The Instigator
komododragon8
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
That1User
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Creationism/ID (pro) vs Evolution (con)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,292 times Debate No: 69137
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

komododragon8

Pro

For this debate I will argue for creationism (even though I believe in evolution) while my opponent, That1User, will argue for evolution. This will be part of the Devil's Advocate Tournament. Here is the link to the forum:
http://www.debate.org...
That1User

Con

I accept. I await my opponent's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
komododragon8

Pro

First off I will be argueing that all life on earth was created by fallible beings for reasons unknown. I will not be argueing Intelligent desighn as it is basicly just evolution but guided and I believe that that would lead to a very boring and uneventful debate. My arguments are as follows:
1. Humans have many parts of their anatomy which do not serve any real purpose such as the tailbone or male nipples. It would be benificial to remove these components as the mother will be wasting nutrients to create them. These organs also poccess the problem that they will become infected. This happens often with wisdom teeth and tonsils thereby making these parts more trouble then they're worth. If evolution were true than these parts would quickly be removed as they do not benefit the species. If we were created by a fallible designer it is possible that they made a mistake or did not think it all the way through.

2. My next point is on the development of complex organs especially the sex organs. As you know the sex organs allow 2 organisms to reproduce and the offspring gains genetic traits from both of them. If evolution were true than this procces would take a very long time (as 2 sexes would have to arise from one or from a previous proccess of sharing genetic material). This procces would have to also offer an advantage over the method of asexual reproduction and the method of horizontal gene transfer which bacteria use to evolve today. These organs would also have the disadvantage of being infected and reducing the chance that the organism would survive. If it were a fallible creatormade us than it may have decided for whatever reason to give us sex organs.

For these reasons it makes more sense that a fallible creator/creators made us.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.toptenz.net...
That1User

Con

In this debate I shall be arguing for evolution and against Creationism/ID

To construct his case that humans were created by falliable my opponent states two things, that humans have many parts of their anatomy which do not serve any real purposes and may cause problems and that sex organs are simply too complicated to be evolved. This is a non sequitur fallacy, just because of defects and complications of human anitomy does not neccessarily mean that we were designed by falliable beings for reasons unknown. My opponent has thus failed to come up with sufficient evidence for his BoP.

My case is that evolution has scientific evidence to support its validility as a scientific theory. Such examples include the fossil record, homologies, distrubution in time and space, and evidence by example. Due to time constaints I shall go into detail about each of those evidences for evolution.

In conclusing, my opponent's arguments do not provide sufficient evidence to believe that fallibale beings created all life on Earth for reasons unknown. There is, however, sufficient scientific evidence to believe that the theory of evolution is true which will be explored next round.
Debate Round No. 2
komododragon8

Pro

My opponent states that I have used a non sequitur fallacy however I fail to see this. My arguments directly relate to evolutionary theory as they dispute evolutions claim that the animals with disadvantagous traits will fail to pass on their genes. As you can see with my examples the organisms are passing on their genes despite having these useless and dangerous organs. My next point was questioning the view that organisms with sex organs could evolve from organisms with asexual reproduction. This is certainly relevent as according to evolutionary theory the sex organs would have to offer some advantage over asexual reproduction to be chosen for by natural selection. As stated before sex organs do not offer enough advantages to be chosen for.

Another example I would like to add is the curious species, the bombardier beetle. The bombardier beetle will (when in danger) release two chemicals from its abdomen which when mixed will produce an explosive reaction which the beetle will use to defend itself. With evolution it would be very difficult for a species to select for all these traits. The beetle would need to produce both chemicals and aquire traits to protect itself from the boiling hot reactants coming out of its abdomen. This further refutes evolution as it would be far more likely that the bombardier beetle was created by an intelligent being(s).
That1User

Con

Evidence for Evolution:
Fossil Record:
The Fossil Record shows organisms similiar to those today but slightly different. Combined, the fossil record shows a change over time, which is evidence for evolution. (http://necsi.edu...)
Homologies:
Evolutionary theory states that all life developed from one common ancestor and homologies, or similiraties to in living organisms is evidence for this. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Shared DNA:
Living things share DNA, such as humans and bananas share 50% of their dna and humans and chimpanzees share about 99% DNA. This also supports the evolutionary theory that all life comes from a common ancestor. (http://news.sciencemag.org...
(http://www.mirror.co.uk...)
Debate Round No. 3
komododragon8

Pro

Counter Arguments:
Though the fossil record does support evolution it does not disprove the fallible beings I am arguing for. The fossils could have been animals that the fallible being created but died due to unknown complications.

The homologous structures support my claim as it shows that the fallible beings simply modified each animal as they went. It would not make any sense for them to build each animal from scratch when they can simply modify each being.

DNA fits along the same lines a homologous structures, the beings which created us simply modified our DNA as they went.

New arguments:
My first new argument discusses human sexuality. As you know there is a large spectrum of human sexuality. In the wild homosexuality offers an advantage because it allows social organisms to create bonds within the group. This is of course a very advantageous trait for social species. Therefore it makes sense that all organisms within social species should be bisexual as then the organisms could form bonds with each member of its social group. This is not the case in reality as some organisms are only attracted to members of the opposite sex and others to the same sex. If evolution were true than bisexual individuals would form the most bonds within their group and increase their chances of passing on their genes.
That1User

Con

Counter Arguments: While the fossil record does not disprove fallible beings, it does not prove falliable beings either, and gives concrete evidence for the theory of evolution.

The homologous does not prove fallible beings as well, but it does give significant evidence for evolution

The same goes with DNA.

All these things combined do not prove the existance of fallible beings but rather all suports evolution. With all these evidences combined we have a valid scientific theory of evolution.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by komododragon8 2 years ago
komododragon8
Envisage: I never said "If intelligent design is true, than it's via a fallible designer" In fact I never even mention an infallible designer. My entire argument is summed up by my first sentence: "First off I will be argueing that all life on earth was created by fallible beings for reasons unknown." I fully consider the argument that there is no designer at all in fact that is what this entire debate is about. Ultimatly my arguments do not present false dichotomy they simply provide support for my argument which I state in my very first sentace of this debate.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
@Komodo

You needed to affirm the statement:
"Intelligent Design is true"

But your first argument *at best* demonstrated:
"If Intelligent Design is True, then it's via a fallible designer"

You need to actually demonstrate the conditional "intelligent design is true". It's a black and white fallacy because the argument is presented like this:

"Either there is a fallible intelligent designer, or there is an infallible intelligent designer"

It's a false dichotomy, since there may be no designer at all.
Posted by komododragon8 2 years ago
komododragon8
I would have to say that many of my arguments weren't too good either as I couldnt find anything which directly refuted evolution.
Posted by That1User 2 years ago
That1User
Yeah, this was definately a bad debate, I was busy and half-assed it. Most of my debates are on the decline once I think about it.
Posted by komododragon8 2 years ago
komododragon8
Envisage: I don't see how my opening argument is a black and white fallacy. I clearly state what I will be arguing: creation by fallible beings. I do not narrow the argument down to only two different answers I just state that I will only be arguing for a fallible designer.
Also I have done huge amounts of research into creationism and the reason why I used little of their arguments is because they have countless counter arguments which absolutely destroy creationism's claims. I generally had to come up with original arguments because there is no support for creationism which hasn't been disproved.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Okay... I have read this debate.

It was.... horrible to read. Bad, bad bad.

Pro's opening argument is a black & white fallacy, affirming an imperfect designer over a perfect designer.... but does not affirm a designer in the first place. Con pointed out this non sequitir and Pro essentially skipped around it.

Sex organs was... okay...ish.... but horrifically incoherent.

Con's arguments were virtually bare assertions, no logical progression is given from"fossils" or "homologous structures" or "DNA" to - "Evolution is true". Thus at the end of the debate, it is clear Con has upheld no arguments, and Pro is left with a poorly sustained mitigative argument from sexual reproduction.

Thus, by point scoring It's a Pro win. But seriously, you both lost this debate, you both need to actually research the other position. Con clearly does not understand evolutionary theory on any basic level, and Pro clearly doesn't know any natural theology, or intelligent design arguments.

Do your homework guys, and don't make such an embarrassingly bad debate ever again.
Posted by komododragon8 2 years ago
komododragon8
Whoops sorry.
Posted by That1User 2 years ago
That1User
That's okay.
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Oh crap, I was distracted and accidentally accepted. I will ask airmax to delete this.
Posted by That1User 2 years ago
That1User
Komondo, you were supposed to challenge me to this debate, not SNP1.
No votes have been placed for this debate.