The Instigator
JeffPhilips
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
muzebreak
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Creation

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
muzebreak
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,447 times Debate No: 25931
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (7)

 

JeffPhilips

Pro

Everywhere that people look, there is evidence of a divine Creator. For example, it is like a painting. If paint randomly fell from the sky, and evolution is based on "random chance," would it create a beautiful picture? Of course not! For instance, take DNA. In a college Biology class, I was told that the information held in a single DNA strand equaled over what 10,000 encyclopedias would have! There are many strands of DNA in a chromosome, and 46 chromosomes in the human body. How could something that contains that much information possibly have evolved? Also, in the case of evolving from the prehistoric "cavemen," the "missing links" have been proven hoaxes for the most part. One was built around what turned out to be a tooth from a dead pig. All these arguments for evolution were based not on fact, but assumptions. Even Darwin himself said that he could not fathom how the human eye could have evolved. People have tried to replicate eyes by putting water in between two pieces of glass, trying to simulate the evolutionary process, but they do not realize that THEY are the ones looking through it. The glass lens cannot see by itself. No matter what they do to it, they cannot create it so that it can see for itself and interpret for itself what it is seeing. Even now people are creating robots, but they are not half as complex as humans are. So I ask you, what are the chances of evolution? Reply if you would like to know more FACTS which defy evolution.
muzebreak

Con

I would like to know some facts which defy evolution.
And you've yet to give any so I don't know why you said more.

If you would actually like to debate this subject, creation Vs evolution, I would be happy to do that as well.
Debate Round No. 1
JeffPhilips

Pro

Darwin wrote that his theory would break down if it could be shown that animals had complex features that could not have developed by many gradual slight modifications. We look at creature features that kill the theory. When Darwin proposed his famous theory back in 1859, he was aware that one of the glaring weaknesses of his speculations was how to explain complex features in animals by small and gradual evolutionary steps. He admitted, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" ( The Origin of Species, Masterpieces of Science edition, p. 149). About 150 years later, research has provided numerous examples in nature in which complex organs in animals could not have developed by small, successive steps. From molecular science on up, many complex systems had to appear simultaneously, with all their components intact, or they would not function, thus offering no survival advantage. Professor Michael Behe explains: "It was once expected that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins" ( Darwin's Black Box, 1998, p. x). Indeed, at every level, the complexity of life and its stunning array of functionality defies evolution. One example of this kind of biological complexity is the bombardier beetle's defense system. It has so many essential parts and chemicals that if any are missing, the whole system will not work. Moreover, if everything did not work just right, the deadly chemical mixture inside the beetle would prove fatal rather than favorable. The tiny beetle, less than an inch long, appears as a tasty morsel for many types of animals. But as they near the beetle to gobble it up, they suddenly find themselves sprayed with a scalding and noxious solution that forces them to beat a fast retreat. How can this unassuming insect produce such a complex and effective defense system? The components making up the beetle's effective chemical warfare have been analyzed by chemists and biologists down to the molecular level. When the beetle senses danger, it secretes two chemicals, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone, that end up in a storage chamber inside its body. By tensing certain muscles, it moves the chemicals to another compartment, called the explosion chamber. But, just as a loaded cannon will not go off without some sort of ignition device, so these two chemicals will not explode without the right catalyst being added. Inside the beetle's body, this catalyst is injected into the explosion chamber. As a result, a boiling hot and toxic liquid is spewed out of the beetle's rear toward the threatening predator's face. All three chemical elements and chambers have to exist for this powerful defense system to work. How could such a complex system evolve by gradual steps? With only the two chemicals mixing, nothing happens. But when the catalyst is added in the proper amount and at the right time, the beetle is equipped with an amazing chemical cannon. Could all these components appear by a gradual, step-by-step process? Francis Hitching comments on the bombardier beetle's defense system: "The chain of events that could have led to the evolution of such a complex, coordinated and subtle process is beyond biological explanation on a simple step-by-step basis. The slightest alteration in the chemical balance would result immediately in a race of exploded beetles. The problem of evolutionary novelties is quite widely accepted among biologists . . . In every case, the difficulty is compounded by the lack of fossil evidence. The first time that the plant, creature, or organ appears, it is in its finished state, so to speak" ( The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 68). Nevertheless, evolutionist Richard Dawkins tries to dismiss the complex features of the bombardier beetle by simply saying: "As for the evolutionary precursors of the system, both hydrogen peroxide and various kinds of quinones are used for other purposes in body chemistry. The bombardier beetle's ancestors simply pressed into different service chemicals that already happened to be around. That's often how evolution works" ( The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 87). This is not a convincing explanation at all for Dr. Behe, who has studied this beetle's components down to their molecular level. "Dawkins' explanation for the evolution of the system," he says, "rests on the fact that the system's elements 'happened to be around' . . . But Dawkins has not explained how hydrogen peroxide and quinones came to be secreted together at very high concentration into one compartment that is connected . . . to a second compartment that contains enzymes necessary for the rapid reaction of the chemicals" (Behe, p. 34). Now that the whole defense system of the beetle has been thoroughly studied, even if the chemicals "happened to be around," this elaborate chemical cannon would not work without everything from the molecular level up working together and at exactly the right time. Dawkins' argument is as absurd as saying that if gunpowder, a fuse, a barrel and a cannonball "happened to be around," eventually they would assemble themselves, with the ingredients carefully loaded in the right sizes and proportions, and then go off at the right direction without blowing themselves up somewhere along the way. No, all the components had to be carefully and intelligently arranged in order to function. Professor Behe notes: "Some evolutionary biologists"like Richard Dawkins"have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish . . . Science, however, cannot ultimately ignore relevant details, and at the molecular level all the 'details' become critical. If a molecular nut or bolt is missing, then the whole system can crash" (p. 65). By now you've probably realized that evolution as an explanation for the teeming varieties of life on earth"not to mention your existence as a thinking, rational human being"simply doesn't add up. Furthermore, we've only scratched the surface (see "The Case Against Evolution" for suggestions on books that examine the subject in far greater detail).So why, then, do so many people cling so tightly to a belief with so many deficiencies? Not surprisingly, conclusions such as these have not received much publicity. Most people are unaware of Darwinism's many flaws and voluminous scientific findings and conclusions that contradict evolutionary theory. But recognition of the obvious fact that life was the product not of random forces but of intelligent design is gaining ground. And eventually, everyone will know. Swedish zoo-physiologist Soren Lovtrup sums up: "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science" ( Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, 1987, p. 422). What a remarkable day that will be!
muzebreak

Con

My opponent has plagiarised his entire argument from http://www.ucg.org...

Regardless of that fact. The argument he is making, irreducible complexity, was disproven in court. And as such it is obviously an inviable refutation of evolution. It, also, is not an argument for creationism.

So am I to assume my opponent cannot argue for creationism as he has not even attempted to do so, or does he have a working model of creation that conforms to reality which he can present? Preferably one of his own creation (pun intended) this time, rather then a stolen one.
Debate Round No. 2
JeffPhilips

Pro

Excuse me, but the fact is, it was not plagiarized. I properly cited it. It does not mean that I don't know what I am talking about, but sometimes other people can put things into words better than I can. So tell me one thing, you said it was disproven in court. How many times has a court been wrong about a murder trial? When it is the people deciding, it is not always the correct decision. Are you saying for sure that there is no God who created the earth? Because if you are, then let me ask you a question. Out of all the knowledge in the world, humans cannot know more than 5%. Now in all that 95% or so, how can you say for sure there is no God? The Bible says that even the demons believe there is a God, and they tremble. The God who exists created the earth, the heavens, and everything in the earth. Besides that, there is so much proof that the earth is NOT millions of years old. Take the Grand Canyon for instance. Evolutionists love to use that wonderful place as a place to prove that the earth is millions of years old. I beg to differ. In Washington State, when Mount Saint Helens blew up, it carved a canyon hundreds of feet deep in one day, now known as "the Little Grand Canyon." If a geologist was to go there without any idea of what happened there and saw the layers in the Little Grand Canyon, he would say that it was formed over millions of years because of the rock layers. The Grand Canyon is the same way. The Grand Canyon is just a larger version of the Little Grand Canyon.
Another point. How likely is it that you could dump a box of 50 oranges out and have them land perfectly in 5 rows of 10 each? It is virtually impossible. Another question. What is the likelihood of Coca-Cola evolving? Impossible. I ask you now, why do you insist on random chance when nothing could have come about? Random mutations do not always produce good things. In order for anything to survive on random mutations, the mutations would have to be perfect and in quick succession. And where, may I ask you, are the missing links in between the modern fossils we know today? There aren't any. How can evolution explain all these gaps and missing links? The answer, they can't, they will just try to get around your question. In closing my final argument, I will just say this, there is no way our world could have evolved. Think about it, and I hope you will listen to what I say and at least consider it as a possibility, because the evidence is everywhere.
muzebreak

Con

Excuse ME But you cited nothing, you copied and pasted the
entire thing. You didn't even give a source. How can you even try to defend your
blatant plagiarism?

Now, I will rebut your so called "arguments".

First off, when I say that this argument has been refuted in court I mean that
it has been disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt, if you would like to look it up
you're welcome to. Its the kitzmiller v dover trial. Imagine if the best minds on both
sides, those for IC and those against, each tried to scientifically defend their
side. That is what the court case was, and IC lost because it has absolutely no
science behind it. Everything that is supposedly irreducibly complex is always
found to not be so.

Now onto the your percents of knowledge, the fact that you have even attempted to put
an amount on knowledge held of a whole shows your idiocy, because the first thing you
need for that is a reference amount for the entirety of knowledge. The second
thing you need for is knowledge to actually be quantifiable. But the thing is,
neither of those are possible because infinity exist's. And because infinity exist's
that means that things can be infinite ,like pi.
And since pi is infinite that makes knowledge infinite because pi is knowledge.

But, I don't need the know everything to be sure that something doesn't exist.
All I need is to know something that conflicts with the possibility of that thing.
For instance: when it comes to the a tri-omni god like the Judeo Christian one,
the problem of evil can be brought up.

And after actually reading through most of your argument while writing out responses,
upon further thought I should have read all of it first, I come to the conclusion that you
are but a sad troll. bBecause who else would ask what the likely-hood is of coca-cola
evolving.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
Jeff,

I'd like to thank you for the practice aswell. Im also new to online debating.
First I'd like to say that, even if you did provide a citation, putting up someone elses arguments is plain and simple bad form. I may have reacted a little harshly and for that I apologise, but like I said to roy: in my first debate rationalmadman did the same thing as you, he copy pasted the entire first round. I was offended then, and when it happend a second time it just really, really, bugged me. I apologise for calling you names. It was rude of me.

Now, the kitzmiller v dover trial was not one where any creationist was defeated. It was a trial on whether or not intelligent design could be taught in schools as science. Not only did their claim, irreducible complexity, fail to convice anyone, but a few of the participants on the ID side were even almost charged with perjury for lying under oath. The judge declared that ID was not science in any way.

The main argument raised for ID was irreducible complexity, and it rested entirely on a being know as bacterial flagelum. If these other examples you present were really irreducibly complex, would they not have presented them in court? The reason they didn't win the case, is because they had nothing scientific to back up their claim. This was established by various experts on the kitzmiller side of the case.

Now, you say that there are too many gaps in the theory of evolution? But "missing links" don't show
any gaps that arent expected, and genetic evidence more then makes up for any gap you can possibly conceive. Even if we had no other evidence for common descent, the genetic evidence is more enough.

If you want to debate again, your more then welcome to challenge me anytime. Im always in need of more practice.
Posted by JeffPhilips 4 years ago
JeffPhilips
Hey muzebreak, as I am new to this online debating, I would like to thank you for the practice you gave me in debating. However I did not plagiarize as I did put the citation on there, although it may have made the article too long so that it was automatically cut off. I am sorry for the misunderstanding there. Also, another point I might make is that the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial was one where a Creationist was defeated because of a lack of knowledge. Just like a science experiment, you need to prove something many times, and there are too many gaps in the Theory of Evolution to prove it, such as the "missing links." I appreciate the good debate we had, and I just ask that next time if I ever debate you again, that you would refrain from calling me names. Thank you for debating with me!
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
Roy,

I would have made the arguments. I would have refuted every point he made.

But the key word there is he. If he decides to make some points of his own instead of copy pasting a whole debate round then I am more then willing to reply to them show by my reply to his third round post.

The first debate I was in Rationalmadman did the same thing and I didn't realize that. I wasted valuable time replying to arguments that weren't even his. The point of a debate is to have a intellectual fight with your opponent, not for them to throw what they think is mike tyson into the ring.

If he wants to raise those issues in his own words in another debate he is more then welcome, and at such time he will get a well thought out reply to them. But if he can't be bothered then neither can I.

I find it a bit offensive that you gave him the arguments point because I didn't reply to his plagiarised article, when you should have just ignored it and focused on the arguments that we both actually made.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Con, you have to answer the arguments, not just point out that they were copied. New arguments in the last round are ignored. Intelligent design has been thoroughly refuted, but you have o give the arguments not just claim that it's been done elsewhere. These are arguments from incredulity, and a high percentage of the cases cited as impossible have in fact been explained by evolution. Make the arguments.
Posted by JeffPhilips 4 years ago
JeffPhilips
Yeah, but as a Christian you would want to know as much as possible about your own faith.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
Thinking about it. I'm not heavy at all on biology, so I'm a little reluctant to defend a point of view that requires it. It's easier to poke holes in somebody else's argument than to advance arguments of your own if you don't know much about a subject.
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
If your interested in debating this subject from the creation side I'd be up for it.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
Okay, thank you!
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
Sorry, I meant character limit not word limit.
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
I saw it, and I just had to snap it up.

Btw, if you click accept debate it takes you to a page that shows all the limits for the debate.
IE: word limit, time limit to post an argument, time limit for voting period, and other stuff like that.

And it has two options, one is that you will debate and the other is that you will not debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by tylersch96 4 years ago
tylersch96
JeffPhilipsmuzebreakTied
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: something had to happen for us to be living.
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 4 years ago
Aaronroy
JeffPhilipsmuzebreakTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: dat plagiarism
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
JeffPhilipsmuzebreakTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: The Creationist arguments are, of course, nonsense. However, Con had to refute them and he chose not to do so until the last round, where new arguments cannot be presented and are therefore ignored. Pro loses conduct for copying without revealing the source, but nonetheless the arguments were made in the debate and had to be refuted. Pro didn't manage to copy the lines separating paragraphs, which loses S&G.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
JeffPhilipsmuzebreakTied
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: Need I provide an RFD?
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
JeffPhilipsmuzebreakTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Dat blatant plagiarism on pro's part. Moreover, con still refuted his claims in part, so I can still vote off of the refutations.
Vote Placed by JorgeLucas 4 years ago
JorgeLucas
JeffPhilipsmuzebreakTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though Con didn't give any sources himself, he gets that point anyway because Pro plagiarized.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
JeffPhilipsmuzebreakTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins for Pro's plagerism