The Instigator
GenesisCreation
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
crossfade102495
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Creation (Pro) vs Evolution (Con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
GenesisCreation
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 74,653 times Debate No: 22271
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (5)

 

GenesisCreation

Pro

Topic : This is a direct challenge debate on the topic of creation vs. evolution.

Understanding the debate :
Each participant will assert their theory.
Each participant is responsible for the refutation of his opponent's theory.
The debate is not judged by who has proved his theory, but rather who had better refuted the opponent's theory.
The debate is set up this way because neither creation or evolution stands as a scientific fact. We are debating theory. If either side had the burden of proof, the opponent could win simply by invoking the absolute truth:"It's a theory, not a fact. Hence any argument is void for absolution."

Creationism will be defined as:
The sovereign will of God creating all things. The general outline will be the Genesis account. Mechanisms of higher complexity will be argued. Creationism recognizes
"micro-evolution", which is a variation within a species. (Big dog, little dog, yet still a dog).

Evolution will be defined as:

The types of evolution discussed by scientists are:
1. Cosmic Evolution (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing)
2. Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets)
3. Chemical Evolution (the development of the larger elements from hydrogen)
4. Abiogenesis (the origin of organic life from non-organic molecules)
5. Biological Macro-Evolution (the development and diversification of biological life resulting in speciation)
6. Biological Micro-Evolution (the development and diversification of biological life within a species. Observed and accepted by both sides.)



Round 1 is acceptance.

Round 2 is the establishment of theories. No rebuttals.
Use the space to explain yourself well.

Round 3 is rebuttals

Round 4 is closing arguments. No new arguments or evidences may be presented.
crossfade102495

Con

I accept your challenge and understand the constraints of this debate. Per protocol, I assume that sources are deemed necessary and thus I will provide them to support my arguments and refutations.

Also, it seems that if there is any particular assertion that cannot be refuted sufficiently by the other debater, that point will automatically be awarded to the party making the assertion. This is established by your debate criteria. In addition, I would like to request that only facts be used in support of claims rather than speculation and "faith."
Debate Round No. 1
GenesisCreation

Pro

Opening remarks:

I will be debating my opponent on the merits of creation versus evolution. This debate is not intented to declare a higher truth or solidify any absolutes. The purpose, instead, is to illuminate the misunderstanding of evolutionary sciences and force the opponent into the realization:

  • Evolution is equal parts fiction and science, hence establishing half-truths.
  • Science will never prove it's merit.
  • Evolution contains dominating aspects of religious faith.


The Creationist view:

The origin of time, space and matter:

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning(time) God created the Heavens(space) and the Earth(matter).

An omnipotent creative force manifests the trinity of scientific understanding. Time, space and matter must come into existance simultaneously. Otherwise:

  • If you had no time, when would creation occur?
  • If you had no space, where would creation occur?
  • if you had no matter, what would be created?

The Genesis account breaks no physical laws, it creates them. The creative mechanism doesn't rely on physical laws to occur. Instead the creative mechanism manifests the physical laws as a result of creation. Hence, the omnipotent creative force is neither limited by, governed by or exclusively existing inside of his own creation. Flawless Genesis.


The origin of kinds:

Genesis 1:24 -And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

The word "species" originated around 1265 AD. [1] The bible uses the word "kinds". There are currently over 400 recognized dog breeds, 150 of which have a recognized pedigree. All of these dogs share a common ancestor, the wolf breed (canis lupus). Interestingly, all of these dogs can produce fertile offspring with their ancestor. They are all the same kind of animal.

The Bible makes the prediction: Animals of the same kind can bring forth offspring. Animals that are radically different cannot breed and animals that have moved apart from the original genome produce offspring that will be infertile. In essence, the Bible predicts that nature limits the variety of a species.

The reduction in compexity:
Hebrews 1:10 "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same,and your years will have no end."

God promises eternal life to his followers, but the rest of the world is doomed to "wear out" or break down. In short, the Bible makes the prediction that all things will eventually decrease in complexity. It is, in fact, the first mention of entropy. Nothing becomes more complex without energy being added. The universe is a closed system, i.e. all things tend toward entropy. [3] You may argue:"The sun is adding energy to the planet, this is sufficient for evolution". Nay, only a plant cell can harness solar energy and it is more complex in design than Boeing 747. The sun is destructive in every aspect. If you stop repairing your house, the sun will eventually destroy it.


Complexity in genetics:

Similarly in genetics, nothing new is added. Not a single observed increase in complexity exists. No mutation has ever added beneficial complexity. We have seen mutations, but all have resulted in deformity or loss of information. Cells mutate all the time. We generally call it cancer or a birth defect.

Scientist often argue about the sickle cell anemia mutation. They call it a beneficial mutation because the afflicted are immune to malaria. Interestingly, this immunity is derived from the lack of a protein marker, not an increase in complexity. Additionally, the afflicted life expectancy is radically decreased and is in constant danger of forming blood clots. It is, in fact, genetic desease.[4]

Conclusion:

From a statistical viewpoint, it is far more likely that a force external to creation added the energy to jump start the universe. The entropic nature of everything add credence to a "beginning". Something had to fill the gas tank in the first place, otherwise we wouldn't be running out of gas. The Bible does not incur any error in governing thermodynamic physical laws. Evolution does. Singularly a problem for the evolutionist.

The Bible predicts a prototype human with optimal complexity. Since the post-fall world is doomed to "wear out" into entropy, no additional complexity can be added. The nominal genetic model is breaking down with each generation, causing a variety of genetic disorders. We have limitless evidence for the occurance of a weakening human genome.

 

 

 

http://www.macroevolution.net... [1]

http://alldogswelcome.com... [2]

http://mathworld.wolfram.com... [3]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [4]

crossfade102495

Con

The Beginning of Time

Per the Big Bang Theory (herein referred to as BBT) and string theory, there was at one point a space-filling object called a brane. This brane consisted of innumerable string-loops, which are the foundation of matter. Due to an extremely high instability, the brane decayed and the strings were then able to expand from their original singular point. When this happened, a large amount of energy was released which had been held within the brane. Thus, the expansion of the universe began and had a source of energy. String-loops combined to form quarks, then subparticles, then atoms, elements, and eventually stars and planets. This theory does not in any way require the external influence of a Creator. [1]

Of course, time had not existed before this event (indeed, space did not truly exist either). Space-time was created as soon as the event occurred due to the expansion of the string-loops from their original point.

Earth itself was formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago. This is very different from the traditional Creationist's view, which tends to be less than 10,000 years old. Obviously such a difference in estimation is far from insignificant. In fact, it is much like saying that the distance between San Francisco and New York is less than 10 yards. [2]

This explanation of creation is far simpler than the Creationist counterpart. There is no need for any "God" to start the processes, nor is there any need for Him to sustain the system. It is completely independent of any external involvement.



First Life

From the scientific point of view, the first life on this planet occurred roughly 3.5 billion years ago in the form of archaebacteria. While simple organic cells had been formed millions of years before this, they had not synthesized to create more organic structures. At the time, the Earth had just recently cooled down enough for life to even begin. It is believed that the first life came from either warm ponds or hydrothermal vents. These provided the perfect growing environment for the bacteria and other organisms. [3]



Increased Complexity

As time went on, the cells evolved to become more and more complex. This was due in part to natural selection and the gradual progression of species. Evolution can be observed by archaeological means (i.e. sedimentary layers). There are layers in the Earth's crust which harbor intermediary species. Also, there are no human skeletons or mammal skeletons in the same layers as the dinosaurs until mammals were able to evolve. Still, there were no humans at the time of the great reptiles.



Earth's Strata

Geologists have long searched for the remains of any recently evolved species in earlier geologic strata. Their work seems to have been in vain, considering that there have been no fossils of recently evolved species found in the lower parts of the Earth's crust. In the strata which represent the beginning of living creatures, there are no fossils of humans, nor any other mammal. There also are no fossils of birds, reptiles, or anything more complex than deep-sea organisms and pond organisms. [4] If, as Creationists assert, animals were all created at the same time and plants were created at the same time as well, then why are there animals in certain strata but not in others? Why are animals and simple life in strata that are basically billions of years apart? Creationism offers no explanation for this.



Vestigial Structures

Vestigial structures are any structures that serve no or little apparent purpose in a particular species but do in a separate species. The human appendix is a prime example. It has no known function other than to contain bacteria, but similar organs in other species do serve a purpose and are much larger. Thus, the appendix is being slowly phased out through the process of evolution. If Creationism was true, then the appendix would surely serve some sort of purpose without endangering the life of the human. After all, why would God give His creation an organ that does practically nothing other than harbor infections? [5]



Conclusion

In summary, there is no need for a Creator as asserted by creationists. His existence would over complicate a system which is already self-sufficient. Parts of the universe, including the cosmic microwave background radiation found near its center, provide evidence to support the BBT. When string theory and the concept of a brane is combined with this, the theory becomes a satisfactory explanation for the creation and propagation of the universe. Evolution adequately explains the origins of life on Earth and how life became so complex. It is the best theory offered by science and is far more sufficient than the belief that an external being created the entire universe and everything in it.



1- http://www.physorg.com...
2- From Richard Dawkins (found on Youtube: "Richard Dawkins on Young Earth Creationists")
3- http://www.paleobiology.si.edu...
4- http://evo5.beyondgenes.com...
5- http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 2
GenesisCreation

Pro

Refuting the Evolutionary paradigm:

Big Bang theory
: Our universe is thought to have begun as an
infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a
singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't
know. [2]

  • In this theory, matter already exists. It is not created. (Newtonian conservation law is broken)
  • Matter is compacted into a singularity without cause. (1st thermodynamic law broken)[5]
  • Matter is increasing in speed and energy (Ignores entropic law/second law of
    thermodynamics broken.
    ) [6]
  • The mass is super-heated from nothing. (Zeroth Law of thermodynamics broken). [4]
  • The theory is so broken; it requires crutch theories (inflation models). Unfortunately, these “crutches” are just as broken as the parent theory. Consider this source, which states that we have eliminated “new inflation, chaotic inflation, eternal inflation, stochastic inflation, modified gravity, and their sub-variants. At the end of which, we have no evidence that inflation ever happened.” [3]
  • The theory is mathematically unsound. “Every experiment that’s ever been done (on this subject) verifies the conservation of mass and energy.” [1]
  • The theory is not scientific.”Beyond inference, we’ve got very little to work with as far as the big bang goes [1]
  • This sources continues to explain: “Depending on results from the Large Hadron Collider, due to be completed at Geneva in 2005, it may be possible to determine whether we are in living in a (mem)brane universe in 11 dimensions of space time.” [3] The 2005 results are posted below.

String theory
(M-theory):
"For some great physicists, it is the difference between getting a Nobel prize and admitting they spent their lives on the wrong track." Ellis agrees: "I've been working on it for almost 30 years now, and I can imagine that some people might
get a little bit nervous." [7]

  • The LHC has disproved the core argument for singularity sourced string theory. Physicists are now attempting to advance splinter theories of the original model. [8]
  • The Higgs boson mechanism has narrowed down the perimeter for where the Higgs particle might be found. If it fails to locate the particle, the theory falls apart. The article calls this the “endgame” for this theory. The source is quoted as saying: ”If it exists, it has to be there. And if it’s not there, it will be known to be science fiction by December.” [9] The source continues to
    explain that “In just five months of the LHC running, the two teams have eliminated – at a 95 percent confidence level – most of the range of possible masses the Higgs could have.” Only 5% to go, yikes, not looking good.
  • This source proclaims the death of symmetry string theory, but makes the hopeful claim that “there are a few versions of supersymmetry, which are more complex than the basic mass-energy level version that has apparently just been ruled out. So different flavors of supersymmetry could still be true.” Such faith! [10]
  • String theory demands 11 dimensions of time, space and matter. The theory demands that mass in these 11 dimensions is uniformly required for a stable
    mechanism. Unfortunately, the mechanism cannot be observed in the physical
    universe or in the LHC. So to overcome the problem, the solution was to simply
    ignore the higher dimensions of mass. The “announcement was that in all higher dimensions (254, 510, 1022, etc.), the putative elements do NOT exist.” Back to the drawing board.
  • The vacuum energy problem. This essentially states that the energy associated with mass is needed to create mass in the first place. What came first? The mass needed to produce the energy, or the energy needed to produce the mass? Paradox. [8]

First Life: The origin of life cannot be observed and despite ferverous
experimentation, it has not been duplicated in controlled environments.

  • The attempt to manipulate abiogenesis is shrouded in fraud, as recognized by respected science journals. –Scientific American [15]
  • Attempts to recreate life resulted in the formation of Cyanide and formaldehyde, both extremely toxic to life and inherently destructive
    to the formation of amino acids.
  • The odds of abiogenesis are “one in 10^89,900, still essentially zero.” [17]

Increased Complexity:"One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme
perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both
of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving
evidence of how they evolved." [12]

  • Secular science is gradually accepting the fallacy of macroevolution. The website http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...;has a growing list of secular scientists that are petitioning the Darwinian paradigm. They are quoted as saying: We know intuitively that Darwinism can
    accomplish some things, but not others. The question is what is that boundary?”
    The
    boundary, quite obviously, is the observable variation within a species. The creation of new species is simply not observed or plausible.
  • The ancestral link between humans and primates is ambiguous. The source claims:” In a significant number of cases, evolutionary trees based on DNA sequences show that humans are more closely related to gorillas or orangutans than chimpanzees—again, all depending on which DNA fragment is used for the analysis. The overall outcome is that no clear path of common ancestry between humans and various primates exists, so no coherent model of primate evolution can be achieved.”
  • Accredited science journals are abandoning contemporary dogmas of “missing links”, which strangely enough, is rooted by creationistic scrutiny. [13]
  • "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." – Sensible Scientist [14]
  • A list of prominent names in science that have protested the Darwinian paradigm:

http://www.discovery.org...


Geology - Provided is a list of limiting factors. A limiting factor can be compared to a date, printed on a minted coin. You know for a fact, the coin is no older than the date. The provided limiting factors agree on an earth, much younger than presented in your argument. I would elaborate, but I'm running out of character space. I'd gladly elaborate in the next round. Argument to be extended.
http://www.earthage.org...

Vestigial structures: Please provide a list of vestiges that support the darwinian paradigm.

References:

http://www.askamathematician.com...
[1]

http://big-bang-theory.com...
[2]

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org... [3]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [4]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [5]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [6]

http://www.nature.com... [7]

http://technoccult.net... [8]

http://www.physorg.com... [9]

http://www.popsci.com... [10]

Reznick,
David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between
microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842. [12]

http://www.answersingenesis.org...
[13]

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org... [14]

http://www.scientificamerican.com... [15]

http://www.talkorigins.org... [16]

http://www.cs.unc.edu... [17]

crossfade102495

Con

Refutation of Creationism

My opponent's entire argument for creationism basically hinges on the Scriptures. However, he has not presented a single piece of scientific or conclusive evidence to support his position. The majority of his argument focused on trying to explain away evolution instead of describing and defending his own position.

Now, aside from a complete lack of evidence, creationism also struggles to account for the expansion of the universe, vestigial structures, and the fact that there are no modern-day species found in the lower layers of the Earth's strata.

First off, there is no reason to believe that God would have created the universe to be in a constant rate of expansion. This is never referred to in the Bible and thus there is no proof or evidence to even speculate that He did such a thing (considering that all of my opponent's arguments are derived from the Bible). Yet we know for a fact that the universe is rapidly expanding. [1]

Second, there are multiple vestigial structures in the human body. The primary one, however, is the appendix. [2] It has little or no apparent function, even after hundreds of years of being studied. In homologous structures found within other species, the similar organ plays a much larger role and is, in fact, larger in size. Even monkeys have a similar organ which serves to assist with digestion. It is larger than its human counterpart as well. Because of this, scientists believe that the human appendix has been deemed "unnecessary" by the evolutionary algorithm. Therefore, the organ is slowly being weaned out of humans over time.

Third, there has never been a complex life form found in the lower strata of the Earth. This is due to the evolutionary process of natural selection and speciation over the course of millions or billions of years. If creationism was true, there would be more complex life found in the lowest strata of the Earth. I will provide a source next round, I apologize.

My opponent also claims that the Bible gives a description of how and why different species do not interbreed. However, he provided no source for this and I could not find it explicitly stated in the Scripture.

Defending Evolution
Also, if there is a constant reduction in the complexity of organisms, then why do bacteria develop a resistance to drugs? Certainly this is an obvious example of an increase in complexity. According to my opponent's theory, wouldn't the bacteria maintain their weakness to drugs and treatments?

The progression of complexity in genes occurs over such a long amount of time that it is virtually impossible for us to see the changes in action. There is no possible way that we could observe the advancement of species from one organism to the next in the form of speciation. It took hundreds of millions of years just for basic life to evolve into multi-cellular life forms.

Conclusion
There truly is no reason to believe in creationism due to its complete and total lack of evidence. Science offers explanations for the origin and progression of species. It requires no added complexity of an external being or Creator.

1-http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
2-http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 3
GenesisCreation

Pro

Con said: My opponent's entire argument for creationism basically hinges on the Scriptures.

Reply: Of course it does. How is that a demerit? You’d have to disprove scripture for that to be an objection.
You provided no evidence against the scripture in your entire debate. Not a single verse was questioned, not a single source was provided against it. All my arguments remained directly unchallenged.


Con said
: However, he has not presented a single piece of scientific or conclusive evidence to support
his position. The majority of his argument focused on trying to explain away evolution instead of describing
and defending his own position.

Reply: Actually, I provided several. Here they are again:

  • Animals bring forth after their kind. A
    prediction based on the Genesis account. (Observed, tested and proved).
    Farmers, dog breeders, pharmaceutical companies, etc. count on this fact of nature.
  • All things wear out and break down. Nothing increases in complexity.
    All things tend toward entropy in a closed system. (Observed, tested and proved.)
  • No single organism creates additional information. Even bacteria. A resistance
    to drugs is based on a loss of proteins, not a gain. Bacteria use lateral gene
    transfer to build resistance to drugs. This is done through the exchange of
    existing DNA
    . No new DNA is created.
  • If this perpetuated, you would eventually homogenize the gene pool. If an island of
    white people and an island of black people were joined by a land bridge, the gene
    pool would homogenize into a uniformed mixed bloodline. No new DNA is created.
    The unique “white gene” and the “unique black gene” are lost. This is a decrease in complexity. [1]


Con said
: creationism also struggles to account for the expansion of the universe, vestigial structures, and the
fact that there are no modern-day species found in the lower layers of the Earth's strata.

Reply: Not even close to being true. Consider:

  • New studies indicate the universe is not slowing
    down in expansion, it’s speeding up. This completely destroys the Big Bang
    paradigm of “expand and contract”. [2]
  • I asked for a list of vestiges. Con still only
    provided the appendix, which is not vestigial. It’s a safe haven for “beneficial
    bacteria”. That’s where they hibernate during hostile conditions in the
    digestive tract. We’ve known this since 2005.
  • That’s not evidence for evolution, that’s
    evidence for a young earth. How could you expect complex organisms to sink into
    deep strata within a few thousand years? Not
    a problem for the creationist
    .

Con said
: there is no reason to believe that God would have created the universe to be in a constant rate of expansion.

Reply: See above reply. It’s not constant and it heavily favors anything but the big bang. [4]


Con said
: there are multiple vestigial structures in the human body. The primary one, however, is
the appendix. It has little or no apparent function, even after hundreds of years of being studied.

Reply: See above answer. There are so many “supposed” vestiges. Why dwell on the appendix? It’s
been proved to have a function. You should have gone with wisdom teeth or the tail bone. (Which are just as easy to debunk.)


Con said
: If creationism was true, there would be more complex life found in the lowest strata of the Earth.
Reply: No, if creationism is true, there would be no complex life in lower strata. Not enough time has passed.
This argument helps my case; it doesn’t hurt it in the least.


Con said
: My opponent also claims that the Bible gives a description of how and why different species do not interbreed.
However, he provided no source for this and I could not find it explicitly stated in the Scripture.

Reply: Actually, you didn’t read my argument. The Bible uses the word “kinds”. The word species
came 3,200 years after the Hebrew text was written. I also provided a scripture
in Genesis which explicitly states that animals bring forth after their kind. Ignoring the sources won’t make them go away.
If you accept a debate with a creationist, be prepared to debate the Bible.
That’s what you agreed to do. You agreed to debate a Biblical creation. You have not provided a single shred of
evidence against the scriptures
. This is why I prefer 5 round debates. I would love to dive into scripture and
defend it. You never even provided the challenge.
Also, why would I provide
a source for something that you’re supposed to know as an evolutionist? The
mule, the liger, the zebroids, the Dzo…all are infertile hybrids. If the gene
pool drifts too far, it is destroyed. That’s why a chimpanzee and a human
cannot create offspring, yet somehow; we’re the same “species”. We’re definitely
not the same kind.

Con said: if there is a constant reduction in the complexity of organisms, then why do
bacteria develop a resistance to drugs? Certainly this is an obvious example of an increase in complexity.

Reply: I addressed this in the beginning of my closing arguments.


Con said
: The progression of complexity in genes occurs over such a long amount
of time that it is virtually impossible for us to see the changes in action.
There is no possible way that we could observe the advancement of species from
one organism to the next in the form of speciation.

Reply: No, the change does not occur over time, it occurs over generations. We have
several insect species that produce several thousand generations within a
single year. We should be able to witness evolution. We don’t. The same gene
pool persists, even after hundreds of generations. Yet humans somehow evolved
from cavemen to modern man in…. 6,000 generations (30,000 years)? Also, why
have we stopped evolving for the last 10,000 years?


Closing statement:

My opponent was tasked with attacking creationism. Instead,
he build a defensive case for evolution. Con has failed his burden of proof to
debunk creationism.

I have broken down every single argument from my opponent.
Con never even attempted to recover his string theory or the big bang. He never
addressed my list of limiting factors, he failed to provide a list of vestigial
body parts and his only objection of creation was that it came from the Bible.

Con has failed to debunk creation. Con has failed to defend evolution.

During my 3rd round I provided 17 external sources and 3 internal sources. Not one argument was challenged. Not one!

No matter how you feel about this topic, Con has failed his objective. Vote Pro.

http://www.icr.org... [1]

http://realdoctorstu.com... [2]

http://www.scientificamerican.com... [3]

http://www.scientificamerican.com... [4]

crossfade102495

Con

The Scriptures as a Source

My opponent claims that the Scriptures are reliable as a source to be cited. However, as I have pointed out in a separate and unrelated debate, there are multiple contradictions in the Bible and reasons that it has no particular merit to prove anything. How can we be sure that the Scriptures are reliable? Because God inspired them? Well, it's not logical to use something which has questionable integrity in order to prove something about God... When your reason for believing it is because God wrote it! This is an example of circularity and is invalid in any debate.

As to my opponent's assertion that I did not address the verses he provided, this is due to the fact that the Bible simply is NOT in any way reliable in proving creationism. It is riddled with religious bias which should automatically disqualify it as a source.


Entropy

There is a sad misunderstanding here of what the law of entropy implies. It states that any closed system will decay and decrease in complexity AS LONG AS there is no energy applied (exactly as my opponent has stated). The misunderstanding comes in the form of his claim that cells could not increase in complexity due to entropy. This is addressed in the book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea." [1] The author states that "mitochondria...permit us to fend off the Second Law of Thermodynamics." THIS is the reason why life is able to become more complex. Entropy is irrelevant due to the introduction of energy via the mitochondria. Thus, the argument using entropy is invalid and refuted.


"Kind"

The use of the word "kind" in Genesis can only loosely be linked to the word "species." Besides, it is irrelevant due to the fact that it proves absolutely nothing. All it states is that two cows cannot make a horse, two pigs cannot make a dog, etc. This is common sense and can simply be observed in nature.


"No New DNA"

While my opponent claims that no new DNA can possibly be created, he shows a forgivable ignorance of how the progression of DNA works. There are mutations within DNA which cause either a lesser chance of survival or an advantage which helps that particular organism (and therefore its species) survive. These mutations are found IN THE DNA as genetic encoding information. [2] These mutations are then allowed to pass on to later generations from the original carrier if it is beneficial. It is obvious that these helpful mutations do occur. A perfect example is the peppered moth of England. There was a part of the encoding of a gene in the moth which gave it its light color. Some (but few) of the moths had a mutation which altered the color and made it darker. After the Industrial Revolution, the darker peppered moths had a higher chance of survival; and so, they propagated and their mutated DNA was transferred on to the next generations. If this occurred in a species and the mutation was compounded (or if more were added), then there is a potential for the species to branch off into a completely new type of organism.


Homogenization

My opponent states that there would be a homogenization of the gene pool. However, it is not clear as to what he is referring to. I assume that he is speaking of evolution itself. In that case, the gene pool would not be homogenized because of a combination of mutations and the natural diversity of the gene pool. In simple terms, the maternal qualities which are passed on basically center around the mitochondria, while the male information which is sent is only 50% of the total information. The diversity which could be achieved through this is stunning and can be found in depth in the book I referred to earlier. [1]


Expansion of the Universe

First, I find it interesting that my opponent used a blog as a source. Especially since the man who wrote the blog has no experience in astrophysics, but is instead a doctor.

Besides that, there is ample reason to believe that dark matter and dark energy are what hold the universe together and even allow it to expand. There is an extremely large amount of mass in the universe that is unaccounted for and this is explained through the idea of dark matter. Also, dark energy possesses a certain "anti-gravity" quality; it pushes things away instead of pulling them in. Dark matter was proven by NASA in 2006 (of course creationists question its legitimacy) through the observation of two colliding galaxies. [3]


The Appendix as a Vestige

Again, there is an obvious air of unknowing around this subject. My opponent believes that a "vestigial structure" is one that has NO FUNCTION. This is not true, as I have already pointed out. A vestigial structure is one that is smaller and serves a much lesser purpose in one species as opposed to another. This is true of the human appendix. I extend the same source which I used previously. My opponent's argument is against a straw man.


Strata

My opponent uses my own evidence to reinforce his argument. However, he still cannot account for the fact that there are complex organisms (dinosaurs and such) in the higher strata but not in the lower strata. The strange thing is, there is no distinct cutoff for this difference in complexity. Complexity simply seems to increase in a fluid and gradual way as one moves up in the strata. There are complex creatures in strata which would have (under normal circumstances) taken far more than thousands of years to be buried. Thus the argument against my proof is unfounded.


"Kind"...Again

Before I address this, I would like to express my deep displeasure at being accused of not reading my opponent's argument last round. Also, the claim that I ignored sources- I didn't.

My opponent STILL has the belief that the Bible can be used as the sole proof of a Creator. I've already addressed this and I reiterate the fact that I am displeased that my opponent has nothing to offer other than the Bible. It is comparable to using a fairy tale to prove the existence of unicorns; completely flawed and unreliable. I most certainly do not share my opponent's enthrallment with the Scriptures as a source of either knowledge or proof of anything.

I was stating that I would like PROOF (preferably legitimate) that the Bible actually describes why different species do not interbreed. I was not questioning the fact itself as my opponent mistakenly assumed.

Lastly, I would like to point out a major error my opponent made: he claimed that "That’s why a chimpanzee and a human cannot create offspring, yet somehow; we’re the same 'species'." This goes to further show my opponent's lack of experience with science, particularly biology. Humans are of the species Homo sapiens. On the other hand, chimpanzees are of the species Pan troglodytes. The two names aren't even similar.


Evolution Over Time

I honestly have no idea where my opponent got his numbers from, but I know of not a single evolutionary biologist who believes that humans evolved over the course of 30,000 years. Besides, cavemen were a variety of modern man.


Big Bang and the Strings

There are plenty of problems with my opponent's argument, but the one that is most interesting is the fact that he neglects quantum physics. The laws of physics which apply to macro-objects (which he spoke of) do NOT necessarily apply to objects on a quantum level. Since strings and the brane would be on a quantum level, his argument holds no water. Since my opponent finds it acceptable to use blogs as sources and claim they are reliable, I will as well. [4]


Conclusion

Since I am out of characters, I will finish with the fact that I have refuted every one of my opponent's points systematically and effectively. He has failed to refute evolutionary theory and has no adequate proof of creationism.

Vote CON.


1- "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett
2- http://bacteriamuseum.org...
3- http://www.nasa.gov...
4- http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by errya 4 years ago
errya
Genesis Creation, I totally agree with your point of view, and I think this was an extremely enlightening debate. You convincingly defended Creationism and attacked Evolution against cons 'Elephant throwing'. However, I personally think a better way to counter cons point about the placement of fossils in the strata would be to that when Noah's flood happened, the more intellegent animals who had the appearance of higher evolution were smart enough to run for higher ground, while the less intelligent animals were crushed by the first wave. This gave the appearance of evolution. Also the formation of the strata just screams Noah's flood. The strata change shade regularly and apruptly, representing the enormous waves of Noah's flood crashing down regularly, rather than a gradual merging of colour that billions of years of gradual sedimentation would suggest. However, I am myself only 14 years old, much less experienced than you, as you said to con before. i would appreciate it if you could comment on any mistakes in what I just said.
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
how does earth translate to matter? Don't you think you are stretching it a little bit there?
Posted by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
I do not support the blanket statement that evolution currently stands for. I recognize a minority of variable truths within the theory, yet I ferverously dismiss the other conclusions as garbage.
As my sources claim:
" We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

"Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology."

or

"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favour of Darwinian dogma. Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all. Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as George Bernard Shaw used to say."
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
"People always assume that creationists are stupid, slack-jawed, back-wood, bible thumpin', idiots who live like cattle in a "make belief" world of magic and deities."

Yes, that is true. I find it pleasing to see that you have destroyed this stereotype. Now, based on this distinction between the "evolutionary paradigm" and "evolution itself", does that mean that you do not necessarily object to the process of evolution?

I apologize if I am being redundant--especially considering that I did not read the debate.
Posted by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
Perhaps. I don't disagree with your objection. If you follow the trail of this debate, however, you'll notice that I challenged his confidence in the evolutionary paradigm, not evolution itself. Had my opponent been more informed, he could have won.

People always assume that creationists are stupid, slack-jawed, back-wood, bible thumpin', idiots who live like cattle in a "make belief" world of magic and deities.

If you approach a C.S. Lewis with that attitude, you will get soundly snuffed out (figuratively).

This debate was designed to injure pride.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
GenesisCreation, would it have been more appropriate to exclude the section on the beginning of the universe in the debate? I find your arguments interesting despite disagreeing with you on the matters of the evolutionary theory.

I also hope I can debate you for some experience...:)
Posted by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
(Sigh).........figures.
Posted by crossfade102495 5 years ago
crossfade102495
I will not address your insults (I have abstained from looking at the comments on this debate for a while), nor will I dignify your assumption of superior knowledge and wisdom due to age.

Thank you for at least accepting my challenge, but you are not worth my time, sir. I judged you as a worthy opponent and was proved wrong. I apologize for that. Thank you for your time and (minimal) effort. Perhaps there are creationists out there who actually think with reason and without attacking their opponent for being younger than themselves. After this, I seriously doubt that and now hold creationists in even less esteem than before. I apologize for any inconvenience. Good day to you.
Posted by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
Human Species of the Genus Homo:
Homo habalis ----------------
Homo ergaster |
Homo heidelbergensis |------------> Human Subspecies of Australopithecus
Homo erectus |
Homo troglodyte------------

Crossfade,
Provided above are a list of human species. In the debate, I refered to the evolutionist agenda to classify them Chimps as human. I made the error in only using "species", rather than simply stating:
"That's why a chimpanzee and a human cannot create offspring, yet somehow we're both a "human species". We're definitely not the same kind."

Better? Now you won't conclude that I was speaking of Homo Sapien Sapien.

By the way, I love your confidence. I don't have a grasp on biology but you (a 16 year old boy), you do? I graduated when you where 3. I went to war when you where 10 and I've studied at three different colleges before you entered highschool. Get some life experience before you assume any superior understanding of anything. If you had to prepare for this debate without Google, you would have lost with zero votes.

As far as me being Christian is concerned, I think you mistake me for the fluffy, fairy-jesus loving evangelists. Where I come from, adults don't yield to complaining children. If you want to be respected as an opponent, don't sit here and complain ex-post-facto. Like I said...make the challenge. I will gladly do this again. You go first this time. I don't want to be accused of setting you up for failure.
Posted by crossfade102495 5 years ago
crossfade102495
@GenesisCreation

It is a disappointment to see someone who champions the Christian faith resort to ad hominem attacks and rude remarks. Where is your higher sense of morals, my friend?

The chimpanzee species (Pan troglodytes) is NOT the same as the human species (Homo sapiens). Never has been. You explicitly stated that they were of the same species, not the same genus. There are no sub-species of humans as you claim. There are kingdoms, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. No "sub-species" of humans can exist. You have no hold of biology, even of the most simple form. I do not mean it insultingly, I am just going on what you have shown of your own scientific knowledge.
I never claimed that you had religious bias votes. You, sir, are the one jumping to conclusions.

A blog (very unreliable to begin with) written by a doctor (medical field) about astrophysics (physical science). That sure does sound reliable and factual. The man didn't even believe in dark matter. And yet you used him as a source? It doesn't matter what he was talking about in the field of astrophysics; he has no business doing so in the first place. Unless he secretly dabbles in astrophysics alongside his busy medical career. Chance of that? Pitiably low.

I never denied that fact (expansion). You are very adept in projecting claims and positions onto other people. I would ask you to stop it and refer to my own posts for proof that I denied the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Shockingly, there are none.

I hate resorting to personal attacks instead of stating facts, so I will go ahead and tell you that based upon what you have said, you are a poor Christian. I have no more time for you.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
GenesisCreationcrossfade102495Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Darris. Votes are to based on the arguments presented. If you don't like an argument but Con didn't bother responding to it or didn't refute it, it's not the voter's place to vote based on how they feel it should have been responded to.
Vote Placed by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
GenesisCreationcrossfade102495Tied
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: Proxy voting for Logic.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
GenesisCreationcrossfade102495Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I'd say that the BOP was shared, thus whoever gave a better case and had more/better arguments wins. In regards to The Big Bang, I'd say Pro won that (I actually believe in a Big Bang, but still). As far as abiogenesis Con entirely failed there. Evolution I'd give Pro a slight edge.
Vote Placed by MikeyMike 5 years ago
MikeyMike
GenesisCreationcrossfade102495Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con continued to challenge the scriptures as being invalid evidence, but he did not actually debunk the scriptures himself. He simply stated that he has done so in his other debates. Also, con danced around some of Pro's assertions, and used a whole lot of words and jargon to give the appearance that he said a whole lot, but he never really debunked anything. Overall, great debate from both parties, but this definitely should have been a 5 round debate.
Vote Placed by darris321 5 years ago
darris321
GenesisCreationcrossfade102495Tied
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: In this theory, matter already exists. It is not created. (Newtonian conservation law is broken) Actually... that's exactly the opposite of newtonian conservation law WHICH only applies on earth to begin with. You clearly don't know your stuff, pro. "Matter is compacted into a singularity without cause." "without cause" and "cause unknown" are different things. Can your creationist mind wrap around the fact that science doesn't pretend to know everything?