All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

# Creation is more probable then Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Enji
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 5/2/2013 Category: Philosophy Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 1,115 times Debate No: 33208
Debate Rounds (5)

 Pro Im saying Creation is more probable then Evolution. Opponent may use any facts, whether its scientific, or even just some sort of common sence. opponent may start right away.Report this Argument Con Evolution is a Markov ProcessOrganisms' traits are encoded in DNA which consists of long strings of four different nucleotides (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thyamine), and the sequence of these nucleotides determines the traits an organism exhibits. [1]When an organism reproduces its DNA is replicated and passed to its offspring (there are some differences between sexual and asexual reproduction, but these aren't particularly relevant). However, the process of DNA replication is not always exact; random mutations occur changing the sequence of nucleobases, and these changes are inherited by offspring independent of previous ancestor's DNA. Evolution, then, can be modelled mathematically as a Markov process. [2]Bayesian Inference of PhylogenyBayes' theorem states that Pr(T|D) = Pr(D|T) x Pr(T) / Pr(D)The probability of each individual tree is a priori considered to be equal. Using Markov processes to determine the probability of the data given a tree allows the posterior probabilities of different trees (ie, the probability that a tree is correct given the empirical data) to be determined. By calculating the p-value, performing bootstraping and jackknifing tests, finding the consistency index, and comparing the congruency of independently created trees, a correct tree can be determined with statistical certainty. [3][4]Evolution is more probable than CreationismComparing the likelihoods of different hypotheses, the probability of universal common ancestry can be compared to other hypotheses. As Douglas Theobald shows in "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry", evolution from a universal common ancestor is at least 102860 more likely than the closest competing hypothesis. Thus, Evolution is more probable than Creationism.[3] http://www.sciencemag.org...;[4] http://evolution-textbook.org...;[5] http://www.nature.com...;Report this Argument Pro zezima forfeited this round. Con The correct citation for Theobald's paper is below.[5] http://www.nature.com...Report this Argument Pro 12032-1331323x-3 shows that evolution is impossible. due to the third symmetric law in the congressional form, creation is the most logical answer for how the world got here. scientist found out that rocks are 43029 to the 40 power less than what they thought it was. this means rocks could be anywhere from 3000-6000 years old. take a look at this video and it will explain everything.Report this Argument Con Err.. I accept my opponent's concession?Report this Argument Pro you give up?Report this Argument Con Contrary to my opponent's assertion, 4006001 (= 12032 - 1331323 * -3) does not show that evolution is impossible; it doesn't show much of anything, really.. Nor do fat people dancing for that matter...Additionally, if scientists had found that age of the earth were 4.3 x 1044 times less than the current accepted value (4.6 x 109 years old), the age of the earth would be significantly less than a second old. Certainly, if true, this would be problematic for evolution; but this would also be problematic for any scientists who reached this conclusion as they would not have existed to perform the tests they performed, much less publish these results so that my opponent could use them to support his non-existent case. Hence, I accept my opponent's concession: vote Con.Report this Argument Pro all you did was sat "scientist say this, so it must be true." scientist can be wrong. they are human beings. I put up a video that shows the outcome of your theory.Report this Argument Con I have argued that evolution can be modeled with Markov chains and Markov processes which allows statistical analysis of phylogenetic inference, and that such analysis shows that evolution is more probable than Creationism. My oppenent hasn't done much of anything. Thus, the resolution is negated.Report this Argument
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
With sources limited to the bible, that is no contention other than the year count of the universe existing.
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Ragner, I believe in old earth no evolution. God created man 6 thousand years ago. Want to debate that just using the Bible?
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Christian creationism of literally 24 hours by our measurement of time?

Also Christian here, but I believe in slow evolution as the means. In biology class the math of random evolution is so mind boggling, that IMO it takes a bigger leap of faith to support it without outside intervention, than to say it happened with outside factors.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.