The Instigator
HelloKitty
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
steviemarie
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Creation over evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 4 votes the winner is...
steviemarie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,101 times Debate No: 22820
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

HelloKitty

Pro

Many of there therioes we see today...are indeed found in the bible...The Bible states that God created life according to kinds(Genesis 1:24) how God refers to "kinds" agrees with the scientific observations.."THERE ARE HORIZONTAL GENETIC BOUNDARIES BEYOND WHICH LIFE CANNOT VARY"..dogs produce dogs...roses produce roses and so on...WE DON'T SEE ONE "KIND" EVOLVING INTO ANOTHER "KIND" AS EVOLUTION SUPPOSES
why are we no longer evolving or anything in that matter.
SCIENTIST THEMSELVES ARE PROVING EVOLUTION TO BE WRONG.

One of the most devastating critiques of evolution is Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996). Dr. Behe serves as Associate Professor at Lehigh University. He shows conclusively that the complexity of organisms in our world cannot be explained by any theory of evolution. He demonstrates that plants, animals and man were designed. They were planned. Dr. Demski admits that his own work on intelligent design would have been much more difficult without the work of Dr. Behe. If you have a friend who is committed to evolution, you would do him or her a favor by presenting Michael Behe's book to that person. It is not an easy book to read but it is faith-building work.(http://www.gospelhour.net...)

The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: "In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, "Let there be light (energy)." No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.
steviemarie

Con

There is no proof that God exists. If in fact he did exist, he didn't write the bible and the writers of the bible can't know for sure his intentions.

There is however proof of evolution as far as the skeletons of various creatures and minds go.
Debate Round No. 1
HelloKitty

Pro

well there is no SCIENTIFIC PROOF that God does not exist...
it evan states in the bible that Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.

people today find this out...when the bible states these occurrences how many years ago...
wheres your proof?

The bible even talks about fossils
Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).
steviemarie

Con

The bible is not an accurate source of proof and therefore every time you cite the bible your argument is invalid.

Charles Darwin gave light toa theory that can prove evolution is real. Because lower intellegence level animals minds can develop to an extent (i.e., sniffer dog), it's plausible to conclude that the human mind is a highly developed evolution from a lower intellengce animal.

From Darwin's "THe Descent of Man" (1871) "man is constructed on the same general type or model as other mammals. All the bones in his skeleton can be compared with corrsponding bones in a monkey, bat, or seal." All of these animals were on earth before humans. Humans didn't pop up out of no where (i.e., Adam and Eve) and had to have evolved from something already on earth.
Debate Round No. 2
HelloKitty

Pro

exactly...they had to evolve from something on earth..Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.
like it states in Genesis..Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19).

its only invalid because you know nothing of it.

Where are the transitional bones... reality is that if evolution was true there would be millions upon millions of very clear transitional fossils. but there aren't

furthermore nothing is evolving.. the way evolution supposes theirs no evolving we see today "of new kinds"
steviemarie

Con

I know plently pieces of usless information the bible claims. It's worth nothing and not a proper source considering the "god" of the religion didn't even write it.

Points of proof:
"1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.

2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.

4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other."

http://www.evolutionfaq.com...
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
"@phantom Proof is required for non-belief in nearly all cases. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Yes I knew someone was going to notice that. Truth is, I didn't really mean it in that way. But in this case it's rellevant. The burden of proof is on the theist not the atheist.
Posted by HelloKitty 5 years ago
HelloKitty
i messed up the debate was to short..only 3 rounds lol
Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews – which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.
Posted by stubs 5 years ago
stubs
@phantom Proof is required for non-belief in nearly all cases. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Posted by stubs 5 years ago
stubs
Pro should have mentioned that in Darwins book Origin of Species he believed there to be a creator. Would have helped pro's case a little bit
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Pro -> "well there is no SCIENTIFIC PROOF that God does not exist..." Fallacy. Proof is not required for non-belief.
Con -> "The bible is not an accurate source of proof and therefore every time you cite the bible your argument is invalid." Also fallacious. Pro was using quotes of the Bible that he argued corresponded with science. Therefore using the Bible was acceptable.

Each participant needs to tone up their how debate skills, but cons evidence was better presented than pros, thus con win. Con also needs to get a spell check.

Suggestions to both debaters,

Pro

Make more effort into being convincing. Be more detailed and more organised.

Con:

You didn't seem to respect your opponents beliefs very much. Voters won't be inclined to vote for you if you conduct yourself that way. Try to be more organised in both refuting pro and proving evolution. Make it two separate things instead of all jumbled together.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Paradox_7 5 years ago
Paradox_7
HelloKittysteviemarieTied
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: the bible is a source. Whether u agree or not. Evolution has no evidence
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
HelloKittysteviemarieTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: comments
Vote Placed by WriterDave 5 years ago
WriterDave
HelloKittysteviemarieTied
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: Creation depends on the existence of God. Pro did not establish that God exists; he did not even TRY to do so, other than providing a few passages from scripture that can be taken either as poetry or (in you look at it sideways and squint) as science. Other
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
HelloKittysteviemarieTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro pretty much argued using the Bible, which isn't a good way to argue for religion in any way whatsoever. Con never really brought up any good arguments until the last round. Con gets 1 for arguments and 1 for S