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

Creation vs Evolution: Origin of Life and Modern Man.

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
xDante 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: 3/28/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 687 times Debate No: 101465
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (0)

 

debater12332

Pro

I will be arguing that everything was created by the Judeo-Christian God about 7,000 years ago.

Con will be arguing for the theory of evolution and for the origin of life without God.

The burden of proof is on both Pro and Con. Whoever can make the most logical and scientific argument will win.

Definitions:

Micro-Evolution: evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.

Theory of Evolution: 'The theory has two main points, said Brian Richmond, curator of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. "All life on Earth is connected and related to each other," and this diversity of life is a product of "modifications of populations by natural selection, where some traits were favored in and environment over others," he said.' [1]

Sources:
[1]http://www.livescience.com...
xDante

Con

I have found NUMEROUS articles and scientific study that our evolution of man, homo sapien, has been around for around 200,000 years.

Scientific fact has completely botched your first argument that, "everything was created by the Judeo-Christian God about 7,000 years ago".

In conclusion, I have already defeated PRO's argument that he said he will be debating.

http://www.npr.org...
www.universetoday.com/38125/how-long-have-humans-been-on-earth/
https://en.wikipedia.org...


www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13874671

www.earthmagazine.org/.../comment-how-long-have-humans-been-altering-earths-cli...


Debate Round No. 1
debater12332

Pro

First off I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate.

Con said "I have found NUMEROUS articles and scientific study that our evolution of man, homo sapien, has been around for around 200,000 years."

You can believe that all you want, but just because you write it down doesn't make it true. When I debate someone it's usually nice to get more than a few sentences as clarification or "proof", but if this is all you can say about the theory of evolution then this won"t be a very hard debate.

You said "Scientific fact has completely botched your first argument that, "everything was created by the Judeo-Christian God about 7,000 years ago."" Says who? Are you going to expound on this sentence a little?

"In conclusion, I have already defeated PRO's argument that he said he will be debating." Really? I think you're wrong. In fact, evolution is just a fairy tale.
http://thetruthwins.com...

Do you see the problem with your logic? Writing a sentence and putting a link under it is not debating. If I just wanted to read wikipedia or bbc I wouldn't be debating you right now.

Even though you basically just wrote down a bunch of links as your argument, I still read them and this is what I found. The npr.org article was basically a timeline. It had no proof and didn"t even say how they dated these ancient humans. The Universetoday.com link again was just a timeline and it actually seemed to talk more about pollution and walking on the moon than about 200,000 year old humans.

If you're going to provide links as evidence can you please at least read the full article. Next up we have the bbc.com link. Again it was just a timeline with zero proof. The article literally had the words "recent findings" and "fossil record" but that was as scientific as it got. No proof or explanation as to how they made up the idea of ancient humans. The earthmagizine.org link did not work.

Lastly we have the wikipedia link which was sadly the most in depth and scientific of all the links Con gave me. I"m going to be honest though and say that I did not want to read that whole page and check all 231 sources, did you? So if Con has a point please narrow it down and don't just send me a link, otherwise the next thing I know we may just be sending each other books to read instead of actually having a debate.

Now that I got that out of the way I would like to explain why I am right, and why my belief is the most logical of the two. The fact is that there are only two ways two look at the universe. Either it was brought into existence by a creator or it just happened. Both ideas are hard to believe and almost harder to imagine, but one of these is right.

Scientists say that God isn't part of science because you can"t test him, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. By that logic the big bang can't have happened because we can't see it, we can't recreate it, we can't go back in time and test it, and it defies the laws of physics.

Here are the biggest problems with Con's argument. Macroevolution has never been observed, and is not possible. If macroevolution is not possible then the theory of evolution has already lost, so I challenge Con to give me at least one example of macroevolution.

The second and biggest problem is that Con has to argue for the existence of life without God. This has never been observed. Life cannot come from non-life. I challenge Con to give me just one example of life coming from non-life.

Now as you would expect if the Bible was correct science would show a young earth. And it does. The moon is estimated to be 4.53 million years old and 238,900 miles away from earth. The moon moves away from the earth every year. If the moon were more than 1.5 billion years old it would have to have been touching the earth. Even if the moon did not recede this fast as most all evolutionists claim, the tides caused by the moon would cause many problems for all life on earth. [1]

Then there are the comets. If our galaxy was as old as evolutionists say it is, we shouldn't have comets. The lifespan of a comet is only a few thousand years, any longer and it melts. How does our solar system have comets if evolutionists claim it's 4.6 million years old? [2]

We also find evidence for a flood such as seashells at the top of Mount Everest and many other mountains. Things like these collaborate the Genesis account and provide evidence for the theory of a young earth. [3]

In conclusion I think the creationism is the most logical and scientific explanation of the world today. Thank you.

[1]https://answersingenesis.org...
[2]http://creation.com...
[3]http://www.creationscience.com...
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
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Spud 9 months ago
Spud
@debater12332 Ok, let me explain this slowly. This debate is supposed to be about evolutrion for the main part, and you're going into all sorts of irrelevant fields of science.

Setting up a debate in which you initially show you want to debate mainly evolution, then going into astrophysics and cosmogony *is dishonest.* If your opponent goes into a debate, thinking that they are going to be debating biology, and then you switch between various different fields, which have nothing to do with evolution, that is dishonest.
Posted by debater12332 9 months ago
debater12332
@Spud what is was dishonest about my opening? How can I be dishonest when I'm the one who made the rules and Con agreed to them?
Posted by Spud 9 months ago
Spud
@debater12332 Oh, yes, because you made your opening as vacuous as possible, that excuses you does it? What an absolutely dishonest way to go about it.
Posted by kylet357 9 months ago
kylet357
I have updated the debate, adding another stipulation. Please read it and we can discuss any concerns in the comment section. I also realize that a few updates to it (grammar fixes for clarity) may have sent you additional emails, which I apologize for.
Posted by kylet357 9 months ago
kylet357
Hello Debater12332,

I have written a followup debate to this one that I will publish immediately after I write this comment. Please read it over and accept it if you find it agreeable to do so.

Thank you.
Posted by kylet357 9 months ago
kylet357
Hello Debater12332,

I have written a followup debate to this one that I will publish immediately after I write this comment. Please read it over and accept it if you find it agreeable to do so.

Thank you.
Posted by debater12332 9 months ago
debater12332
@Spud I specifically said what this debate was going to be about and Con agreed to debate me. I know that evolutionists don't like to debate origins because they don't have any good answers, but that doesn't make these topics any less important of valid.
Posted by Spud 9 months ago
Spud
This debate was covering too many topics. This debate was supposed to be mainly about evolution, but like every other creatard, Pro brings in cosmogony, geology, astrophysics and just about every other scientific field.
Posted by debater12332 10 months ago
debater12332
@AnthonyR are you just going to make vague accusations or are you going to elaborate? What was so wrong with what I said, and what are you talking about a 'proper debate.'
Posted by AnthonyR 10 months ago
AnthonyR
There is so much wrong with what has been stated by Pro, even with what little had been said. I don't think you're ready for a proper debate.
This debate has 6 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.