The Instigator
kylet357
Con (against)
The Contender
debater12332
Pro (for)

Creation v. Evolution Debate Followup

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
kylet357 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 451 times Debate No: 101672
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

kylet357

Con

This debate is to followup on the debate seen here: http://www.debate.org...

I am following up this debate as I found it extremely lacking. The con of the last debate made poor arguments and provided little to no explanation of his position. I will be doing my best to make this a proper debate. For the sake of simplicity and lack of time on my part as a college student, I will ask that Pro try to accept this debate by Wednesday or Thursday and reply within at least a day for each round. This is so that we may do this debate over the weekend where I have more time and don't have to use my free time at school, and don't end up with a debate that ends because I am unable to reply. I will be accepting the original rules of the debate, as well as giving some more precise definitions and new stipulations.

'Micro-evolution': "Changes in the traits of a group of organisms within a species that do not result in a new species." [1]

'Macro-evolution': "Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new species and broader taxonomic groups." [1]

Speciation: When a population of a species that has become sufficiently distinct from the species it branched from, forming a new species.

New stipulations:
My only rule when it comes to this is that when you're making arguments against Evolution, that you strictly stick to Evolution. I'm not here to debate Cosmology, Astronomy/Astrophysics, or Abiogenesis. I'd rather not go into Geology either but I know we'll have to cover it as some part of this debate will probably touch on the Age of the Earth and Stratigraphy (as well as the various dating methods).

The next stipulation is that you back up your claims using citations that are peer-reviewed or come from relevant, well respected journals. I also don't care about quotes from scientist X about Evolution or Science (their support or opposition to it). Again, your arguments should be relevant and not rely on arguments from authority. I have no problems if you consult or quote an expert in a relevant field (as I definitely will), but quoting or misquoting Sagan, Tyson, and/or Hawkings means as much to me as if you quoted Benedict Cumberbatch as a relevant expert on the life of Alan Turing.

The first round of the debate will simply be an acceptance of the debate, and the pro restating their arguing points and adding any other relevant* arguments.

*In regards to the new stipulation

Notes
I'd recommend that you not post that first article from thetruthwins.com. I understand that you may have posted it out of jest to mock Con's attempt, but the arguments made and the sources cited are poor (e.g. some of the quotes are hugely taken out of context and their citations seem to be misquotes from the ICR that aren't properly sourced/cited).

Citations
1. http://www.nas.edu...;
debater12332

Pro

I accept this debate. Apologies though, I have to skip this round. I was out of town yesterday and was unexpectedly called in to work today and tomorrow so I don't have time to post for Round 1.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kylet357 1 year ago
kylet357
"Sorry no scientist is gonna step up and embarrass themselves"
There are quite a good few who might.

"That's why NO ONE is answering those questions."
These questions have been answered. I answered them, and they've probably been answered before.

"The same question I've had posted for at least a year, still no one answers, they just do what you do, sidestep them or claim we cannot know for a billion years."
I did answer your questions.

Are you just going to keep accusing me of these things, or will you actually show where I was doing them?
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
kylet357
Sorry no scientist is gonna step up and embarrass themselves, because not even THEY can answer those questions either. That's why NO ONE is answering those questions. Haven't you figured it out yet? You don't think those questions would have been answered by now if theyould have. The same question I've had posted for at least a year, still no one answers, they just do what you do, sidestep them or claim we cannot know for a billion years. Please.

Evolution is a dead theory, completely unproven and unproveable. Not even Scientist will touch those questions.
Posted by kylet357 1 year ago
kylet357
"Evolution IS FALSE. You know it"
Apparently I don't.

"Life is sentient idiot. Otherwise it ain't life, cause it doesn't breed, reproduce babies, die and decay."
Death is not a requirement for life. See: biological immortality. And as I had pointed out earlier, sentience isn't a requirement of life either.

"You could be a germ but no one else is"
Okay? I didn't say I was a germ, but okay?

"Or can you put here the sentient life created by abiogenesis either?"
Most likely some sort of 'proto-RNA' or some sort of chemical compound that was able to reproduce itself.

The definition you gave for sentience is correct, and is the same one that I used. My argument still stands.

The definition of Evolution you have is also correct, but seems more generalized and simple. What I said about Evolution is more so how it works, rather than what the word Evolution refers to (i.e. the process vs. the meaning).

And your definition of adaptation also seems to be accurate, and is somewhat a part of what I said. It is, again, a simple definition which is perfectly fine for a layman debate.

"Even then you've got ZERO scientific evidence to prove it!"
I could probably just link you Wikipedia articles and Talk.Origin pages about half the stuff you said, but that's not very good for a debate. If you really want up front, actual scientific evidence, why don't you find someone who is a scientist? I mentioned I was in college, but besides an Anthropology course I took last semester and some personal readings of my own, I'm not looking into science scholastically. My major is Business. Please, feel free to debate someone who has a relevant degree and then get back to me on how it goes. AronRa may be a good place to start if you're looking for someone with some expertise.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
kylet357
Just a courtesy, sense you haven't a clue what sentience, Evolution and Adaptation means:

sen"tient
adjective
able to perceive or feel things.
"she had been instructed from birth in the equality of all sentient life forms"
synonyms:(capable of) feeling, living, live; More

Sooooo, would you like to restate or is being WRONG your final answer?
I would argue that there are a lot of animals that aren't sentient (coral, jellyfish, *some* insects, etc.).

AND since you don't know WHAT evolution is and adaptation. Allow me to correct you.
Evolution;
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Adaptation;
a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment.

"Your comment"
Evolution is the exaggeration of accumulated traits over time, developing the traits that are advantageous to an organism in regards to their environment

Again, would you like to change your response or is WRONG what you want to be?
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
kylet357
What are you going on about. Evolution IS FALSE. You know it, I know it, so what you ranting about?

Life is sentient idiot. Otherwise it ain't life, cause it doesn't breed, reproduce babies, die and decay. And we ARE TALKING about REAL LIFE aren't we?

You could be a germ but no one else is, and only an iggit would put mankind in the same category as diseases, or those who are attempting to propagate a LIE, so which are you, sweet pea.
Or are you like ZakOak, stupid enough to fall for the use of big words you don't understand like abiogenesis, to explain how you hatched. Even then you've got ZERO scientific evidence to prove it! Or can you put here the sentient life created by abiogenesis either? No?

Just runnin your mouth huh genius.? Put facts or shut it! You've must be a child ....
Posted by kylet357 1 year ago
kylet357
1. No scientist has ever created an animal. I don't know what the point you were trying to make here was.
(1a.) 'Evolutionists' is probably a word you should avoid in debate, because it doesn't make any sense.
You don't call people who believe in gravity 'Gravityists' who believe in 'Gravityism'.
2. That's essentially what happened, thought I don't see why the need for sentience is there. I would argue that there are a lot of animals that aren't sentient (coral, jellyfish, *some* insects, etc.). So animals aren't restricted by sentience, and neither is life. The three domains of life, Eukarya, Archaea, and Bacteria, all count as life as we have defined it. There are a few criteria that must be met to be considered life, and they must all be met. If you don't meet even one of them, then you're not alive. The criteria are as follows:
- metabolize organic matter into energy and waste
- be composed of cells, the basic unit of life
- develop and grow
- respond to stimuli
- reproduce
- adapt, change over time in response to the environment
- maintain homeostasis, an internal chemical balance
There is still some debate within the scientific community about this, because of the existence of Viruses (who don't meet 4 of the 7 criteria listed).
3. Again, no scientist has created another living thing. And again, I don't know what the point you're trying to make is.
4. Humans, wolves, whales, and others. The examples you gave are crap because you wouldn't expect an animal to evolve into something dramatically different (much less evolve into something that already exists). Evolution is the exaggeration of accumulated traits over time, developing the traits that are advantageous to an organism in regards to their environment. Simple as that.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Evolution is false. Which is why these questions remain unanswered;
1. Name the sentient animal created by evolutionists during experimentation:

Answer #1 here:__________________________________.

2: Must have EVOLVED from microbe to a sentient living air breathing, crawling, walking, flying ,egg producing, reproductive animal :

Answer #2 here:__________________________________.

.... because Sentient creatures ARE the recognized Life on earth. Otherwise it's a bacteria, and while they may be a form of life, not a single example of one ever becoming a creature sentient OR otherwise exists in the History of Science.

Medical Definition of Microbe
Microbe: A minute organism typically visible under a microscope. Microbes include bacteria, fungi, and protozoan parasites.

Not excuses please.

3. Name the scientist and the experiment that SUCCESSFULLY produced that specific sentient Life form.

Answer #3 here:__________________________________.

4. Name a single animal that changed from one species to a completely different species in history that IS 100% proveable!

Answer #4 here:__________________________________.

Like dog to fish, bird to lizard, elephant to flea, ape to Man, pig to dog, must be 100% factual OR it CANNOT BE CALLED TRUE as defined by dictionary.
Posted by debater12332 1 year ago
debater12332
No problem I've actually been out of town and am working more than I thought so I couldn't finish it either.
Posted by kylet357 1 year ago
kylet357
If the Pro would like to try this again another time, he's more than free to challenge me. I would prefer that whatever debate we have stick to the guidelines and stipulations I've laid out here but that's not my call if it's not my challenge.
Posted by kylet357 1 year ago
kylet357
Well, I feel like an idiot. I posted this debate to try and get it on the weekend just to end up not having the time to do it on the weekend.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.