The Instigator
TheHistoryProfessor
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
SSGWhit
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Creation vs evolution

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,326 times Debate No: 17545
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

TheHistoryProfessor

Pro

Evolution holds almost no up to date facts in science. I was wondering were you stand as an atheist on this topic.
SSGWhit

Con

First I'd like to thank you for the opportunity and the challenge.
Secondly, I'd like to apologize because there is no direct challenge to debate.

If you are saying that the Scientific Theory of Evolution. One that has withstood 150 years of trying to be falsified is some how debatable. Or does not have sufficient evidence then I'd like to direct you to any large museum in the free world. I would also submit that as a self proclaimed 21 year old history professor that an fence sitting on your part seems ridiculous.

Scientific Theory - comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

Some other Scientific Theory's

Astronomy: Big Bang Theory
Biology: Cell theory — Evolution — Germ theory
Chemistry: Atomic theory — Kinetic theory of gases
Climatology: Climate change theory (due to anthropogenic activity)
Education: Constructivist theory — Critical pedagogy theory — Education theory — Multiple intelligence theory — Progressive education theory
Engineering: Circuit theory Control theory — Signal theory — Systems theory — Information theory
Film: Film Theory
Geology: Plate tectonics
Humanities: Critical theory
Literature: Literary theory

So please be more precise. I can infer with the topic that your question will be along the lines of, but hope not to hear, "How did we come from nothing?" "How do we know radio-active dating is correct?" "Since when, if ever, has mutation created something positive in an organism." If you would like to debate on the Scientific Theory of Evolution then make it specific, understand what the theory poses, and please check this reference.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
TheHistoryProfessor

Pro

First thank you for excepting my challenge. Also thank you for your service I am also in the military.

Evolution has been proved false in many ways over the past 150 years. Science wont except this because it is the only reasonable theory science has. Also museums do not give definitive proof that evolution exist. I am assuming you are talking about fossil records in the museums. Really, museums and science use circular reasoning when dating the fossils. They state that the layers of the earth date the fossils and the fossils date the layers of the earth( Glenco Biology pg. 306-307). Most theories that you described except the ones dealing with evolution can be observed and even tested but to this day you cant test macro evolution or observe it definitively.

Also in Origin of Species Darwin wrote " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could possibly have not been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."

Science found that organism in the cells of different organisms.
SSGWhit

Con

....this is useless unless you point to something comprehensible; specific. You say it has been proved false. Where? Just give me anything to use.

Also Darwin stated that if "any complex 'organ' existed..." not organism. You say there is an organ. What organ?
Debate Round No. 2
TheHistoryProfessor

Pro

Here is some information you can use. Take a look at doctor Robert Gentry's work with polonium isotopes found in granite rock. Doctor Robert Gentry found polonium isotopes in the basement layers of granite rock all over the world. polonium isotopes only last for a few minuets before breaking down. If evolution is correct and the earth started as molten rock and slowly cooled, then these polonium isotopes could not have been found in granite rock to date.

Also the cells found in our bodies have organelles which act as the cells organs. Cells are made up of hundreds of these organelles, which without even one, the cell could not function(irreducible complexity).

Definition of organelles: specific subunit within a cell that has a specific function, and is usually separately enclosed within its own lipid bilayer.

Organ: Confined functional unit within an organism

My cell information comes from research done by Biochemist Michael Behe and his arguments for "irreducible complexity". Also Dr. Robert Gentry and his discovery of polonium in granite rocks.

www.infidels.org
www.halos.com
SSGWhit

Con

There are literally a hand full of young earth creationist or just plain creationist in this world that hold doctorates. You postulate that the opinions of two are evidence? Michael Behe I knew about and have seen many of his horribly put together arguments and misconstrued view of Darwinistic Evolution. I would like to state that this does not dismiss their claims. Although I know it does influence it. The polonium you speak of requires quite an understanding of geology, radiation physics, and minerology. I am not adept at these.

You need to present peer reviewed articles that have been tested independently. Thankfully Gentry's work is being peer reviewed and the findings are not good for Gentry nor are they good for Michael Behe in any of the 'evidence' he has set forward. This is because it is just plainly not factually accurate.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by SSGWhit 5 years ago
SSGWhit
I know nothing about disproving creationism. Creationist do that for themselves pretty well already. When the top creationists in the world are looking at a radioactive elements coming out of certain rocks there seems to be a problem with that argument. All you have to do is find one organ that could not have been formed by small incremental steps. I mean...it is not like we are using complex logical equations...it is just elementary science. Thankfully the Theory of Evolution is so simple that it makes it that much more understandable when compared to other scientific theories.

Also...my 'belief' is not mine it is the scientific consensus. The many independent and blind studies in hundreds of labs in the world. The thousands of peer reviewed papers and findings. That's is really why I don't like debating this...because it is as if debating gravity or DNA. It just is....the only difference is that it conflicts with ideas that were founded in the infancy of our species that have been indoctrinated into children and thus made law by adults. It is sad really....because the splendor of know the length at which life has survived and adapted pales in comparison with a magical sky daddy that zapped things into existence.
Posted by TheHistoryProfessor 5 years ago
TheHistoryProfessor
Funny how evolutionist can know everything about disproving creationist but can never support there beliefs using scientific facts.
Posted by JohnJohnSHTOOKAH 5 years ago
JohnJohnSHTOOKAH
I can't vote yet but If I could I would sooooooo vote bomb...
Posted by SSGWhit 5 years ago
SSGWhit
You're tellin me.
Posted by jc496 5 years ago
jc496
Somewhat disappointing... this debate should have been more fruitful
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
TheHistoryProfessorSSGWhitTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't try to make a case, but only offered opinions and occasionally suggested reading so that someone else might make a case. While Con clearly won, he could have done a better job of citing the vast scientific evidence.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
TheHistoryProfessorSSGWhitTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: The only point that SSFWhit earns is conduct...Pro did not create a good resolution--failing to be SPECIFIC on the matter of the evolutionary theory and then expected his opponent to respond "adequately"....Otherwise, Pro could have been castigated for the severe misunderstandings of the evolutionary theory in his work, but Con did little to indicate so...
Vote Placed by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
TheHistoryProfessorSSGWhitTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Izbo's vote bomb.
Vote Placed by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
TheHistoryProfessorSSGWhitTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ignorant christians are ignorant, take your head out of your a$$ and throw the bible away.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
TheHistoryProfessorSSGWhitTied
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: Pro's resolution and R1 is little better than gibberish. Pro fails to establish the BoP, fails to address Con's arguments and attempts to change the subject.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
TheHistoryProfessorSSGWhitTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This really wasn't a debate. Tried to give points to somebody but neither participent made an effort to affirm or negate the resolution.
Vote Placed by CGBSpender 5 years ago
CGBSpender
TheHistoryProfessorSSGWhitTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to define what exactly he was trying to prove. Very little was set in stone (pun totally intended). Assuming the BOP is on him Con won. Con should have tried harder to define the debate though.