The Instigator
TruthWillSetYouFree
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Noumena
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

Creation & NOT Theory of Evolution

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 5 votes the winner is...
Noumena
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 806 times Debate No: 29259
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

TruthWillSetYouFree

Pro

I believe in CREATION which was supported by the Bible versus Theory of Evolution who started by Charles Darwin.
Noumena

Con

I accept. I'll post some definitions before we begin so as to minimize confusion in the coming debate.


===Definitions===


There are many different types of creationism. I'm not sure which form Pro will be advocating, and will adjust my arguments/counters to reflect whichever form he chooses. For convenience, (since I have a feeling Pro will opt to defend YEC) Young-earth creationism is the view that God created the world along with all life in more or less its present form less than 10,000 years ago.[1] I choose to define creationism as opposed to intelligent design here due to Pro's mention of the Christian Bible rather than the ambiguous "designer" of ID proponents.

Evolution refers to "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."[2] More specifically, modern evolutionary theory posits the existence of speciation whereby "new genetically distinct species evolve usually as a result of genetic isolation from the main population."[3] Evolutionary theory therefore includes not just small changes and adaptations, but the evolution of new species from a common ancestor.


===Sources===


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[3] http://www.biology-online.org...
Debate Round No. 1
TruthWillSetYouFree

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate; this will be my second one, just became a member 2 days ago & I love the energy that flows through the minds of the members of this site.

To my opponent, I apologize for not being too elaborate on the stands that I want to take; I was trying to make it as simple as possible that the existence of man was by Creation of the Almighty & NOT by Evolution. You are correct that my stand will be based on what the Bibles says & I clearly stated that in the synopsis, but I will do my best to avoid quoting verses from the Bible & even references aside from what the History says. Also, my greatest resource will be myself because of my faith that my existence is due to God"s creation of Humanity.

Another caveat that I would like to point out & my apologies to other members of this site that I will do my best not to duplicate the discussions already made & being discussed at this moment in such a way that I will make it as simple as possible; will refrain from using big words found in the references and the like.

Am I against evolution? I am not, but I will NOT contribute to evolution the existence of mankind. There was an issue of National Geographic back in February of 2009 that has an article about Charles Darwin"s 1859 book entitled "The Origin of Species" which became one of the most controversial theories in the world of Science. Darwin started his research by gathering different species of animals, from the very small ones up to the large fossils of mammals. This "idea" sparked challenges from different areas of society, religion, morality, and social tradition. In 1871, he published another book entitled "the Descent of Man"".this is where I will begin my premise.

Mankind was NOT a result of evolution. Over 75 years later after Darwin published his controversial book, Modern Synthesis was introduced: the use of Genetic Science aid to discover more proofs to support this "idea", thus, it became a "Theory" to make it sound more "scientific". In the 1960"s, a series of fossils that resembles a skeleton of a hominid nicknamed "Lucy" was discovered which everyone in the Science world got excited that the "Theory of Evolution" will soon graduate & will pass the stage of becoming just a mere "theory". For over 45 years, even the introduction of high speed computer processors & powerful scientific instruments, and the "missing link" that always envelops that human was a result of "evolution" still NOT FOUND " still MISSING. They said that Chimpanzee & other forms of the family of chimps are the closest relative of human; but no amount of time & fossils will be able to prove that MAN evolved from another species other than MAN. Should we wait for another century to disprove this theory? Go ahead, because the more research that is being done on this, the more proof that a HIGHER BEING is the one who created mankind.

GOD created MAN; plain & simple but not for those who don"t believe in the existence of GOD, this is not simple. But this debate is not about that, this is about the existence of man attributed to the CREATION and NOT to EVOLUTION. I"m a very grateful person, & I thank anyone who does good deeds to anyone & everyone; I always practice the "debt of gratitude" attitude to those who give their help, wealth, and time - to elevate the standard of humanity. BUT I WILL NOT SUCCUMB TO THE THEORY THAT MY EXISTENCE IS DUE TO EVOLUTION.

I don"t intend to sound mean, but I dare anybody who believes in evolution that in your next family reunion to invite your relatives like the Chimps & have a descent dinner with them. I dare anyone who advocates this theory in the existence of mankind, when they make a family tree photo, to reserve the highest spot & place a picture of a CHIMP & be proud show it to their friends & family. I dare anyone who will say that they are the products of EVOLUTION & not created by our ALMIGHTY to say that "I OWE MY WHOLE BEING TO CHIMPS". Let"s give credit to where the TRUE credit is due and this is to our CREATOR.

THANK YOU TO MY CREATOR.
Noumena

Con

===Counters===


The Missing Link.


Pro's main point stems from a simple (yet popular) misunderstanding of what evolution actually claims. A "missing link" as the standard of evidence for the validity of evolution is an untenable position. Mostly because even if some "missing link" were discovered, it would merely create two more. For instance, say a link was discovered between modern day humans and chimps. Let's call this link Australopithecus[1]. Once this is established, it lends itself to the need for a further "missing link" between that and humanity as well as a link between that and the nearest relative preceding it. The entire methodology itself is flawed. Further, even under its own standards, the objection fails since several early hominid species have been discovered in the past.[2]


Pro seems to recognize this when he claims that "no amount of time & fossils will be able to prove that MAN evolved from another species other than MAN." So he would appear to contradict himself in demanding such evidence while simultaneously saying it's no use. Actually, it can lend credence to the theory if we track the specific major evolutionary changes as scientists have actually done (refer to source 2). The problem lies in thinking that one single piece of evidence missing can break the entire theory. Science doesn't operate this way. Perhaps in the negative sense it does (i.e., contrary evidence can do so) but positively (i.e., missing) no. Science operates holistically; the best explanation is always preferred. And evolution appears to foster this standard near perfectly.


Burden of Proof.


Pro has failed to uphold his burden of proof for this debate. Besides only bringing a single argument against evolution (one that relied on a gross misinterpretation of evolution and basic scientific methodology), Pro offered no evidence in support of the claim that (a) God exists, (b) God created humanity specially as opposed to simply allowing humanity to form as theistic evolutionists purport[3], and (c) that this creator was indeed the God described in the Christian Bible (as opposed to the Muslim, deist, pagan God(s).


===Sources===


[1] http://www.columbia.edu...
[2] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[3] http://www.discovery.org...
Debate Round No. 2
TruthWillSetYouFree

Pro

TruthWillSetYouFree forfeited this round.
Noumena

Con

Extend arguments and refutations. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by THEVIRUS 4 years ago
THEVIRUS
BTW Wikipedia isn't a very good source, but I still agree with your definitions.
Posted by corey561 4 years ago
corey561
Magic8000 you don't know a deity wrote the bible for a fact. Besides, it was Charles Darwin, not Carlos Darwin that wrote On the Origin of Species. Please get your facts right before writing a comment.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
The bible was written by God and The origin of species was written by Carlos Darwin.
Checkmate atheists!!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
TruthWillSetYouFreeNoumenaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
TruthWillSetYouFreeNoumenaTied
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: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Trinitrotoluene 4 years ago
Trinitrotoluene
TruthWillSetYouFreeNoumenaTied
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: abc
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
TruthWillSetYouFreeNoumenaTied
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: Even without the forfeit, this was an easy win for Con.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
TruthWillSetYouFreeNoumenaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, with no sources, poor S&G, and a very bad argument. Easy win for Con.