The Instigator
LegendKiller
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
55 Points

Catholicism proves evolution wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 12 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,365 times Debate No: 23738
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (12)

 

LegendKiller

Pro

Since you are one of the best debators so far on here how about you prove it, and lets see what you got, lets see if your athesim knowledge helps you out on this topic.
Danielle

Con

Thank you for the challenge, LegendKiller. I accept and look forward to your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
LegendKiller

Pro

Evolution
The theory of evolution was posited by Charles Darwin and was published in 1859. "Evolution is the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years"(What Is The" n.d.). Darwin's general theory presumes the" development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature)"(Darwin's Theory Of" n.d.).
Rebuttal
Evolution is false because it cannot give a full explanation of our origins. It can't take us right back to the beginning of the story. In order for evolutionary processes to get going, things must already be the case. For example: "there must be biological organisms; there must be an environment capable of supporting them; they must be capable of reproduction; random mutations must introduce variety"("Can Evolution Explain" n.d). The problem is that, where did simple organisms capable of reproduction come from? How are environments capable of supporting life? Evolution cannot provide answers to these questions, because evolutionary processes cannot occur until these conditions are met.
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Pro.

My opponent's argument is simple: Evolution is false because it cannot give a full explanation of our origins. It can't take us right back to the beginning of the story... The problem is that, where did simple organisms capable of reproduction come from? How are environments capable of supporting life? Evolution cannot provide answers to these questions, because evolutionary processes cannot occur until these conditions are met.

Evolution posits that the earliest life appeared 4,000 million years ago [1]. This has been determined through Abiogenesis - the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen [2]. Ergo, there is indeed a scientific explanation of how 'simple organisms' have evolved to create and sustain life on Earth.

Now that we've got that settled, let's examine how Evolution is in fact valid as agreed upon by virtually every credible scientist. In order for something to be considered a scientific theory, it must meet certain criteria and prove to be:

- Consistent (internally and externally)
- Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
- Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
- Empirically Testable and Falsifiable
- Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
- Correctable and Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
- Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
- Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Evolution meets every one of these requirements as I've outlined and explained in a previous debate [3].

The concept of Evolution was derived scientifically and arrived at by examining nature. This stands contrary to theories that rival Evolution like Creationism which Catholocism supports. Just because we cannot answer every single question about the origins of the universe does not remotely disprove the concept Evolution, which is completely logical and justifiable explanation about human ancestry accompanied by a ton of evidence. The laws of logic explain that a lack of evidence cannot be used to disprove something [4].

Most importantly, there is no noted evidence whatsoever for Creationism. Most theists acknowledge that it is a position completely rooted in faith - not science or evidence. You'll notice that my opponent completely failed to prove or even remotely explain how Catholicism disproves Evolution. All he does is present an irrelevant criticism of Evolution that I have addressed and subsequently negated. It is Pro's burden to prove how the tenants of Catholicism specifically disprove Evolution.

Good luck.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
[4] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
Debate Round No. 2
LegendKiller

Pro

I don't need luck ,it just gets in my way.
I can conclude that abiogenesis is also wrong too just by your explanition. The reason is because natural selection is a key concept in this study.
Natural selection too tends to fail in the evolution theory. Charles Darwin said "that natural selections acts can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." He also said an organism can never be an "irreducibly complex system, if this was to happen without any slight modifications, his theory would be wrong" Origin of Species, 1859, p. 158). Humans seem to be irreducibly complex; the reason is because humans have lungs, heart, and a brain. A human being that lacks any of these won't just have less survival value than one with all of them; it won't have any survival value at all. We therefore can't have immediately acquired these things, first getting one, then another, and so on; we must have acquired them all at once. That, though, isn't evolution. Evolution is a gradual process.

Organs.
The human brain is one of the most complex things known to man. The brain stores an amazingly huge amount of information. The brain takes in all the colors and objects people see, the temperature around people, the pressure of someone's feet against the floor, the sounds around, the dryness of the mouth, even the texture of the keyboard. The brain holds and processes all natural emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time the brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of the body like for example breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands. The human brain processes more than a million messages a second. The brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows people to focus and operate effectively in the world. The brain functions differently than other organs "(Adamson n.d).There is intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. God created the human brain, because something as complex and intelligent can only be created by someone as complex and super intelligent like God.
The eye can distinguish among seven million colors. "It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously. Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain -- the start of living organisms from nonliving matter" (Adamson n.d). The only answer is God.

As Catholics we believe that God created everything and he has no begining.Evolution on the other hand, has a begininng. Tell me what came before bacteria and before that and etc.. Science has not found the answer to that yet.
Even einstein himself believes theres a God and he is classfily as one of the most respected scientist of all time.(Not saying hes Catholic). If someone as smart as him, who has dedicated his whole life to science believes that only God has created everything what does that say of science itself. He himself knows that theres somethings science can't prove. Science can not prove everything. On the other hand Catholcism proves everything, because the only explanition to everything is God.

Motion.
One reason why God prove evolution wroong is the argument of motion posited by Thomas Aquinas Catholic Phlisopher). His first proof was that "some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there cant' be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover" (Aquinas n.d). Thus, if Aquinas' argument is correct, "the degree of the truth of the conclusion would be comparable to the conclusions of the findings of modern science. It is important to see that since no claim is made as to the certainty of the conclusion but only as to its probability, the argument cannot be criticized on the grounds that the conclusion does not follow with absolute necessity.Also, note that the concept of motion involves dependency, not necessarily temporal succession. In other words, the argument from motion relies on the concepts of potentiality and actuality rather than that of causal sequence."("The argument of" 2012). Evident to our senses in motion—the movement from actuality to potentiality. Things are acted on. An example would be an actual oak tree is what produces the potentiality of an acorn. Unless there is a first mover , there can be no motion, taking away the actual is to take away the potential. In these terms, which came first the chicken or the egg? Another example would be "the reason a student has the potential to be awake is that he had (actual) toast for breakfast. Toast has the potential to keep the student awake. But (actual) bread has the potential to become toast, and actual grain has the potential to become bread. Actual water, dirt, and air have the potential to become grain. To take away any of these actualities is ultimately to take away the potential for the student to be alert"( " The Argument of" 2012). Aquinas is not rejecting an indefinite or an infinite series as such; the idea is that a lower element depends on a higher element as in a hierarchy, not a temporal series.

A First.
Thomas Aquinas' third proof is "Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing"(Aquinas n.d). What the argument means "since objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time. Since objects are countable, the objects in the universe are finite in number .If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence. (Nothing can come from nothing—there is no creation) for individual existent objects. But, in fact, many objects exist in the universe. Therefore, a Necessary Being (i.e., a Being of which it is impossible that it should not exist) exists ( "The argument of", 2012).
One way to think about Thomas' argument is to consider "a straight line extending without bound representing time. If one takes a finite number of line segments of a specific length representing the time of existence of objects in the world and places them on that line, then most of the unbounded time-line would be unoccupied. That is, very little of the time would objects exist. Thus, there must be something necessary upon which these existent objects depend since at the present time it would so improbable that objects should exist" ("The argument of", 2012).

Sources
http://www.existence-of-god.com...
http://philosophy.lander.edu...
www.newadvent.com
Notice how none of my sources are from wikipedia, because wikipedia pages are made by people, which contains opinions. Even I know this, your one of the best and you still use wikipedia. They classifly anybody as good these days.

Good luck, your goning to need it.
Danielle

Con

1) Pro says abiogenesis is "wrong." He gave not a shred of evidence to support this.

Instead, what he did was discuss natural selection via evolution vs. abiogensis. However, abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life, but rather describes the processes which take place once life has began. There may also be multiple pathways to producing naturally occurring "life" depending of course on the definition of life that you use. Pro's objection here fails because he tries to reconcile the two terms (evolution and abiogenesis) when in fact they refer to very different things. A contradiction would only exist if evolution at some point did try to explain the origin of life and then people moved away from it. This is not the case at all [4].

2) Pro says something as complex as the human brain can only be attributed to God. First of all, this is completely fallacious - it's a bare assertion. Second, Pro says that Catholics believe that God created everything and He has no beginning. I could say that many theorize the universe to have no beginning - or what's outside the universe and created the universe has no "beginning" - so this would be circular. God simply has no beginning because God is defined that way. That does not give credence to the idea whatsoever that the brain HAD to be developed by God. Pro must offer evidence and not just state his beliefs.

Of course Pro also notes that Einstein believed in God. First, I could easily list a handful of other brilliant and credible scientists and philosophers who don't believe in God. This is moot. Second, this is yet another fallacious contention put forth by Pro - an obvious appeal to authority. Third, Pro doesn't seem to know anything about Einstein's beliefs. Einstein said, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly" [5]. Einstein was a Deist. "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings" [6]. Keep in mind that Spinoza was a Pantheist -- in other words he thought the universe itself was God (or vice versa), to put it simply.

3) Pro writes, "One reason why God prove evolution wroong is the argument of motion..." Basically, he posts the Cosmological (First Mover) Argument.

I could give an entire philosophical rebuttal, but I don't have to. Evolutionary theory started with the observation of the mutability of species - a property that only exists once life has begun. Natural Selection posits that nature provides the selection criteria to drive evolution. At no point was evolution, nor natural selection, about explaining the origin of life. Therefore evolution could still be true EVEN IF the Cosmological Argument were true. As such I don't even have to go any further, as this argument does not uphold (and is in fact irrelevant) to the resolution.

[4] http://rationalwiki.org...
[5] Dukas, Helen and Hoffman, Banesh. Albert Einstein: The Human Side. Princeton University Press (1981). p. 43.
[6] http://www.godandscience.org...
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by adontimasu 5 years ago
adontimasu
I'm surprised Con didn't bring up the fact that Pope John Paul II believed in Evolution. xD
Posted by Spock 5 years ago
Spock
Just because I'm tired of seeing it, I must say:

Einstein did not believe in God. At least, not a theistic God. The God he spoke of was a pantheistic god, a metaphorical representation of the laws that govern our universe. Many physicists (including amateurs such as myself) use this idea of "God".

Einstein merely stated that he practiced Judaism from a sense of need for ethical direction and habit. He did not believe in intelligent design.

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." (Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59–215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The New Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005, p. 206. )

Cable reply to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein's (Institutional Synagogue in New York) question to Einstein, "Do you believe in God?".
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
"Hey lets get this straight no one is more cockier than me, Callen 13"
Great! admission is the first step to rehabilitation. Too bad I missed your remarks to not include a piece of sardonic advice to you, my dear friend.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Pro, please understand the position that you want to attack............................
Posted by johnnyboy54 5 years ago
johnnyboy54
As a Catholic, I am embarrassed that another Catholic could be so ignorant of both scientific findings and Catholic teaching. You do know the Catholic Church supports the theory of evolution, right?
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
RFD Keeps getting cut off:

Conduct: Pro made remarks like, "Good luck, your goning to need it." Spelling: See previous quote. Arguments: Pro did not understand evolution enough to make a valid criticism; he ended up arguing abiogenesis and cosmology. He also did not meet his BOP on the resolution. Con dismantled all of Pro's arguments with panache. Sources: Pro used no sources first round and Con used wikipedia, so I think I'll call it even.
Posted by anachronist 5 years ago
anachronist
Classic creationist debate, knows nothing about evolution.
Posted by Mrparkers 5 years ago
Mrparkers
Conduct: Pro saying "Good luck, you're going to need it" makes him come off cocky and arrogant.

Spelling: Obvious

Arguments: Pro makes assertions without evidence or reason behind them, and Danielle adequately defends against them. Pro failed to meet his burden of proof entirely, seeing as how a lot of the examples he gives doesn't show how Catholicism specifically proves evolution to be wrong.

Sources were close enough to call it a tie.
Posted by Apollo.11 5 years ago
Apollo.11
Terrible. Just terrible.
(not Danielle's side)
Posted by Mrparkers 5 years ago
Mrparkers
And www.existence-of-god.com ISN'T a biased source?

And sorry, but I don't respect you, because I don't think you're all that good. All you're doing here is re-hashing old creationist claims that have been debunked time and time again.

Feel free to challenge me to a debate if you'd like to try to prove me wrong.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
LegendKillerDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not entirely link Catholicism (nor define it) to the "fallacy" of evolution nor did he make actual arguments, using arguments from his own perspective and belief in regards to certain parts of the body. Nor did he even define what evolution was, apparently mixing it up with cosmology and aborgenesis....Pro's remarks (Good luck....and about the sources) were unfounded, especially given the weakness of his arguments that stand in stark contrast to Pro's.....
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
LegendKillerDanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: As Con pointed out, Pros case was supported with nothing but beliefs and assertions, and even then was irrelevant to the resolution. Pro loses conduct for his personal attacks against Con for using Wikipedia. In the future I would advise Pro to learn how to debate before claiming that the websites top debater would need a stroke of luck to beat him. Given his arguments, it wasn't very difficult.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
LegendKillerDanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro made remarks like, "Good luck, your goning to need it." Spelling: See previous quote. Arguments: Pro did not understand evolution enough to make a valid criticism; he ended up arguing abiogenesis and cosmology. He also did not meet his BOP on the resolution. Con dismantled all of Pro's arguments with panache. Sources: Pro used no sources first round and Con used wikipedia, so I think I'll call it even.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
LegendKillerDanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro knew nothing about evolution
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
LegendKillerDanielleTied
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: Pro should have read up on the subject before debating. Con might have noted the irrelevancy of abiogenesis to evolution in the 2nd round. One can grant or the purposes of debate that the first one-celled organism was a product of creation, and evolution then followed. BTW, the Catholic church officially grants evolution.
Vote Placed by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
LegendKillerDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Curb-stomp debate, easily. Pro clearly doesn't understand evolution.
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 5 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
LegendKillerDanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: lol pro had no substantive arguments at all
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
LegendKillerDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I always love starting my day off with some good laughter at stupidity.
Vote Placed by twocupcakes 5 years ago
twocupcakes
LegendKillerDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: What Pro said was one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in Pros rambling incoherent response was he close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on Pro's soul.
Vote Placed by Tetraneutrons 5 years ago
Tetraneutrons
LegendKillerDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: 1.) As a Catholic your arrogance as a catholic serves our religion no favor, try being a little more humble 2.) Conduct for obvious reasons, Spelling for obvious reasons, Danielle refutes all points with more credible sources and pro fails to meet any kind of BOP.