The Instigator
MrButtons22
Con (against)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
sherlockmethod
Pro (for)
Winning
73 Points

Creation vs. Evolution: is Evolution Science?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,584 times Debate No: 8846
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (17)

 

MrButtons22

Con

Many evolutionists believe that, while evolution is a proven fact, creationism is merely religion dressed up as science. My personal opinion is that neither is science: both require faith to believe. I happen to believe that God created the universe in six literal days, that there was a worldwide Flood that destroyed the ancient world (there are over 200 flood legends that are extremely similar to the one in the Bible.), and that God still watches over us today. In short, I believe "In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the earth." This is obviously not science. Atheistic Evolutionists believe that a small dot (singularity) contained all of the matter in the universe (some believe that the dot contained time and space as well.). That dot suddenly grew hot, started spinning, then exploded. This is called the Big Bang. They all believe in abiogenesis, which is life arising from non-life, and believe that major changes took place slowly over millions of years, creating eventually all of the lifeforms we see today. As for the matter, and where it all came from, some scientists have speculated that that "singularity" arose from absolutely "nothing". In short, Evolutionists believe "In the beginning there was nothing, and it exploded." So: is evolution science? What evidence do we have to support it? Is this an accurate description of evolution and the Big Bang theory?Remember: I do not claim that Creationism is science, even though I believe it.
sherlockmethod

Pro

I will grant my opponent some latitude as he is new to the site; I will not simply attack the semantics of the resolution. Evolution is a fact, as the word is a description of change over time. Even Creationists accept the concept of change over time. My opponent's position suggests he want to address three scientific principles:
1. The Big Bang Theory
2. Abiogenesis
3. The Theory of Evolution
He is of the position that all three are unscientific. He gives some arguments concerning the Big Bang, but nothing on the other two, so I will address the Big Bang more thoroughly in this round and await specifics on the others.

1.My opponent stipulates that his belief in a 6 day creation and the Noaic Flood is not science. I wholeheartedly agree, so I see no need to address this matter unless my opponent insists. Nor will I address his multiple flood stories as this is an attempt to support his non scientific position on the creation of the universe, earth, and all things in between. So long as my opponent does not bring these matters up again, I will only address only the resolution.
2."Atheistic Evolutionists" I ask my opponent to please define this term. The resolution concerns three scientific principles, none of which address a deity. Science takes no stand on the existence of supernatural entities.

Before I correctly define all three terms, we need to be clear on science. Science deals in general, not absolute, truths. Science is also changing as new information becomes available, dogma has no place here. Dr. Verne Grant conveyed this thought well in his seminal work, "The Origin of Adaptations": "No one wishing to find absolutely certain answers to his questions about the world should be seeking them within the open-minded framework of science in the first place. The person in quest of certainty and finality should consider one of the numerous authoritarian dogmas available�€�" [1] at 38.

One of the key points we need to address and one that science deniers earmark for their rebuttals is the issue of faith compared with logical inferences. No scientific theory can withstand the scrutiny of peer review if any portion of the theory requires a faith based position. A theory in science is only as good as the experimental and observational evidence that backs it up. Great theories do more than incorporate already known facts, they make predictions about phenomena that haven't been seen before, and inferences, no matter how elegant, will fail unless their predictive value can withstand falsifiable data. [2]
Two of the points my opponent has contentions with, the Big Bang, and the Theory of Evolution have withstood all these tests. The third, Abiogenesis, is a field of study with, as of yet, no one encompassing theory to define it, but this fact does not make it any less scientific than the two theories mentioned.

THE BIG BANG
My opponent mimics some Kent Hovind [3] classics in his rhetorical straw man description of the Big Bang. To my knowledge no serious physicist claims nothing starting spinning and exploded. In addition, I am not familiar with work suggesting the Big Bang was a collection of matter, in a singularity, within space/time. All the work I have encountered from Hubble, Einstein, Lamaitre, and Hawking does not reflect this idea. I ask my opponent to source it.
The Big Bang states "The universe began in a hot, dense state about 15 billion years ago and has been expanding and cooling ever since." [2] at 41. More specifically, this hot, dense state is the singularity. (This is rough, but space issues do not allow for much more). This theory is supported by observations and scientific laws: Hubble's Law, Einstein's theory of relativity, life cycles of stars, Sub Atomic Theory, Period-Luminosity Relation, Theory of Elementary Particles and the Inflationary Universe. In addition to incorporating confirmed laws backed with tested mathematics, The Big Bang predicted remnants of the event should be found everywhere, and these remnants were discovered in the 1960's in the form of the cosmic microwave background [4] [2] No other theory can explain the expanding universe and the cosmic microwave background. The Big Bang can be falsified if the universe can be shown to be in a steady state. Faith is not required; the Big Bang fits all criteria for science.

ABIOGENESIS
This is the subject of many attacks on the theory of evolution as the field does not have a robust theory. Creationists commonly equate abiogenesis with evolution so as to cast doubt on evidence supporting the conclusion that all life originated from one parent population (LUCA). Abiogensis is the study of the origins of life and to my knowledge, no one theory of abiogenesis has widespread acceptance in the scientific community. My goal here is to show the study of life's origins is scientific, and from all accounts, it is. The difference between living and non living forms is easy when comparing a rock and a human, but the line becomes elusive when dealing with viruses and early bacteria. [1] chapter 1, generally. I am not sure how my opponent wishes to attack this premise, so I ask for my opponent to define the distinct line between life and non life and tell me which side a virus sits on. Here is a wiki to help. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The study of abiogenesis uses experiments, does not rely on supernatural causes, extrapolates data to form hypotheses, and tests those hypotheses. I find this to be consistent with scientific study. Much is still not known, but so what? I am not concerned with what my opponent thinks "atheistic evolutionists" believe. I am looking at the science, and I can find no information suggesting the study of life's origin using the above methods, is not scientific. If my opponent has information suggesting otherwise, I wish to see it. I can address this more when I see how my opponent wishes to confront the topic.

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
"The fact that evolution has taken place is no longer questioned by serious scientists." [2] at 151. I agree emphatically. My opponent described evolution as encompassing the Big Bang Theory and Abiogenesis, which is a common creationist tactic. I agree with talk.orgins concerning D. Futumaya's definition of evolution. [5] This is as solid a definition as I can find on the internet. I ask my opponent to read this full definition and point to the specific area he wishes to show is faith based; I do not have room here to rebut all the nonsensical assertions presented by creationists and creationist/ID proponents.

My opponent specifically addressed the Big Bang Theory and I showed how the theory fits well within scientific boundaries. I await his specifics on the other two in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
MrButtons22

Con

First off, I would like to thank you for taking on this debate.

If you will excuse my semantics; I have been debating this very subject on YouTube for the past few weeks. This is not a site known for its civility in arguments, where "Ur a @#$%*&! Moron!" is considered a clever rebuttal. And while I do not use personal attacks to deliver my opinions, I have used sarcasm and other such tactics in past arguments. I will refrain from them in this discussion. Civility in debates is the main reason for my joining this site.

I have looked over your comments, and have found several points that I would like to address. The first point I am concerned with is found within the following quote: "Even Creationists accept the concept of change over time." Yes, this is true. My problem with this is that you insist on using the obvious, observable changes within species (species as defined on dictionary.com; the biological definition) as evidence for evolution between major genus. This would be similar to me stating as a fact that a cow and Golden Retriever can interbreed, since a Golden Retriever and a German Shepherd can (assuming that, for some reason, I cannot test this; remember that few, if any, analogies are perfect.)

You are correct in assuming that I do not wish to discuss the scientific merits of Creationism, as the very definition of God puts him outside the realm of science.

Atheistic Evolutionist: a believer of evolution that attempts to fit an intelligent force (most commonly the Judeo-Christian God) into the theory. My reasoning for bringing this up is simple: I do not wish to have these people debate me on this topic, as they take the "easy road" of saying "because God did it" to answer any scientific questions poised at them.

There is another point you made that I would like to address: "No scientific theory can withstand the scrutiny of peer review if any portion of the theory requires a faith-based position. A theory in science is only as good as the... evidence that backs it up (emphasis on portion)." Are you certain that you want to stick by this statement?

My definition of the "Big Bang" is consistent with the statements of one of the originators of the theory, Georges Lemaitre. According to pbs.org, "LeMaitre put forth the idea that there was once a primordial atom which had contained all the matter in the universe." This is a more scientific way of saying "small dot" (my words). [http://www.pbs.org...] Another point I made was that this atom exploded. This would seem to be evident in the theory's name: the Big Bang. I do not know how far your beliefs in this differ from those of Lemaitre.

Concerning the origin of matter; I will be willing to ignore this topic, as it cannot be explained scientifically. Science deals with what exists in the natural realm, and the natural realm cannot create itself (see the 1st Law of Thermodynamics). Only a supernatural force (a force outside of nature) can create the matter, so this point of argument would be useless to discuss.

Concerning the "Big Bang" itself; there are many questions that have not been answered concerning it as a legitimate scientific theory. When a theory in science has too many questions unanswered, it must be revised or thrown away entirely. This is regardless of whether or not a "better" theory exists. When a theory is "full of holes", it must be fixed. One question is how and why all of this energy and matter came into the singularity after the point of creation. Why did it start to expand? The observed red shift in galaxies, stars, quasars, etc. is the hardest evidence for the "Big Bang" Theory, yet there is a large assumption made here: that the red shift indicates the objects are moving away from us. There is a good book on the subject, written by an evolutionist, called Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, by Halton Arp. A good article to read on the subject is found in the following link. [http://www.answersingenesis.org...]. In this article, Edwin Hubble is quoted as stating that he, "... always held open the possibility that the red shift did not mean velocity of recession but might be caused by something else." This is the only evidence I know of concerning the "Big Bang", making the theory unfounded (as far as I know) should the red shift theory be found false. Please state other evidence for it.

For reasons of space limitation and order, I will not discuss your rebuttals regarding abiogenesis and the theory of evolution, as I feel the matter concerning the "Big Bang" has not been resolved yet. Please remind me of your specific questions when these subjects are more thoroughly discussed later.
sherlockmethod

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response and having read his R2 argument, I still maintain the Pro position.

Definitions:
Atheistic evolutionist – my opponent did not define this properly as he misread the term and gave the definition for a theistic evolutionist. I still ask what an evolutionist is in the first place and why the word "atheistic" is necessary. Science does not address supernatural deities.

The Big Bang – my opponent insists his straw man definition is sufficient. I disagree and leave this issue to the voters. I will address his support, however, for this definition below.

The issue with semantics was simply a friendly reminder. The word evolution has meaning outside of biology and was used prior to the theory of evolution. The resolution would allow Pro to simply define evolution as change over time and be done with it. Many debaters take debates with vaguely written resolutions and battle semantics. I did not do that so the issue is moot. My opponent did mention the theory of evolution briefly so I will address these points.

My opponent writes, "'No scientific theory can withstand the scrutiny of peer review if any portion of the theory requires a faith-based position. A theory in science is only as good as the... evidence that backs it up (emphasis on portion).' Are you certain that you want to stick by this statement?"

Of course I do. Science does not rely on faith.

Rebutting my opponent's definition support:
Con insists the Big Bang is defined as nothing started spinning and exploded to create everything. He enlists the aid of LaMaitre to support his claim. LaMaitre was a Jesuit priest and the Vatican's top astronomer. He reasoned with Hubble and Einstein that a cosmological constant was not needed if the universe was expanding as the expansion would negate gravitational pull, which solved a problem for Newton and consequently Einstein, his math was dead on and Einstein abandoned Newton's steady state universe and the cosmological constant. The resulting hypothesis was gathered by rolling the film backwards, i.e. if the universe is expanding then it is bigger today than yesterday and going farther back it must have been compacted into one point (all the equations and laws I listed in RD 1 confirm this hypothesis). For LaMaitre, this was the point of creation. He called this point the primordial atom, but LaMaitre really didn't know what the point was and the point does not fit the definition of an atom. Because LaMaitre wanted the primordial atom to be the point of creation, he had to mean the atom was space/time and all matter as he viewed the point as THE creation event. Only God could have been present before, not space/time. I conclude LaMatre did not present the primordial atom as existing within space/time. I do not know a physicist that does hold this position. Also, no where in his work does he say "nothing" was spinning. [1]
The explosion is fine so long as my opponent understands the explosion was an expansion of space/time. The name Big Bang was a punch in the arm to Fred Hoyle. He held to the steady state hypothesis of the universe and quipped that if this event, this big bang, happened then where is the fossil of this massive event. The name stuck, more as a joke on him than being the best descriptive term available. Hoyle was great scientist, but he would not let go of the steady state universe, so science, as it will do, left Hoyle behind. Dogmatism, as stated earlier, has no place here. [1]

The Red Shift:
My opponent's next attempt at showing the Big Bang to be non-scientific concerns one line of evidence: Hubble's red shift. I do not agree this phenomenon is the best evidence for the Big Bang; the best evidence is the fusing of many cosmological events supported by the mathematics of Hubble's Law and the Theory of Relativity. Even if the red shift has an alternate explanation as presented by Ken Ham and the AIG researchers, this does not prevent the Big Bang Theory from being scientific. The article my opponent links is a review of a book, not the book itself, and the review attempts to extrapolate enough of the author's work at discrediting the Big Bang Theory all the while maintaining the author did not do a great job at explaining the universe with the Creationists' view. I commonly call this type of biased review as "fighting in a pillowcase". AIG wants to discredit the Big Bang but allow room to criticize the author for not following along with full scale YEC principles.
Arp's data has not stood the test of time. Even in 1989, the notion that red shift did not relate to the expanding universe did not hold water, which is why Arp did not make it through the peer review process. Joseph Silk addressed the red shift in his 1989 revised edition, "The Big Bang". Addressing the points parroted by AIG, Silk explained, "With the continuing discoveries of absorption redshifts in quasars that are associated with intervening galaxies, this position [steady state] seems increasingly difficult to maintain." [2] at 399. As with Arp's work, steady state universe adherents cannot explain the cosmic microwave background. A book review from one of the biggest promoters of YEC, concerning a single scientist who refuses to accept the Big Bang model, whose sole defense is "big science" won't accept his work, is hardly indicative of a legitimate scientific critique of a well founded theory. Arp appears to be little more than the Michael Behe of Cosmology.

The Big Bang does not explain everything:
Correct! It is not intended to explain everything. No theory of science does. The Big Bang model does not explain where the singularity came from, nor if the singularity was from a previous expansion. All known, relevant evidence supports that our universe was in a very hot, dense state about 16 billion years ago. The Big Bang covers these points and nothing more. The Big Bang can account for the conversion of energy into matter, the expanding universe, the microwave background, and the prevalence of light elements in the universe. The holes my opponent has provided are not addressed by the theory, and unanswered questions are simply that, unanswered. Whatever the answers turn out to be, due to the many independent lines of evidence leading us to the singularity, the Big Bang may be modified, but probably not rejected. The current state of the research has me of the opinion that the Big Bang will take the role of Newton's Law of Gravity in accordance with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, once the questions outside of the Big Bang are answered, should an outside exist (physics joke).

The Theory of Evolution:
My opponent has, at this point, only briefly touched this matter. I asked for specifics due to the size of the field but received only a brief statement. So for now, I can only add that species do not jump from genus to genus. Cats do not turn into dogs, or anything else for that matter. Also, interbreeding is not very significant to the theory, either. Evolution does not predict such occurrences, contrary to Creationists' claims. For the final time, I ask what portion of evolutionary theory my opponent feels is faith based? Until I see one, the scientific definition I provided in RD 1 stands, and faith is not required to support the theory as accurately portrayed by D. Futumaya.

Abiogenesis:
With no points of refutation, my RD 1 stands. I see no faith based points here and my opponent did not answer the very difficult question I asked him. Until he does so, I cannot address non existent arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
MrButtons22

Con

Thank you for your timely response.

First off, let me correct the definition I gave to you concerning Atheistic Evolutionist: a proponent of evolution who states that God cannot/does not exist. The reason for bringing this up is still the same.

There are a few places in your last argument where I feel that I have been misrepresented entirely, hopefully by oversight and not due to any other reason:

1) "Con insists the Big Bang is defined as nothing started spinning and exploded to create everything". This is not an accurate description of my position. What I said was this: "Atheistic Evolutionists believe that a small dot (singularity) contained all of the matter in the universe (some believe that the dot contained time and space as well.). That dot suddenly grew hot, started spinning, then exploded. This is called the Big Bang…As for the matter, and where it all came from, some scientists have speculated that that "singularity" arose from absolutely "nothing". In short, Evolutionists believe "In the beginning there was nothing, and it exploded."" If you were to take the simple parody made on Gen. 1:1 as my sole statement on the BB, then I can understand your problem. However, I specifically mentioned that "some" scientists have stated that it came from nothing. Also, I did mention, as can be seen in the above quote, that some believe the singularity contained time and space within it too, showing the model you apparently believe in. The only possible mistakes I made in my description of the BB are: a) the singularity was spinning, b) my stated parody of Gen. 1:1.

2) "The Big Bang does not explain everything", to which you state: "Correct! It is not intended to explain everything. No theory of science does. The Big Bang model does not explain where the singularity came from, nor if the singularity was from a previous expansion." (You will note that I did not ask any of these questions; in fact I specifically stated that I would avoid the first one.) You make this appear as though it is a quote from me, when this is not even an argument that I make. My specific words on this: "Concerning the "Big Bang" itself; there are many questions that have not been answered concerning it as a legitimate scientific theory. When a theory in science has too many questions unanswered, it must be revised or thrown away entirely. (emphasis on too many)" I see nothing in this quote, or in my argument in its entirety, that would allow someone to think that I expect it, or any theory, to answer "everything". There are pointed questions that I asked, all of them having to do with the functions of the BB. I have more questions that I will ask later in this argument.

I have now reached 470 words, few of which were used to further this debate. Thirty-five of those words were used to redefine a term that I had failed to define previously, and six were an introduction. The rest were on correcting your misrepresentation of my views/statements. Please quote me directly from now on, so mistakes such as these will not be made in the future. I do not appreciate having my words taken out of context, whether maliciously or innocently. It is difficult to debate this topic when I am constantly having to correct you on what I said.

Concerning Halton Arp and his evidence against the BB: "A book review…concerning a single scientist who refuses to accept the Big Bang model, whose sole defense is "big science" won't accept his work, is hardly indicative of a legitimate scientific critique of a well founded theory. Arp appears to be little more than the Michael Behe of Cosmology." Arp may very well be the Behe of cosmology…or the Copernicus. Personally, I would question a scientific community that fabricates a photo of the two connected galaxies, NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 [http://www.haltonarp.com...] (NGC, the larger one, is presumably 80 million lightyears away. Mar. is considered to be 1 billion, yet they are shown as connected by a sort of intergalactic "umbilical cord".), in order to "shut down" a theory opposed to their own. The photo was intentionally fuzzed to hide their connection. The following article attempted to refute the evidence of these galaxies being neighbors, without addressing the largest piece of evidence: the arm connecting them [http://www.cosmiclight.com...]. My question to you is this: why would the Space Science Telescope Institute intentionally "fix" a photo in this way?

Concerning the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB): There are problems with the theory of an expanding universe and CMB. One such is that there is no evidence of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in the CMB (think of the SZ effect as a light behind a chair. That light would cast a shadow on the other side of the chair. The light would be the CMB and the chair would be various galaxies). Scientists, upon seeing this, now claim that the edge of the universe consists of "dark matter"; something that they are only claiming exists because of this obvious problem. Of course, the idea that the universe is in a steady state is preposterous, but dark matter is science. [http://www.associatedcontent.com...] Please explain.

Now, concerning abiogenesis and the theory of evolution itself:

Abiogenesis: there is no evidence indicating that life can arise from non-life. The closest thing to "evidence" I have ever heard of is the Miller-Urey Experiment in the 1950's. The problem with that experiment was this: the experiment was in a controlled environment, it did not reflect the theory of the atmospheric make-up of the earth at that point (absolutely no oxygen, as the oxygen would have destroyed the experiment.), and all this did was make amino acids, which are needed to build proteins. Another problem is that they had to "trap" the amino acids, separating them from the tar that was being made as well. [http://www.allaboutthejourney.org...] What evidence is there of abiogenesis? Any at all?

The Theory of Evolution: For one thing, evolution denies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), a law that is evident in everyday life. One problem with the evolutionary tree is the evolution of the dinosaur. Imagine, for example, that it took 50,000,000 years for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird. What would that creature look like? I have asked this question many times to proponents of evolution, and their response every single time is, "like birds". Obviously, this is not an answer, unless you believe in punctuated equilibrium (for your sake, I hope you do not). In greater detail, this chain would have to, at one point, contain a heart half-way evolving from a three-chambered one to a four-chambered one, be too heavy to fly, yet have bones not strong enough to protect itself, have appendages that are somewhere between arms and wings, have a coat of half scale/half feather material covering it, etc.; all of this for 100,000's of years. Please explain how this is possible. The fossil record is not evidence for evolution, as you cannot legitimately claim that a particular fossil even reproduced, let alone what it was that was reproduced. Also, the fossil structures are rarely, if ever, complete, leaving much guesswork on the actual anatomy of the creature (see Nebraska man, a peer reviewed "missing link" of human evolution that was made from one tooth. That tooth, of course, turned out to be that of a pig's).

Also, I never claimed that evolution is the "jumping" of creatures from one genus to another (punctuated equilibrium). Once again, this is a misrepresentation of my statements. I said, "My problem with this is that you insist on using the obvious, observable changes… as evidence for evolution between major genus."
Unless you can show that no portion of these theories require faith (per your definition) I submit that none of them are science, as I have shown
sherlockmethod

Pro

After reviewing my opponent's argument, I still maintain the Pro position and urge a vote for Pro. My opponent proffered new arguments in his last round; I am well within conduct standards by stating refutations in this final round. Non internet sources in comments.

Atheistic Evolutionist – My opponent description of this term puts it outside the scope of this debate. Science does not deal with the existence of a deity; if these atheistic evolutionists wish to use well founded scientific theories to support their position in relation to a deity, they are welcome to do so, but I am only concerned with science, not Gods. I see no need to address this one any further.

My opponent feels his position has been misrepresented. I disagree; my opponent offered only vague support for a straw man definition of the Big Bang and I rebutted the definition. "Some scientists" does not cut it. Any definition I offered is supported by scientists with appropriate source material provided. In addition, my position as Pro requires me to do more than just refute my opponent's points of contention. Upon seeing my opponent mention holes in theories, I posted a topic titled "The Big Bang does not explain everything." Nowhere did I posit that my opponent said this. This topic was presented to show some fallacies when dealing with theories in science and show (by using the laws of gravity in relation to relativity) how modifications work. Furthermore, my opponent made erroneous statements concerning matter and the Big Bang, which I corrected. The fact he did not want to discuss this point does not preclude me from doing so.
I paraphrased appropriately and I am under no obligation to repeat word for word from an argument placed mere inches above mine.
Big Bang:
The scientist my opponent continues to reference has been dealt with and his fake photo has been as well. The material he uses is popular at creationist seminars, but much of Arp's work has been discredited. His attempts to claim fake photos and NASA conspiracies have only hurt his position. Dr. Bridgman deals with these claims and other creationist cosmology.
http://homepage.mac.com...
Dark Matter:
http://home.slac.stanford.edu...
What is unscientific about this, voters?

Abiogenesis.
My opponent finally addresses this point. The line between life and non-life is a fuzzy one. [1] [2] [3] Abiogenesis is a study of this area of the natural world. I do not find anything unscientific about it. As I have stated, no one theory in the field of Abiogenesis has the support of the scientific community. Abiogenesis in not a belief, it is simply a field of inquiry testing hypotheses at this point. The field is young and as with any field of science, peer review materials are being presented. The Urey experiments show that the basic building blocks can be recreated in a lab. The creationist video my opponent linked does not give a good description of the work. Here are some much more accurate descriptions of the work and some new developments. http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://www.nytimes.com...
Science is getting closer
http://www.scripps.edu...
If this process was faith based, work would stop. Who needs data when one has faith?

Because Abiogenesis is a study of the origins of organic matter using peer reviewed materials focusing on natural causes so as to examine hypotheses presented with experimental processes, it is a scientific, not faith based, endeavor. Whatever atheistic evolutionists do with this material is irrelevant to science. The evidence science has from the Urey type experiments, the observation that life was not present at some time, the fossil indications showing ancient bacteria to be one of the earliest forms of life, leads us down a path of inquiry concerning the chemical processes taking place on this planet in the ancient past. Logic suggests this is the best path to take in the study of life's beginning. Faith is not required.

Evolution.
My opponent presents the argument that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I thought this one fell out of use. Please note, my opponent did not define the law, entropy, or what he considers is seen in everyday life. The second law of thermodynamics is a scientific law affirming three very clear observations:
1.Heat does not flow spontaneously from cold to hot objects
2.It is impossible for an engine to convert heat to work with 100% efficiency
3.The entropy of a CLOSED (emphasis mine) system cannot decrease. [4]
Earth is not, is not, and is not a closed system. Our planet receives energy from the sun and in smaller amounts from other celestial bodies. Localized decreases in entropy in open systems are to be expected, not refuted, considering thermodynamics. I have to agree with Dr. Robert Pennock when he presents this very statement: "The plaque on the wall at the ICR's museum simply adds the claim that increase in entropy applies not only in closed systems but in open systems too. What is one to make of such an argument?" [1] Indeed. Creationists made up a new law of thermodynamics, which is no law at all. I need not show how evolution still works even in a closed Earth system, as that system is purely hypothetical.
My opponent shifts focus to punctuated equilibrium. Why does my opponent hope I do not support this hypothesis? Punctuated equilibrium has found a place in the theory of evolution, and may have been there all along. [5] Dr. Gould's rhetoric was rough, but the hypothesis does nothing for the creationist position, and is in no way advocating the position that species evolve "between" geneses. I cannot find a single document supporting such a contention, and my opponent, has again, offered an incorrect definition.

Nebraska Man
A peer reviewed missing link? Nonsense, due to space limitations I will let talk origins have this common creationist misrepresentation of the event. http://www.talkorigins.org...

Dinosaurs and Birds:
This concept, like of all science, in not set in stone. Evidence is emerging that birds may not be the direct ancestors of theropod dinosaurs. http://www.sciencedaily.com...
A great article showing how museum politics is trying to sway the evidence, but peer review and science simply will not allow it. Please note, creationists did nothing in way of researching this matter. This is new material and may not be enough considering all the other evidence, but the controversy is how they are related, not if. I can find no faith based reasoning here.

Conclusion:
I have used proper definitions and rebutted all points offered. I did not rely on faith once. Any alternate hypothesis offered by my opponent to deal with the Big Bang, the study of life origins, and the Theory of Evolution has been shown to be false. No portion of any of the theories or fields of study is faith based.
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kimjohnnyboy 2 years ago
kimjohnnyboy
first of all, i will be saying this..the "big bang theory" is not a theory any more peoples. it has been proven by 2 scientists several years ago.
Posted by MrButtons22 5 years ago
MrButtons22
Nah, I'm not into Kent Hovind.
Posted by tmhustler 5 years ago
tmhustler
i think mrbuttons is guilty of plagiarism. he blatantly took kent hovinds words and tried to pass them as his own
Posted by MrButtons22 5 years ago
MrButtons22
No, I meant how are they determined after the voter answers the six questions? There's an extra point coming from somewhere, and I hope that the first question doesn't automatically give one point to a specific side. That would make no sense.
Posted by sherlockmethod 5 years ago
sherlockmethod
Points work however the voter feels they should. Some people will put RFDs, I usually do. Some voters award all 7 pts to the person they think won the debate without considering the different catagories, others simply find the side of the resolution they agree with, and vote for it without reading the debate. Not fair, but the best we have for now.
Posted by MrButtons22 5 years ago
MrButtons22
How do the points work? I don't think a point should go to someone for agreeing with a particular person in the first place.
Posted by sherlockmethod 5 years ago
sherlockmethod
Long debate, so many have not read it, yet. These debates usually get some attention.
Posted by MrButtons22 5 years ago
MrButtons22
Only five votes so far? Good grief...
Posted by sherlockmethod 5 years ago
sherlockmethod
Mr. Buttons,
I enjoyed the debate, and do not think I am ignoring your comments below. I have a policy of not addressing debate points made in the comments during the debate, and generally do not use the material in the debate. This was a good one, too big, but good. Good luck in future debates, even against me.
Posted by sherlockmethod 5 years ago
sherlockmethod
1."The Tower of Babel", R. Pennock. MIT press, 2000 at 161.
2."Blueprints", M. Edey & D. Johanson. Little, Brown and Company, 1989 at 284.
3."Genetics of the Evolutionary Process", T. Dobzhansky. Columbia University Press, 1970,7
4."The Nature of Science", J. Trefil. Houghton Milfflin Company, 2003 at 399.
5."Darwin's Dangerous Idea", D. Dennett. Simon and Shuster, 1995 at 282 – 299.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TheDizziestLemon 3 years ago
TheDizziestLemon
MrButtons22sherlockmethodTied
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 
Vote Placed by RazaMobizo 4 years ago
RazaMobizo
MrButtons22sherlockmethodTied
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 
Vote Placed by Danya 5 years ago
Danya
MrButtons22sherlockmethodTied
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 
Vote Placed by JDonaway 5 years ago
JDonaway
MrButtons22sherlockmethodTied
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 
Vote Placed by Floid 5 years ago
Floid
MrButtons22sherlockmethodTied
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 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 5 years ago
tmhustler
MrButtons22sherlockmethodTied
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 
Vote Placed by jack999 5 years ago
jack999
MrButtons22sherlockmethodTied
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 
Vote Placed by HeroicFailure 5 years ago
HeroicFailure
MrButtons22sherlockmethodTied
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 
Vote Placed by rimshot515 5 years ago
rimshot515
MrButtons22sherlockmethodTied
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 
Vote Placed by twmazer 5 years ago
twmazer
MrButtons22sherlockmethodTied
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