The Instigator
SHAWN56
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
IceHawk2009
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Creation vs evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
IceHawk2009
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 486 times Debate No: 46828
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

SHAWN56

Pro

im for creation and i believe it makes more since than evolution if you believe in evolution may i ask you a question okay here it goes if you believe that men came from monkeys who created the monkeys and those who say if god created everything at the same time doesnt that mean men lived among dinosaures no because after god made the earth and the plants and grass he made dinosaures and then he made the things like birds and lions and so on along with adam and eve.im looking for some one to debate this topic
IceHawk2009

Con

I accept your debate and I will let you post your first argument. Personally I believe God created the first celled organism and every thing came from that.
Debate Round No. 1
SHAWN56

Pro

Time and space have no end or beginning therefore its an always constant and the human mind cannot conceive it
IceHawk2009

Con

I hope you don’t mind but I wan evolved in this same debate a while back so I am just reusing my arguments from there.

Disproving the Yung Earth.

Most Young Earth Creationist argue that the earth and universe is only 6,000-10,000 years old. If this were true how can we see stars that are further than 6,000-10,000 light years away? The farthest star away that we can see is around 13 billion light years away[1]. As we know a light year is a measurement of distance, not time. A light year is the distance light can travel in one year[2]. Knowing this how can it be possible that Earth is less than 13 billion years old?

A second argument against a young earth is the Quaking Aspen colony in Fish Lake National Forest in Utah[3]. This tree colony is the oldest living thing on the planet. Each individual tree is 200 years old; however the root system is 80,000 years old[4]. If the Earth was only 10,000 years old how can this tree have a root system of 80,000 years old?

A third argument would be humans. The oldest human fossil found is about 160,000 years old[5]. On top of that the oldest evidence of civilization goes back 80,000 years in Africa[6]. We know that humans were around 160,00 years ago and the first civilization came into existence 80,000 years ago would disprove that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Fourth and final argument to disprove that we live on a young earth is that the radioactive dating of meteorites date the planet to be about 4.5 billion years. Yes it is true that we can not directly measure core samples of the Earth, but we know that the Earth formed at the same time as the rest of the Solar System[7]. Knowing this we can radioactive date meteorites that have struck the earth and that works out to be about 4.5 billion years[8].

Proving Evolution

The first argument for evolution is DNA. Every living thing on the planet is composed of cells and those cells contain DNA[9]. This would strongly suggest that we came from a single source. DNA can be used to see how two different species are related to each other[10]. Just about all organisms use the same nucleic acid to make up there DNA which would suggest the existence of a single ancestor[11].

The Next argument for evolution is the fossil record. The fossil record shows us that the fossilized remains of simplistic organisms are in the oldest rock layers, and as you move in to the newer rock layers you can see a gradual change in to more complex organisms[12].

Third argument for evolution is the existence of drug resistant organisms such as MRSA. MRSA evolved from S. aureus threw natural selection to be resistant to many different drugs[13].

The fact that the idea of a young Earth is completely disproved by science and that fact that DNA, the fossil record, and the fact that we can observe evolution proves that Evolution is a better explanation for the origins of modern day species.

Debate Round No. 2
SHAWN56

Pro

SHAWN56 forfeited this round.
IceHawk2009

Con

Nothing to add until my opponent posts his first argument.
Debate Round No. 3
SHAWN56

Pro

SHAWN56 forfeited this round.
IceHawk2009

Con

Did my opponent give up? Nothing to add at this point.
Debate Round No. 4
SHAWN56

Pro

SHAWN56 forfeited this round.
IceHawk2009

Con

IceHawk2009 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mapleman033 2 years ago
mapleman033
Pro, I am going to make the wild assumption based on your writing and spelling habits that you are set to enter high school.
Posted by eRice 2 years ago
eRice
Dear Pro:

Please at least TRY to use decent grammar.

Hate,
eRice
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Pro had better use the spell checker, though that won't help him with the 'since' instead of sense error, it is just the wrong word, so it pays to revise your argument before cementing it and the mistakes for all to see and lose points on.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JMCika 2 years ago
JMCika
SHAWN56IceHawk2009Tied
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: I do not understand how any one could have voted for PRO. He posted one argument and that wasnt even very good.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
SHAWN56IceHawk2009Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments went entirely uncontested. Some of the sources were dodgy, such as WikiAnswers links, but overall, the sources were pretty good and helped the argument along. Conduct to Pro for Con's forfeits.