The Instigator
RedAtheist912
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
FollowerofChrist1955
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Creationism as truth should not be taught in schools (Contender: Con)

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 1 vote the winner is...
RedAtheist912
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,495 times Debate No: 92765
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (117)
Votes (1)

 

RedAtheist912

Pro

As the rise of the highly contradictory theory of evolution reigns in today's society, should we still teach creationism as actual truth in schools?

Creationism as actual truth: implying that creationism was the real answer to the origin of species.

Contender will argue that creationism should still be taught as actual truth in schools (Con).
I will argue that creationism should not be taught in schools at all (Pro).

Good luck.
FollowerofChrist1955

Con

Greetings; I am well versed in this topic so this should pose a very interesting subject. Although you are correct that the theory of evolution as the cause of the origins of life Is in fact generally accepted, I cannot help but assert, that .... well, it's completely and totally false as a theory and as a realistic or even serious alternative to creationism. You see there is more evidence in support of creationism than believable or even credible evidence in support of evolution?

The theory of evolution with its myriad of reports fails to provide realistic origins. Despite experimentation over decades, science has come up empty. Nothing to support realistically any report they have generated. No doubt this comes as a huge surprise to the atheist of the world, still one cannot help but wonder, why no one to date has ever actually asked for proof? Real proof, not conjecture, supposition, guesses, hypothesis and the like. genuine in your face evidence like say ..... an actual animal?

Check it out for yourself. It doesn't exist, the absolute best the scientific community with it's stellar commisions of the top scientist of the entire world could produce was a microbe, a bacteria ..... sorry but that's a far cry from origin of life! You see science has nothing to show for their experiments but a huge bill and tons of paperwork, but..... not a creature in the lot. You see the animal kingdom is exact and specific.

Here's where people begin to feel uhmm, stupid? But it is what it is. Everyone is in the same boat we all bought off on sciences imaginings, their degrees and phd's doctorates and such that we forgot that degrees don't make you smart, just educated. We small undegreed individuals, though lacking in degrees still possess reason, intelligence, and the ability to percieve what is and what is not?

With all the awestruck enthusiasm of a schoolgirl at prom, we saw stars as the big brained super intellects told and explained to us how they created this microbe and the bacteria ..... we were enthralled to such a degree that for some of us, after the glow was gone suddenly realized, Hey, wait a minute, Microbes and bacteria become diseases sure but not animals? Hmmm, for life to reproduce you need an egg (ovum), you need a male to fertilize that egg and you need adults to care for the newborn ... hey waitaminute?

There you have it .... evolution 101, busted, can't reproduce animals, humans mammals, amphibians, heck you can't even grow grass without seeds???

Don't feel bad, nobody else caught that either. Tell me though have you ever actually seen any animal created by science without an egg? I mean seen an actual picture or one on film? Nope same 8.7 million species that existed in the first place science has added exactly zero species or creation to the animal world.

So this naturally begs the question Should we be teaching evolution as the origin of life at all, since it has been proven by science as impossible for it to have occurred? As to creationism? Certainly we should continue teaching it above all things .... why? Because it's the only thing that actually answers all the questions without leaving any question but one? How did God do it? Course He didn't tell us. He did tells us how it all started though, it's found in Genesis and it's the only creation story of all religions that's concise and to the point?

allow me to refresh your memories;
Genesis 1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

So now you see why the creation story should be taught? The facts proven by science are these
1. Life should not could not possibly exist upon the earth outside microscopic organisms, just like Mars, The Moon, Jupiter, Pluto, etc...
2. Life could only have been put on the earth as adults, with which to procreate, as males, and females are equally required for 90 plus percent of the species to reproduce, and seed is required for all plants, trees etc...
3. How? Miraculously, magically or through some unknown way life was created as it is to exist as it is, by a means far beyond sciences and human understanding to the present.
4: "When you eliminate the impossible, what remains however improable must be the truth" Arthur Conan Doyle

so you see, the miracle of the origins of life is that we are actually here, and 2 billion people know who is responsible, because God reveals Himself to those 2 billion, well most of the 2 billion, but that leaves 4 Billion people who haven't even bothered to think it through at all, just blind belief in a lie. Prove it for yourselves: You won't find anything though, some guy named Cobalt already tried and knows it don't exist, in fact during our debate on this subject he blew a gasket over my Rules;

Rule #1: REPORTS
Disallowed except as follows: Any reports must also be accompanied by video or photographic evidence, which shows claimed process in action, culminating in living biological creature. (Video and photographic restrictions apply).

Rule#2 VIDEO, PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
Must be in Real photographs, live action, not animated or drawn. Must show progression from inception to a living biologic creature of the nature of, mammals, insects, birds or plant life. May be stop action, or time-lapsed as needed.
Cobalt said;

Before I begin talking about that, though -- I would like to agree with the opponent that there is a definitive lack of absolute proof regarding evolution.

Cobalt response: This is a fantastic point, except there is plenty of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Does any of it live up to Pro's evidential expectations? No.
Debate Round No. 1
RedAtheist912

Pro

Glad to have you as a contender.

First of all, let me make one thing clear. Evolution has so much evidence pointing in its direction that it might as well be an established fact as an explanation for the diversity of species. We have evidence from embryology, geographical distribution, observation of species' characteristics, fossils and genetics. Let me say that almost all available evidence we have points in the direction of evolution. That's why it has been a well-established pillar of science, with countless experts in the field researching it, with the first scientific paper about it written more than a century ago.

1) Embryology shows human embryos have actual slits like gills early on. This is the remnants left by fish billions of years ago. It may sound laughable, so I would suggest you Google it up and find out about it with a skeptical mind. I'm not lying.
2) Fossils show the gradual change of an organism through time, for example how Homo Habilis gradually became more "human" from being ape-like. Countless of other species also have fossils that show the gradual change into a new species.
3) Geographical distribution explains how organisms spread out with the continental drifts, like how a fennec fox evolved different characteristics to suit the desert, while the Arctic fox develops its own to suit the cold. Their
4) characteristics show how they evolved differently to suit their environment; along with observable similar characteristics of a group from the same ancestor, such as Darwin's reports on the birds of Galapagos Islands.
5) Genetics confirms it, like how human DNA is 96% similar to our biological cousins', chimpanzees. It is the same for every species on Earth.

All of these are observable from physical fossils to microscopes to obvious characteristics. For your two rules, I just beg to ask, what are your suggestions to document a process over millions of years?

I see you don't understand evolution very well. Please do try to discredit something experts have worked on for 150 years when you have little understanding of it. Makes a good show.

On the other hand, creationism. As Con has demonstrated in his argument, there is likely no other evidence of creationism than the Bible. Why is the Bible unreliable?

1) If you use the fallacy that if evolution was wrong, the Bible must be right, the same can be said for all the other religious texts. Same for if science was wrong about lightning, Thor must exist.
2) The Bible was written thousands of years ago by people without as much knowledge about the natural world as we have today.
3) There is no evidence of the Bible's explanation of the origins of species to be true.
4) More people believing in something does not make it any more true. It's called the popularity fallacy.

In addition, here is some evidence in contradiction to creation.
1) There is no evidence for Noah's flood, neither is there enough water to drown the tallest mountain.
2) Noah's ark would be improbable, as Noah and his family had neither the experience nor the materials to build it.
3) 2 of every species on the ark is improbable, as just one brachiosaurus would have taken up 30 metres and weighed 50 tons.
4) What did the carnivores eat on the ark? If not the herbivores, more food would be required to carry on board to feed every animal for a year.
5) Animals like polar bears or kangaroos would have difficulty making it to the Middle East to board the ark. In reality, this is explained by geographical distribution, which points to evolution.
6) There is no evidence for creation.
7) The Garden of Eden has never been found.
8) No fossils of humans with dinosaurs. In creation, humans coexisted with dinosaurs while there is not a single fossil of a human with a dinosaur. Dinosaur fossils are much deeper in the soil as they lived millions of years ago.
9) With evidence from radiometric dating, soil samples, ice samples and countless other sources, we know the Earth is much older than 6000 years as proposed by creation.
10) Genetics does not show humans are descended from a first human couple, as creation suggests.

Now that credibility has been established for evolution over creation, let's move to the other side of the topic. Should a fairy tale still be taught in schools? Simply, no, as people do not want dragons and Santa to be taught as literal truth in schools, creation should not be taught at all.
FollowerofChrist1955

Con


First of all, let me make one thing clear, you state Evolution has evidence And yet you provided NONE in the entirety of your debate … know why? Cause you can’t.


Unfortunately Evolution remains theory not fact. One must be able to show evidence of its truth, not conjecture. All you have stated are imaginings of men. For example, for evolution to be accurate all must evolve, Evolution if accurate must be mandatory, and yet because it is inaccurate and false it does not hold true to its own paradigm. I give you the Coelacanth


DINOFISH.com - COELACANTH: THE FISH OUT OF TIME



COELACANTH; A prehistoric fish once thought to be extinct found living in modern times.



All creatures remain exactly the same as their ancestors in shape form and fashion, with exception only in size.


Example …. Crocodiles and alligators are not the same species, they resemble one another but are distinctly separate creatures. So too are those of the fossil record and it cannot be proven otherwise. Science thrust conjectures by the pantload, for species which resemble one another and try to convince you that they are the same species just evolved. Nope not true. How do we know this …. Charles Darwin said so Himself, and despite science’s claim to fame- Darwin’s statement remains as a haunting specter forever dooming evolution into the realm of fantasy and foolishness.


Babies are immersed in amniotic fluid for 9 months- gill like structures does mean gills .... have you seen them? They do not look like gills they look like fat pads... yeech! And it certainly has nothing to do with them having been now or ever a fish.


***Note*** No evidence of gills So you see your giving us the proverbial Fish story (smile). https://www.google.com...


Science guesses a lot but they continually have no proof, real photographic proof, just reports or like your failing to provide in this debate? Is there any actual evidence in our future?


Darwin Admitted it is Absurd to Believe that the Eye Could have been Formed by Natural Selection:


“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” ~ Charles Darwin-origin of the species


Darwin Expected Innumerable Transitional Forms, but they Do not Exist Here is what I consider the most important excerpt of the book:


“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”~ Charles Darwin-origin of the species


Darwin Admitted that Events like The Cambrian Explosion would be Fatal to the Theory: Darwin says himself the lack of these fossils would be fatal to the theory: ~origin of the species


If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection.


1) There is no evidence for Noah's flood, neither is there enough water to drown the tallest mountain.


Again you presume there were mountains .... were you there? were your scientist there? No, that's called conjecture.


https://www.bing.com...


https://www.bing.com...


https://www.bing.com...


https://www.bing.com...


AS to the proof of global flood_ look at these trees buried UPRIGHT, when have you ever known a time trees just stand there as they are being buried? Landslide? Nope would have flattened them! Explosion? Nope flattened them, Water current piling silt over standing trees while under water? There ya go.


As to the rest- again theories, not a fact in the bunch- but question, just as a matter of intellect, would you take adult animals or youth animals aboard the ark?


8) No fossils of humans with dinosaurs. In creation, humans coexisted with dinosaurs while there is not a single fossil of a human with a dinosaur. Dinosaur fossils are much deeper in the soil as they lived millions of years ago.


https://www.bing.com...


https://www.bing.com...


https://www.bing.com...


https://www.bing.com...


https://www.bing.com...


Interesting- how did you test the First Couple? No need just look for a bellybutton from the placenta! Cause you do know that reproduction only occurs through direct female to male contact and fertilization of the ovum (egg).


Again unproven guesses, conjectures …. As I said produce a picture of a single living creature created by science without using and ovum by abiogenesis or lightning strikes, or bacteria that has become and animal or quit passing off evolution as facts, it was a lie before it is a huge lie still at this present date because there is no evidence of any report by scientist where a living breathing walking eating creature was born. Period.


Now that credibility has been established for evolution over creation, Uhhh wrong and fairy tales are being taught in school it’s called evolution!


Debate Round No. 2
RedAtheist912

Pro

I beg for the audience's understanding for this has turned into a creation vs evolution debate.

First of all, please acknowledge that I have provided the evidence rather than naysaying in denial.

From Round 2:
"1) Embryology shows human embryos have actual slits like gills early on. This is the remnants left by fish billions of years ago. It may sound laughable, so I would suggest you Google it up and find out about it with a skeptical mind. I'm not lying.
2) Fossils show the gradual change of an organism through time, for example how Homo Habilis gradually became more "human" from being ape-like. Countless of other species also have fossils that show the gradual change into a new species.
3) Geographical distribution explains how organisms spread out with the continental drifts, like how a fennec fox evolved different characteristics to suit the desert, while the Arctic fox develops its own to suit the cold. Their
4) characteristics show how they evolved differently to suit their environment; along with observable similar characteristics of a group from the same ancestor, such as Darwin's reports on the birds of Galapagos Islands.
5) Genetics confirms it, like how human DNA is 96% similar to our biological cousins', chimpanzees. It is the same for every species on Earth."

Yes, evolution remains a theory, but a scientific theory. Scientific theory: a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation. You might as well be saying gravity is just a theory and jump out the window.

Ah yes, the coelacanth. Natural selection is what determines the changes of a species in evolution. If an animal, such as the coelacanth, is well-adapted to its environment, it does not need to change. Hence its characteristics remain the same. Another example for this is the crocodile, preying on dinosaurs in the past, but since it was so well equipped to survive, it did not change much - only its size changed, like the coelacanth. http://www.nature.com...

Of course crocodiles and alligators are not the same species, Captain Obvious. I never implied they are. But they both had a single common ancestor, which also evolved into the gharial, alongside the crocs and gators. We know because of researching genomes.
http://news.ucsc.edu...
https://www.preceden.com...
And Darwin isn't going to doom evolution. Science doesn't work on the opinion of his or any authority, let alone yours.

Ah, the slits. I apologize as I forgot to add a source. Here it is:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

About photographic proof, again, please suggest how do we photograph a process millions of years in the making?

I have seen that Darwin's quote. Here is your part:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Then he continues to talk about just because it's hard to believe, does not mean it cannot be true:
"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."

Your quote mining is futile and downright dishonest.

Now, about creation.

Now, I don't need to say how incredibly weak your "conjecture" point is. "The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered," Genesis 7:20. There simply wasn't enough water in the world for a global flood to reach an 8000 metre Mount Everest.

Next, you provide only images from biased sources, with solely 1 image as proof of the dinosaurs. No scientific reports, no indication the items buried were from an actual Noah's flood, no credible sources, no citations, nothing. This is why I dismiss your images and memes.

To test the "first couple", we can use genetics. Similar methods can reveal if you're a descendent of Genghis Khan. If there really was the first couple, our DNA wouldn't have much variation, and there wouldn't be different races. That is not the case. And fertilization of the ovum has nothing to do with the umbilical cord.

I am glad to see how little of my "Evidence in contradiction to creation" Con has attempted to refute (weakly so).

If you want to know where today's wide variety of species came from, and wanted to collect evidence, what kind of evidence would be relevant for this investigation? DNA? Coincidentally, the DNA of most animals with the similar characteristics, such as polar bear and grizzly, alligator and croc, human and ape, the DNA of these animals are highly analogous. Maybe it is not a coincidence. Let's find out more. Molecular biology holds more clues: early fetuses of many species share some characteristics. Animals can be observed to have adaptations that help them cope with their environment, escape predators, catch prey, survive. Fossils of animals that don't seem like any animal today are found, like Champsosaurus (in the link about crocs above), like Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and these fossils are seen gradually getting similar to one animal from another.

This is what evolution is. It doesn't just contain a mountain of evidence, all evidence points to the same direction that is evolution.

Since Con does not have a good understanding of evolution, here is why there is no "living walking eating creature". Life started as simple self-replicating particles, such as viruses. How did this start does not concern evolution, evolution explains the diversity, the origins are left to abiogenesis, which is increasingly credible. Then generation after generation, they began to form a simple cell. Then another. The organisms slowly, after many generations, another cell developed in the structure, and this multicellular structure proved beneficial to its survival. It reproduced, slowly gained more cells, and slowly the first few species roamed, billions of years ago. In evolution, a "living breathing walking creature" did not just pop into existence as Con suggested. I trust that is how creation explains it.

In his last paragraph, I guess Con is asking me to tell how abiogenesis explains the origin of life without using abiogenesis. Absurd, and irrelevant to the debate.

In order to promote truth, schools should leave out the fairy tales like creation. The path to real knowledge does not stop you from questioning. Which explanation would you want your child to have, "here's how" or "God did it"?
FollowerofChrist1955

Con

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury; Let the evidence show that the instigator was well aware from the beginning that this was in fact creation verses evolution at onset observe Pros beginning statement;

Evidence: As the rise of the highly contradictory theory of evolution reigns in today's society, should we still teach creationism as actual truth in schools? Creationism as actual truth: implying that creationism was the real answer to the origin of species.

There before you in black and white pros own statement, and now we are treated to ;

I beg for the audience's understanding for this has turned into a creation vs evolution debate.

Then; claims to have provided evidence? Attend me if you will as we delve deeper into pros façade. We shall use Pros statements as the evidence of failure to provide evidence of the origins of life at all!

From Round 2:

"1) Embryology shows human embryos have actual slits like gills early on. This is the remnants left by fish billions of years ago. It may sound laughable, so I would suggest you Google it up and find out about it with a skeptical mind. I'm not lying.

Notice the distraction …. Preexisting embryo and Fish comparison- yet both require ovum (Egg) to reproduce don’t they. Pro cites evidence …. For the origin of life, where is it? How at earths beginning did the Fish form, to date Science has not ever been able to produce an ovum from any method other than extraction from an adult specimen? Evidence? I think not.

2) Fossils show the gradual change of an organism through time, for example how Homo Habilis gradually became more "human" from being ape-like. Countless of other species also have fossils that show the gradual change into a new species.

Again, preexisting animals distraction calling them organisms (an attempt to connect with bacteria), this time apes, notice apes become MEN no longer, They just STAY apes???? And where is the evidence of origin? A pre-existing fossil, not a shred of discussion as to its origin was forth coming. Evidence? I think not.

3) Geographical distribution explains how organisms spread out with the continental drifts, like how a fennec fox evolved different characteristics to suit the desert, while the Arctic fox develops its own to suit the cold.

Distraction (Organisms) are not ovum, how did a ovum get formed. Lest we forget 8.7 separate species inhabit the earth …. ONE ovum to become, insect, amphibian, mammal, crustacean, fowl, snail, dog, cat, ape, human, tree, plant, flowers, peachtree, maple, I mean …. Getting a little deep here, and YET, people can believe that but not God eh? There’s more magic envolved with evolution than in the idea of God …. Isn’t there? And strike 3 pro again uses pre-existing animals, oh he mentions organism, but fails to identify what organism, where it came from how it produced a creature who at infancy could find its own food, water, shelter? Evidence? I Think not.

4) characteristics show how they evolved differently to suit their environment; along with observable similar characteristics of a group from the same ancestor, such as Darwin's reports on the birds of Galapagos Islands.

Here he fails to show how the fox became the Galapagos Bird, the bird just like the fox miraculously appeared.Evidence? I think not.

5) Genetics confirms it, like how human DNA is 96% similar to our biological cousins', chimpanzees. It is the same for every species on Earth."

Dna are the building blocks of life which when inserted into Ohh yeah we’re still waiting for the OVUM. You see DNA doesn’t work unless you put it into an egg (ovum). Evidence? I don't think so.

Much was said, but no evidence produced by pros supposition and God, Creations story?

  1. God created all life, not as infants as adults- This enabled the birth of the ovum for reproduction )which is still the only way for any creature to reproduce …. The process has not changed from the beginning).
  2. God created all species at the same time … This allows Millions of species to encircle the globe, not One creature becoming 8.7 Million …. C’mon!
  3. Creation CEASED immediately after this creation as the creatures created would reproduce, kind for kind, plant for plant each according to its design and body plan. This explains why Science could not, have not and will not ever be able to show you a picture or film of a living breathing, walking, eating animal which Science has created using any other method, but cloning (from ovum) in vitro fertilizations of ovum, or creating a new species without using an ovum!

Not a shred of evidence but just like the Scientist who Claim they have answered the question they just can’t give you any Real proof …. Reports, yes, Evidence?

Yes, evolution remains a theory, but a scientific theory. Scientific theory: a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation. You might as well be saying gravity is just a theory and jump out the window.

repeatedly confirmed? but only in reports!

I disregarded the rest as it is more of the same excuses that pretty much all the scientist are using to keep their jobs. Lets move on to the greater question.

Honestly which is harder to believe. That a single creature formed without an ovum and morphed into 8.7 Million separate species (of which No Evidence currently exists), which we have only been able to find 6 of what we believe are transitional fossils, from the millions of creatures mind you ….. only 6, not the 100’s of thousands which should be all over the place!

Or and intelligence far greater than our own and able to create and control environments and conditions placed life here through creation of full living species of body type and kind to procreate and fill the earth. And THIS is why science has not been able to replicate the process.

That God creates by use of DNA, alterations of coding and bands allows formation of different species, type and kind. And it is because of this all living things appear to have Human DNA, which essentially means God used DNA to create all Life and it is This reason Human, rat, cat, dog, bird, ape, fox, literally all life has a percentage of same DNA, not because their part human, but because all things we made from the same substance just at differing formulations?

http://education.seattlepi.com...

http://genetics.thetech.org...

In closing; all of us need to understand. 2 Billion people KNOW that God exist, 4 Billion still do not. This is why evolution is a bad thing. it’s bad because it like pro works to DISTRACT people from coming to the Knowledge of God.

Consider; A being who stands ready to prove Himself to you in real time, the moment you earnestly seek Him. The moment you realize, you need Him, not the other way around. Why doesn’t He just show Himself to me then I’ll believe? He is, it’s in the book of Revelation. When you stand before Him to be judged, because YOU choose to go your own way. Make no mistake there is a price to pay for Life you choose!

This is lunacy, because God is the kindest, most loving, sacrificing of Himself to provide whomsoever will come to Him, the FREE gift of eternal Life. Then He begins to teach you on the right way to live. You’ve heard it said, joy unspeakable, contentment in all of Life, increase in ability to love, increase in ability to handle situations, circumstances so where even disastrous times, you can smile because you KNOW …. God says, it’s going to be alright! Oh people if you only knew him, how real, in your life real He is. There in the midst of your life, turning all things to good for those who love Him. This is not wishful thinking this is Real Living, with the one who created it all.

Makes no difference who wins this debate …. It only matters that a soul can finally meet the risen savior, for the rest, they shall meet their judge in due season! Consider This!

Debate Round No. 3
RedAtheist912

Pro

The fact that you need to point out a grammar mistake (not really a mistake) as your evidence displays how much content you actually have.

"As the rise of the highly contradictory theory of evolution reigns in today's society, should we still teach creationism as actual truth in schools?"
It means evolution contradicts creation greatly, not evolution is contradictory. I apologize if this is confusing as I am still improving my English.

"How at Earth's beginning did the Fish form, to date Science has not ever been able to produce an ovum from any method other than extraction from an adult specimen? Evidence? I think not."
I would like to end the "origin of life" or "preexisting" matter as I already have addressed it in the last round. Last round, I said: "Life started as simple self-replicating particles, such as viruses. How did this start does not concern evolution, evolution explains the diversity, the origins are left to abiogenesis". This is not an evasion, it's just that this is not relevant to the debate.

"this time apes, notice apes become MEN no longer, They just STAY apes?"
What? If you are implying that because men evolved from apes, why are there still apes, please know that when England colonized America, England itself can still exist. Other than that, I cannot comprehend your sentence.

"Lest we forget 8.7 separate species inhabit the earth ". ONE ovum to become, insect, amphibian, mammal..."
First of all, as I have said in the last round, at the start of life, single celled organisms do not need an ovum to reproduce. And please learn what an ovum is before throwing the term in every paragraph. For this point, take a look at reproduction. A family tree having 3 children in every generation would easily become a very large family on the 100th generation, what is needs is time. And time is what the Earth has, 4 billion years of it. A few of say, wolves, under a relationship with humans in the past would easily have different adaptive characteristics, and now there's 339 breeds of dog. If just one split path can produce so many variations, imagine how much you will have given 4 billion years of time, with many split paths going their own way and splitting again simultaneously.

"how it produced a creature who at infancy could find its own food, water, shelter?"
I have already explained how evolution basically works in the last round. It started with a single celled organism, not a direct infant. I would be surprised if Con actually read my arguments.

"[Evolution is] repeatedly confirmed? but only in reports!"
I think Con expects it to be confirmed in the Bible. But fortunately he acknowledges that there are scientific reports documenting this, a huge improvement from the first round.

Now, I know this is irrelevant to evolution, but abiogenesis has increasingly much evidence. The Miller-Urey experiment and similar others demonstrated that most amino acids, a basic chemical of life, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds in conditions like Earth in its early times. Given that this hypothesis has actual empirical evidence to support it, but we are not 100% sure that this is true, does this mean creation must be true? If A has evidence and is not fully certain to be true, does that mean B must be true?

If B is only mentioned in one source - a book written thousands of years ago? Does that count as reliable evidence for anything?

Con is using the easy way out. We've all heard of the God-of-the-gaps argument: if we can't be sure about something, that means God did it, which explanatory power is just about the same as "magic did it". Nothing goes wrong with magic, I'm sure. But just as people had widely used it as an explanation to why things fall down before Newton discovered gravity, it faded away in favor of the more knowledgeable answer. Same as the origins of species. When we are not fully sure yet, that doesn't mean creation must be true as it doesn't mean magic made things fall down. That means we should find out more, find out more of how the natural world really works, just like Newton was researching gravity we are researching abiogenesis now.

"Honestly which is harder to believe. That a single creature formed without an ovum and morphed into 8.7 Million separate species (of which No Evidence currently exists)"
I thought you have acknowledged the evidence in earlier paragraphs.

"which we have only been able to find 6 of what we believe are transitional fossils"
Not true. Wikipedia has a whole list of types of transitional fossils. First misquoting Darwin and now outright lying - I wonder if anything you say is trustworthy.

"Or and intelligence far greater than our own and able to create and control environments and conditions placed life here through creation"
Which only evidence is a book written thousands of years ago, which is not reliable as evidence. Reasons in Round 2.

"THIS is why science has not been able to replicate the process"
The Miller Urey experiment has been able replicate several organic compounds.

"And it is because of this all living things appear to have Human DNA"
No they don't. It's all living things from the same class have similar DNA because they were evolved from the same common ancestor. I am impressed by your capability to lie, sir.

"This is why evolution is a bad thing. it"s bad because it like pro works to DISTRACT people from coming to the Knowledge of God."
Bad or good, comforting or not, desirable or painful, truth remains truth.

Other babble about how you only need to believe God exists to see God, threats of Hell, kindness of the metaphysical being, how He offers you a gift but you'll receive it when you're dead (just like deciding to purchase a house but you cannot see it until you've bought it), comforting talks by an imaginary friend, with an ending that again threatens people.

Sorry, I got a little mad. But I think I can safely say all atheists get a little mad when people say something like, "don't agree with me? You shall meet your judge come death!"

Back to the debate. It seems this has turned into a creation vs evolution debate. I say that because I think both sides agree on teaching the truth to children, but have different ideas on what is the truth.

I am still waiting for Con to actually show what evidence there is for creation, rather than pointing out his incomprehension about evolution. But sadly, I'm afraid I will not be able to refute those (if there is) as this is my last round for this debate. Is this some kind of tactic?

Now, to sum up my points from the entire debate.
Round 2:
-Gave the evidence for evolution, and explained those what those evidence means and how they are observable and testable.
-Provided reasons why the Bible is not reliable as evidence.
-Provided evidence to why creation is false. I am glad Con is incapable of refuting them.

Round 3:
-Explained why a scientific theory is highly credible.
-Refuted Con's attempt at discrediting evolution regarding the coelacanth and crocodiles.
-Credible sources provided.
-Exposed Con's dishonest quote mining.
-Concreted evidence to why creation is false.
-Explained the futility of Con's random images as evidence.
-Explained how genetics can be used to discredit the "first humans".
-Explained the magnitude of evidence which evolution has.
-Explained how life first diversified, and the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.

Round 4:
-Explained the irrelevance of abiogenesis in this debate again.
-Explained how so many species can be evolved with ample time.
-Restated the first organisms were not a live infants to Con.
-Explained how abiogenesis not being proven does not make creation true.
-Stated the evidence of abiogenesis.
-Pointed out Con's false statements.

* * *
I thank the audience for reading. Any votes, either side, are greatly appreciated (but please do read both side's arguments before voting).

Lastly, I thank Con for this debate. It has been a great time debating with you sir.
FollowerofChrist1955

Con

Evolutionary experiments all ended in failure- no living creatures were created? How does this contradict creationism? Absurd accusation!

What I do not understand is why anyone, would still hang onto a subject like Evolution that every science experiment done to date has proven to be false as none resulted in life and Creation of an animal of any kind. That means Life did not occur as science has claimed and should be abandoned not welcomed, or embraced. Evolution now is not even a theory as all results have shown it was, is, and shall continue to be impossible to create animal life from inorganic objects, or from nothing.

Life cannot exist on earth by any lightning strike, cosmic soupings big bangs, nothing explains how life began …. Unless life was placed here by another way. The fact that an ovum is required to produce a biological creature of any kind, proves Life was placed here, not randomly, but purposely. That means an intellect placed everything here from the beginning, and since no one from this age or those of past generations were here at the time, we have only history with which to draw …. And not the 1800’s , but earlier much earlier, like say 2000 years ago. Evolution was not ever discussed in pre 1800’s era, so why whould you grab onto something that was posed by an individual who was not there and could not prove his theory during his own lifetime?

And even he was sensible enough to recognize what was wrong with the theory.

“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”~Charles Darwin
Only 6 that are believed, not proven to be in the entire fossil record? Absurd!

Be rational ….. 8.7 Million separate species from 1 animal? Absurd!

“I concluded that this great group had been suddenly developed at the commencement of the tertiary series This was a sore trouble to me, adding as I thought one more instance of the abrupt appearance of a great group of species. ”~Charles Darwin

“On the sudden appearance of groups of Allied Species in the lowest known fossilferous strata: There is another and allied difficulty, which is much graver. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.” ~Charles Darwin

“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.” ~Charles Darwin

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.” ~Charles Darwin

Surely if nothing else you would think you would have believed the Creator of Evolution it’s self’s look at reality. But No.

bacteria created by science remains bacteria today- not an animal in the lot!

To this very date evolutions theories have all, let me repeat all have resulted in no animal life! When hundreds of experiments fail to produce the desired outcome, you don’t accept it anyway, you throw it out and start again on another theory.
The theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven wrong, and it’s time to consider another option. You don’t want to accept God as an option? Fine (that’s your loss) but come up with something better … like try and prove we were put here by aliens or SOMETHING …. I mean you’ll end up in Hell anyway cause you denied your God outright. Again, Fine, but at least put something on the table that is still a possibility no matter how weird or wrong it might be ….. just don’t put something up there EVERYONE KNOWS IS WRONG!

At least have the intelligence to LOOK to see if there is validity not just ignore it completely on personal bias!

a-bi-o-gen-e-sis
Word Origin
1. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
2.the theory that the earliest life forms on earth developed from nonliving matter.
Compare biogenesis.
http://www.dictionary.com...

The easy way out is for Pro to show us an example of a creature created by evolutionary experimentation, abiogenesis, lightning striking, cosmic souping . Show a bacteria becoming a living creature or if you can’t put up, don’t step up.
"Honestly which is harder to believe. That a single creature formed without an ovum and morphed into 8.7 Million separate species (of which No Evidence currently exists)"

Wikipedia? That’s your evidence … and how did you prove transitional as opposed to completely separate species …. You couldn’t and can’t they are scientist attempts to attempt to continue to claim something they themselves could never prove …. they cannot claim pre-existing animals, none of which they can show how it got here!

The Miller Urey experiment has been able replicate several organic compounds. Yet could not show that any of his experiments produced a single animal … or he would have posted it. Desperation breeds contempt!

The Judgment of the Dead
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
I am not gonna blow sunshine up your skirt when THIS is what your going to face at the moment of death! I owed you the truth, and that has been given, I can do no more, the rest is up to you. Keep believing your lies, or wake up before it’s too late! That choice I made clear at onset was and is entirely up to you?

Exactly how was this ever anything OTHER than creation versus the lie of evolution?
If you cannot see the evidence which is readily available in genesis 1, you’re an adult look it up. See if it doesn’t answer all the theories evolution scientist could not prove.

1. Creation of all species, as adults- explains why ovum’s can be produced for reproduction
2. Creation of all plants, trees grasses with seed produced within themselves, to perpetuate growth and replication.
3. Explains presence of males to fertilize ovum’s
4. Explains insects to pollenate plants for replication
5. Explains why it was possible to have 8.7 million different species. And not 1 to create 8.7 million separate species.
6. Explains why God created earth for life to exist upon, using atom.
7. Explains the uniqueness of humans as no other creature comes close to man in abilities. Man can resolve problems, build buildings, create electricity, create food sources, create water sources where none exist … things no other living creature can do.
8. Explains why man has a soul, and has freedom of choice while all other creatures react on instinct alone.

Great debate I Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 4
117 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 4 months ago
CosmoJarvis
"Greetings; I am well versed in this topic so this should pose a very interesting subject. Although you are correct that the theory of evolution as the cause of the origins of life Is in fact generally accepted, I cannot help but assert, that .... well, it's completely and totally false as a theory and as a realistic or even serious alternative to creationism."
...
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 9 months ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
*calling for an end.
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 9 months ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
Again brother you sidestep my points by providing your own words and opinion. Your opinion of me as a carnal Christian has no reference what so ever to the passage 'call no man father'. You are convinced of your opinion of me without knowing any of my works. This was the same when you spoke your own words in an attempt to refute Peters authority, this was also irrelevant and unsuccessful. Consider the irony when you speak of the acts of the apostles and yet you do not partake in the traditions as they (and brothers and sisters in Christ since) did/do. Also consider the irony when you speak of the 'meat' and yet you yourself do not receive our lord in the Eucharist. Although you may not admit it, there is something missing which can only be found in the sacraments, accept Gods graces, come home. One last piece of irony, you attempt to silence me so that others wont see, not because of my 'ignorance' but because it is truth. By doing this you are refusing to continue evangelising me publicly on this website for others to see, do you see the irony? While I am happy to continue evangelising to others as I am talking to you also, you are calling for and end. I will provide this passage one last time, please consider the Aramaic and Greek when reading it and the fact Jesus changed Peters name (as he did Abraham) "upon this rock (Peter) I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail" Here we are over 2000 years later with Christ church still standing, and so it will stay. I will pray for you brother and I hope you will pray for me.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 9 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Just-Call-Me-PK
That you do not know the answers too the questions you ask is the very reason you are wrong. You are a carnal Christian as spoken of in 1 Corinthians 3. As a newborn says his first words DaDa the parent swifty runs to his friends and shouts for joy lauding the childs first words ...... but when that child becomes 21 years of age and speaks the same words .... it is no longer cutie. You speak as a newborn, ,I cannot share the meat of the word as you are not ready, and still you are not ready, where you should be teaching, you still have need to be spoonfed the word. This is not as it should be.
Resume dying to yourself, and allow God to be what God IS and not what you wish Him to be. Hence forth message me and stop demonstrating your ignorance of the word before the nonbelievers. I will not answer you on the Boards again.
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 9 months ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
FOC, you (human being like me) cannot judge if my good works are acceptable to Christ and if my bad works are forgiven if confessed. Only God can judge my heart. Like you said, it is about saving souls, not pushing them away, you must try and understand an individuals mindset and culture and evangelise in a loving, charitable, Christian way so as to try and help them understand, not become argumentative which plays into their naivety and clouds rational judgement. You must understand this. Does every work I do and will ever do coincide with Gods will? No... Does yours? No... We are all stained with original sin, that's why we have the beautiful sacrament of confession, and can be confident through scripture and tradition that our sins will be forgiven. EVERYONE NEEDS ALL the sacraments to be in full communion with Christ! As for interpretation, you are interpreting the bible in the way you believe it to be true, as am I. Who is right? ("Take it to THE CHURCH") where does it say in the bible that every and all answers come from the bible alone? You sidestepped scripture proof of Peters authority given by our lord with lame interpreted bible references which in the context you are using wouldn't allow me to call my dad 'father' This is an obvious reference to worshipping a false God. Also consider the manner in which the books where written and considering each authors personality and method of writing (evangelising) and the time it was written, the context of language at the time it was written etc. This all HAS to be interpreted in a way that allows us (living now) to understand it in the language we use today. Interpretation in this sense is necessary. You must come home brother, you are rejecting Gods graces given in the sacraments, you think you see but your vision is blurred. I highly recommend a book called 'The fathers know best' by Jimmy Akin. This should help you with your journey home, and gives you an insight to what the early Christians taught.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 10 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Just-Call-Me-PK;
You hear only what you believe and that is the point. It is not for anyone to interpret the word of God but God. It states specifically that God shall teach you. This has never changed because God never changes. You must learn to see God for who HE IS not what YOU WISH Him to be, this is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom. As to authoritative figures on earth you are completely wrong, God did not die to have you go to someone else He did so that through Him is mediation made.

Matthew 23:8 But you are not to be called "Rabbi," for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ."

You have failed in the first requirement which is why you err, fulfill the first requirement that you may see clearly. You believe what YOU believe not what God believes.

Luke 9:23 Then he said to them all: "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.

Matthew 10:38
and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me.

Mark 8:34
Then Jesus called the crowd to Him along with His disciples, and He told them, "If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me.

Luke 14:27
And whoever does not carry his cross and follow Me cannot be My disciple.

Fulfill your first obligation, without which you can never see truth, beyond your mortal self!

Philippians 3:15 All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.

cease with your excuses, IF you love the Lord as you say, then die to yourself, put to death the man, and fulfill your first requirement of discipleship.

Die to what YOU BELIEVE, that you may be brought up in Christ, HIS thoughts, HIS will, HIS way alone. NOT YOU
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 10 months ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
FOC Hebrews was written directly to Jewish Christians at the time it was written. so I'm not sure what you are getting at. We could go back and fourth with different interpretations of scripture but if there is not an authoritative figure of God here on earth then it would just be different opinions put out there with no sure way of knowing if it is true. Because Jesus is God he obviously knows this and that's why he established his church and put Peter (as well as the popes that followed) in charge. Matthew 16:18: "I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Also, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5"6, Rev. 21:14

Now these next verses cannot be clearer,

Matthew 18:15-18

15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to THE CHURCH; and if he refuses to listen even to THE CHURCH, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

What is your opinion of the tribes that live in the deepest jungles? Are they doomed? Only God can judge.

Jesus is love, why would I not preach what Jesus is? And what he asked me to do,

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Posted by RedAtheist912 10 months ago
RedAtheist912
FollowerofChrist

Yes, they instill the belief that you are worthless, evil, futile and then suggest you can only live a life through their religion. Basically making up an imaginary disease so they can sell you an imaginary cure.
Posted by Voidsworn 10 months ago
Voidsworn
RedAtheist912:

"Exactly my point. Christ promises freedom, but only if you become a slave." More like "Other people say there is a Christ and that this Christ promises freedom, but only if you become a slave."

Reading the Bible/s is the best way to come to the understanding that they were written by fairly ignorant humans with little to back up their claims (along with many magical claims), therefore not believable.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 10 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
RedAtheist912 ;
You ARE a slave .... your blindness is evidenced of their hold upon you. Take the challenge ..... see for yourself. Excuses is all you'll be able to come up with..... your masters will not allow you to attend church OR read the Bible. Given a Chance .... they (demons) have you convinced your free all the way to your hell. The CHOICE IS YOURS?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Heirio 11 months ago
Heirio
RedAtheist912FollowerofChrist1955Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.