The Instigator
The_Insider
Pro (for)
Losing
32 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
86 Points

Creation vs. Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,563 times Debate No: 11746
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (20)

 

The_Insider

Pro

To start off I would like to state that this is my first debate. I would also like to say that if my opponent would please use no profanity, no bashing, and please if the comments would be clean also. To begin I would like to state that as a committed Creationist/Christian I think that there is no real solid proof for Evolution, as carbon dating is proven to be very faulty. For instance an article in an Answers In Genesis magazine [For my source I'm going to use AIG, Ken Ham and other creationist leaders] some scientists put a hat that had a Nike brand on it ,that was found in a collapsed mining tunnel, through carbon dating. The computer read it out as 100,000 years old. So, if you believe this article then that means that dinosaur bones found by carbon dating to be millions of years old might be only thousands. If my opponent will please respond to this then I will continue the debate.

Vote Pro!
TheSkeptic

Con

I want to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate topic, especially when it's his first one! I'll be honored to partake in his first debate on DDO.

My opponent has clearly stated in his first round that he supports Young Earth Creationism in contrast to evolution. The only source of evidence he has to support this claim is the purported idea that carbon dating is false.

A reply is simple: give me a detailed reasoning why carbon dating is false, and cite the example you give (how can I identify such an experiment if I can't access it's details?). I will hold back any lengthy response until such a simple task can be fulfilled.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Insider

Pro

http://www.answersingenesis.org...

Above I have posted a link to AIG and the article I spoke of. It is somewhat lengthy, but it is very well informed, also note that it was meant for Christians to read so you will have to read it from that standpoint.

As I have left my opponent with very little to discus I will add more topics: Noah's flood.

If you look throughout the world almost all cultures have a "Flood Story". The strangest thing about this is that some of these cultures have either very little or no similarities besides that. Here is one of the stories taken from Babylon: Once, the gods were angry with men, and they decided to destroy them in a great flood. They warned one good man, Ut-napishtim, to build a boat. The flood came and everything was destroyed except Ut-napishtim's boat, which came to rest on a mountain. He sent birds out, but they could find nowhere to settle. Finally a raven was sent out and it did not return. The earth was beginning to dry out. Ut-napishtim and his family gave thanks for having been saved.

This story is almost identical to the Bible's version, aside from the names and specifics if you replace gods with God and Ut-napishtim with Noah it is a shortened out version of the Bible's.

The other evidence is that shells have been found as high as Mt. Everest and Mt. St Helen which means that a worldwide flood to even skeptical scientists seems very probable, yet another thing that supports the flood is the Millions of fossils buried in random places, all over the world. Now in order to make a fossil you need a few very specific things: First you need mud, and very quickly you need it to be submerged in an area were the flesh will decay but the bones will be "mummified" so to speak. A massive flood is perfect for this so it is a good explanation for the fossils all over the world. Also a big question is "How did humanity or anything survive?" well in the bible it clearly states that God told Noah to build an ark and that the ark would have to of each type of animal in it [there were exceptions for various types of animals such as the sheep], but when I "each type" I specifically mean "each type" as in their would only be one type of dog, one type of cat, one type of big cat, one type of elephant and so on.

I would like to state my exact beliefs in this debate. I am a Christian, Creationist, I believe in a young-earth and I believe dinosaurs walked with humans.

For a final note I also would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

Vote Pro!
TheSkeptic

Con

TheSkeptic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Insider

Pro

I do not believe it is fair to have at 3 rounds to debate while my opponent will only have 2, so I will not say much for this round except, if when voting to vote fairly, and please no hater comments.
TheSkeptic

Con

First, I want to apologize for my forfeit. If anyone knows about my history of debating, they would know that forfeiting a round for me is a). highly unlikely and b). not without good reason. This particular instance I was bogged down with a heavy load of philosophy homework, and I simply underestimated the time available to me. To make up for my lack of a response, I will be sure to put full effort in this round and produce an effective rebuttal to my opponent's argument.

====================
Accuracy of carbon dating
+====================

The most common, and perhaps simple, criticism of radiometric dating creationists use is instances in which it failed. This proves to be nothing more than a silly criticism -- simply because a few examples of group X failed to do Y, doesn't mean the rest of group X is doomed to the same failure. Does one bad M16 mean the rest in the world are faulty? Does one bad car mean the rest in production should be halted? Of course not - unless you can demonstrate an inherent flaw there is no reason to assume that since one goes bad the rest will too.

In fact, it's been observed that "radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time[1]." So how would you go about explaining the overwhelming percentage of successes?

====================
Floods
====================

My opponent's first piece of evidence for the flood is to refer to many other civilizations having myths about a worldwide flood - with supposed detail that would validate Noah's Ark. This is simply a factually incorrect claim. If you take at this list[2], it gathers flood stories from many civilizations.

Further, the seashells on the mountain claim: this can easily be explained by the uplift of land[3].

====================
Conclusion
====================

My burden in this debate isn't to provide evidence in support of evolution. Given the vague resolution (it's not a statement), the only thing I can derive from my opponent's round is that he believes Creationism to be true and Evolution to be false. The problem is, he only supplies evidence AGAINST evolution, and nothing for Creationism -- to say the former implies the latter is to create a false dichotomy.

However, I will be generous and assume that for him to win this debate, he only needs to invalidate evolution whereas my burden is to do the exact opposite.

As is with practically every Creationist claim, a full rebuttal often involves a simple science lesson. Every creationist argument are either strawmen or simply an example of a lack of understanding (perhaps willful). What's frightening about this is that the scientific knowledge needed to dispel their arguments is quite old, often decades ago confirmed.

---References---
1. http://www.talkorigins.org...
2. http://www.talkorigins.org...
3. http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by pradhan 7 years ago
pradhan
SoS ...do u wanna cotinue from here?
Posted by The_Insider 7 years ago
The_Insider
Kk you can challenge me to a 5 round debate if you wish.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Well I'll still respond to your claims all in my 3rd round. If you desire, want to have another try at this again? And the Taiwan example was just one other debate I forfeited -- I think I only forfeited 2-3 debates ever so I promise this isn't a common occurrence :P
Posted by The_Insider 7 years ago
The_Insider
:( Wish you could ave posted a comment I will forfeit to if you like to eve it up. Also Taiwan?! Why were you in Taiwan?! I mean I like Taiwanese people just......your 16!
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
The only times I've forfeited were because of school or something like being stuck in Taiwan :(
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
What!?!?!? TheSkeptic forfeits a creation debate?
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
I concur Geo, if he wants draw back to Creation himself he should use arguements more about things like this http://www.halos.com... because it addresses the instant of creation itself rather 2000 years after it.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
How does the flood prove creationism? A flood proves that there was a flood.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
...what. I thought I had 9 more hours than I thought I did. Ah sorry - I had a lot of philosophy homework to do so I thought I could've written my round at school. I'll be sure to make a full rebound in the third round, making up for my forfeit :).
Posted by SoS 7 years ago
SoS
Oh, how I wish I had got the Con in this debate.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
The_InsiderTheSkepticTied
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: Wow, so many vbs
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
The_InsiderTheSkepticTied
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 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 Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
The_InsiderTheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con, once again, refuted much of Pro's arguments: the two contentions: the world wide flood myths (refuted by Con's list which offers a far wider look into the deluge myths that do not match the conditions of Noah's flood) and the sea-shells that were found on top of the mounts (refuted by the noted phenomena of uplift of land) were refuted, and, as Con noted, Pro never made any argument supporting creationism in the debate...
Vote Placed by mageist24 6 years ago
mageist24
The_InsiderTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:15 
Vote Placed by mongoosecake 6 years ago
mongoosecake
The_InsiderTheSkepticTied
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 cvboy78 6 years ago
cvboy78
The_InsiderTheSkepticTied
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 jat93 6 years ago
jat93
The_InsiderTheSkepticTied
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 Rhetorical-Disaster 6 years ago
Rhetorical-Disaster
The_InsiderTheSkepticTied
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 Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
The_InsiderTheSkepticTied
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:15 
Vote Placed by ProHobo 6 years ago
ProHobo
The_InsiderTheSkepticTied
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:15