Pro was required to defend wasn't entirely clear from the outset. I can see where MagicAintReal was going, and I can see where Jerry was going. Both sides seem to fit to some degree. MagicAintReal is arguing from the perspective that creationism and evolution are in conflict, and Jerry is arguing from the perspective that they're not, and depending on where you apply each temporally, they're both true.

I don't think either of you was wrong to try and win with what you had, particularly since each of you started your arguments with a bunch of basic assumptions that reinforced your views of what the resolution required of you. I do think that it makes things somewhat confusing, and honestly, I think it would have been better if the debate had simply focused on the concept of teaching creationism in general rather than its opposition (or lack thereof) to evolution. Con mentioned quite a bit about morality and the need to teach that, but it's unclear that biology is the place to do so. Pro gets into the idea that there needs to be a mechanism that we can teach, but it's unclear why that makes creationism bad to teach, only why it's comparably not as good as evolution. I suppose that could go to the root of the resolution, which is the term "equally", but I heard scant little about how a class would be structured comparably, and that seemed to drop out of the debate as it went along.

But getting into these would have required taking a step back from the debate and just accepting that there was a difference in opinion between the two sides. I know that's difficult to do sometimes, but each side does need to get some perspective on where the debate is headed. Without that, it gets down and dirty like this.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Cool, thanks.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I'll give this a look. Internship's not starting until early next week, so I should have the time.
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Might not be possible: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Fine, ask whiteflame to not vote but critique this debate. See what he says
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
You didn't understand your own definition of creationism. And that was the problem.

I have also been corrected many times in debates. But...this time is completely different. You have consistently twisted my words and refined creationism in this debate. I would be willing to accept criticism from people who don't do these things (Whiteflame has given me great feedback on other debates) but you just can't see past your errors in this one.
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
Man...I have been in many debates on this subject. All I can say is that I have never had an opponent twist my words like you have.

I acknowledge that organisims that live now came from other living beings that existed in the past. But we were mainly talking about common ancestry in the debate. That is the definition of evolution I do not agree with.

Me saying that species change in the sense that there will be many kinds of dogs after mating (you left that part out) does not mean I support your theory of common ancestry. The problem is that you only seem to read have of what I say and then misrepresent me. Read the whole post instead of misrepresenting your opponent.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
MagicAintRealJerry947Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O0cqiMUSv2KCb75KZFRiNeh4Q9-sx65eehWFUDcwnrY/edit