The Instigator
jo154676
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JonHouser
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Creationism is a better model than evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 1/19/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 618 times Debate No: 99123
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

jo154676

Con

Debate setup
R1 Pro arguments
R2 con arguments pro rebuttal
R3 con rebuttal pro defense/summary (no new arguments)
R4 final defense and conclusion (no new arguments) Pro will forfeit this round

This debate is whether or not creationism is a better model than science. BoP will be shared. Pro will be arguing for creationism and I will be arguing for evolution. I look forward to a lively debate.

Rules of the debate
1. No Google docs
2. No personal attacks
3. No kritiks
4. No trolling
5. No forfeits

Any violation of these rules results in that person losing the point for conduct.
JonHouser

Pro

I would like to thank my worthy opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic. While I understand that I am in the minority on this topic, I believe that I can put up a spirited and friendly debate on the subject.

I was not there with a recording device at the creation, so I cannot "prove" that creation happened the way the Bible says it did. No more can my opponent show recorded proof that however many billions of years ago, something crawled out of a swamp and began the process of changing into the abundant life we see today. However, I can show that the only logical, non-contradictory option left to us is that God created everything from the most distant star to the most insignificant fermion.

To begin, I will point out that to believe in evolution, you must believe in violations in the "laws" of nature and physics. I say this because, "The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the conclusion that complex living things come only from other living things..." (1) If only living things give rise to living things, then life cannot come from non-life. There would never be a case where non-life could become life. However, evolutionists claim that this law was violated in some primordial swamp when lightning (or something) struck water with just the right collection of amino acids, and turned them into a living thing. This is impossible! Even the most basic, least advanced form of life is so infinitely complex that there is no way for it to spontaneously happen.

To believe in creation, you have to believe in an entity that is more powerful, more intelligent, and more wise than anything we can comprehend. This is infinitely more reasonable to believe than it is to believe that one species can change into another species. I am not discounting natural selection. It can be proven that minor deviations over time can produce dramatic differences between members of the same species. But that does not account for deviations into different species. Take for example, the mule. A mule is the result in the cross between a donkey and a horse. The donkey and the horse are very closely related based on the evolutionary flowchart, but when they are bread together, the resulting mule is always infertile. It cannot reproduce after its kind. The Liger, the ofspring of a lion and a tiger, is in the same situation. It cannot breed. Why? Because the lion and tiger, and the donkey and horse, while similar in form and function in the ecosystem, are not the same animal. They never were the same animal. Otherwise, their offspring would be fertile.

Why is evolution impossible? Let us examine the lowly protein. For a protein to function properly, it must not only be constructed with the amino acids linked in the proper order, but they must also be folded in the proper way. This folding takes place in the mitochondria inside each cell. However, the mitochondria is made of protein. The mitochondria could not exist (let alone the rest of the cell) before many different properly constructed and folded proteins were in place, but the protein cannot be made without a living mitochondria inside a living cell to fold it properly. The only way for a protein to exist is for God to have created it. Without intentional design, a protein could not exist.

Additionally, if there were a continual evolutionary process going on, then we should see numerous continual changes in every species and in every part of the world. However, we do not have a single case of a transitional phase of plant or animal in any species in any part of the world. It makes no logical sense that for millions of years evolution has been changing things around but it just happens to get it right in our time. Yet there are still constant negative influences in every ecosystem that should still be causing evolutionary development, if that were truly how things developed in the first place.

However, the best argument against evolution is that evolution would demand a violation of "one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature.": The Law of Entropy. "No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18" (2) This means that never, in all of recorded science, have we documented even the slightest deviation in the direction of more complex, or more organized. Everything, unless influenced by intelligence, breaks down and goes toward disorder. You will never see an avalanche result in a Sistine Chapel. You will never see a bucket of paint fall off a truck and result in a Mona Lisa. These things cannot happen because those are ordered and designed objects. Order and design never result from disorder. Therefore, there is again only one option for us to consider. An intelligent being must have set in order all the laws, rules, systems, and structures that exist in the natural world.

Referenced:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org...
2, http://www.icr.org...
Debate Round No. 1
jo154676

Con

I would like to start the debate off by saying thank you to my opponent for accepting.

The first thing I want to make clear is that you do not have to witness an event to prove it. For example if I hear the front door open and see my moms umbrella by the door I can take a very educated guess that my mother arrived home even though I did not physically see her arrive.Next let's establish definitions.

Evolution- the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Creationism- the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

Now which model makes more sense?

With evolution, the problem is establishing how the first living thing arose on earth. While abiogenesis could not have happened on earth, as the levels of oxygen were too high, it could have happened on another planet or any celestial body, and while the earth was being pelted with meteors in its early creation, have arrived. This is the approach taken by some scientists. (9) But the evidence is pretty clear and even my opponent has conceded that microevolution has occurred due to natural selection, and he asks how this could lead to other species being formed. The answer is speciation, which is defined as "the evolution of a new species." This occurs when a population becomes isolated from other populations of the species and the gene pools diverge. So picture if like this, you have a field with zebras in it, and they split into 2 groups and become isolated, so now all of the microevolutional changes occur separately and they become 2 different species. This has occurred for billions of years on earth, but you may ask, how can plants create new species then if they cannot move and become isolated? They use sympatric speciation, so what happens is the plants undergo reproduction isolation, and most of the results are sterile but very rarely, the chromosome number can double before meiosis and the plant can reproduce, this is rare but has been documented to happen in plants and some animals. (1) Now how can science prove this? Here are a bunch of species today undergoing speciation (8) One last note the liger can be fertile (2)

Now let's move onto creationism which states that "God" an omnipotent being created the universe and "intelligently designed" all of the creatures in it. First of all omnipotent is defined as "(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything"(3) So if this being can do anything, can he create a rock that is too heavy for him to carry? But more importantly, have we really been intelligently designed?

Vestigial structures, defined as "A structure in an organism that has lost all or most of its original function in the course of evolution" (4) are strong evidence against intelligent design. Why would an intelligent designer make a being that had things it no longer needed? Some examples for humans include: goosebumps, appendix, tails, wisdom teeth and others (5)(6). Also if we are intelligently designed then why would God make it so that we are only able to survive on one rock in and only on certain parts of it, why would he make it so we needed water and then make it so we can only drink .007 of the water on our planet.

The age of earth is 4.5-4.6 billion years old, as proven through radiation dating of rocks. So far, rocks older than 3.0 billion years have been found in North America, India, Russia, Greenland, Australia, and Africa. (7) But the creation model has the earth at 5-7 thousand years old.

Noah's ark, states that every animal in the world was on this one ship and then they spread out and populated the earth, but if that is true then how did Kangaroos get to Australia? The ark would have landed in the midde east somewhere, near Turkey, so there is no way that the kangaroos could have made it.

1. Biology 10th edition Solomon Martin Martin Berg (my biology textbook)
2. (http://newsfeed.time.com...)
3. (https://www.google.com...)
4. (http://www.yourdictionary.com...)
5. (https://www.britannica.com...)
6. (http://evolution.about.com...)
7. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)
8. (http://www.darwinwasright.org...)
9. (http://www.pbs.org...)
JonHouser

Pro

First off, I want to apologize to my opponent for taking so long to respond. It has been a busy weekend (Go Falcons!!! - Sorry, I live in Atlanta and had to go there.)

In rebuttal to my opponent's arguments, I will start by saying that he is right that you do not have to witness an event to prove that it happened. However, judging solely by circumstantial evidence can lead to disastrous results. We can assume that it is Mom who entered because we heard the door open and saw her umbrella by the door. However, it very well could have been a criminal who knows Mom's routine, stole her umbrella and keys, entered the house unseen, and now is waiting for the right time to cause additional harm. Educated guesses are great, until you use the wrong scale to measure the data you have received.

I would agree with the definitions my opponent has supplied. I would only add that some people include adaptation and "natural selection" in with evolution, but they are different. Adaptation and natural selection are in fact real and have been proven, but they do not account for new species development. They may account for differences within a species that have been separated by geographic boundaries, but those different animals (or plants) are still the same species. They still have the same basic genetic structure, and can breed successfully.

My opponent claims that, "While abiogenesis could not have happened on earth, as the levels of oxygen were too high, it could have happened on another planet or any celestial body, and while the earth was being pelted with meteors in its early creation, have arrived." There are several problems with this theory. First, biogenesis has never been replicated, even in low gravity/low oxygen/low light environments. It cannot be replicated, because even the most basic living organism is far more complex than chance can account for creating. Second, even if it could survive in the near vacuum of space, upon entry into our atmosphere any living tissue would be destroyed. Not even bacterial spores would survive the entry heat of a meteorite.

My opponent makes the ages old argument that for God to be omnipotent He would be able to create a rock that is too heavy for Him to carry, which would prove his lack of omnipotence because He could not carry the rock He created. This statement proves a fundamental lack of understanding about the nature of God. God is not part of this creation. He is outside of it, and cannot be measured by it. He created the entire universe, yet He is greater than all of it. He is not physical. He is a spiritual being that "holds all of creation in His hand." He does not have a physical hand, obviously, but so that we can understand some of His power, He speaks to us in terms we can understand.

As for vestigial structures, there are many explanations for them. One, as I have said before, is that adaptation within a species does happen. So it could be that there was a need for these things in the past, but over the last 6000 years or so the need for them has disappeared. Another could be that God created us with these parts to give evolutionists something to rally around that would "explain" their belief. Finally, it could be that, as with many other structures that used to be called vestigial, we just haven't found their function yet. There are many things we don't know yet, but the more we learn, the better intelligent design looks. As to why God designed us to live on only one rock in the observable galaxy, and only live on the dry part of that rock, and only be able to use .007% of the water on that rock, I cannot tell you for certain. It may be that He didn't want us venturing too far from this rock. It may be that He wanted to show us how special we are, because we live in the only place in the observable galaxy that is capable of sustaining us. These things don't show lack of intelligent design, they prove it. Evolution would say that we would be better off living in salt water. We would have fewer natural disasters to fear, and would be protected from many more harmful environmental effects. If we were "still" lived in salt water, we would be able to use all of the water on the planet. We would probably have developed so we could dive to enormous depths unaided, and our intelligence would have allowed us to go even deeper, much more easily than we have as land based beings. No, it is much more likely that we were created and designed to be air breathing, land based, creatures than that we evolved away from our original home and had to change dramatically to become what we are today.

Radiation dating of rocks proves nothing. First off, it is based on a scale that we defined. Second, we do not know the level of radiation that existed in the original sample. Second, it is very easy to conceive of an intelligent creator making the world appear to have a history beyond its age. For example, while I know that the universe is constantly expanding and things are moving away from each other, some of the furthest stars away from Earth are 10s of billions of light years away. (1) If the Earth was only 6000 years old, that light from that object would not have reached Earth yet. But an intelligent creator could easily have created all the light between here and there so that it appears to have always been there. He could easily have created oil reserves that come from creatures that never existed. He could have created fossils of creatures that never existed.

But we also have to consider that science is not infallible. Science would tell you that diamonds take hundreds of years and massive pressure and enormous heat to form. But when the Trans-American Railroad was torn up, there were diamonds found in the wood of the ties in the tracks. This wood had only been there a few dozen years, and had not been subjected to massive heat and constant pressure, Now, these were not jewelry grade diamonds, but they were diamonds none the less. And there were not just a few of them. There were numerous samples found. Also, since Mt. St. Helens eruption, we have to consider natural disasters when aging stone strata, and the time it takes to form canyons and other natural structures. (2)

Finally, to my opponent's Noah's Ark argument, I will say that there is nothing that says what age the animals were who entered the Ark. It is entirely possible that very young animals were taken. They would take up less space, eat less, and be easier to manage. This would allow two to seven of every animal on Earth to fit in the three deck ship described in the Biblical account. But y opponent's main question was how did those animals reach places like Australia. It is entirely probable that, as geologists tell us, there was once a single land mass that we call Pangaea. If there were multiple earthquakes and resulting tsunami as there were in the M7.8 earthquake near New Zealand last year (3), it is entirely possible to move the masses of the continents from one centralized location to their current location over the 4-5000 years since the Flood.

While it does take a lot of faith to believe in a single intelligent being that created all of the known universe with nothing but His Word, and then to believe that He made all the life on Earth, and that He designed it to be the way it is; it takes much more faith to believe that what science tells us cannot happen, happened once a long, long time ago and that resulted in a single living being that mutated (which never improves but always weakens the resulting organism (2nd law of thermodynamics)) into increasingly more complex creatures until you get to the diversity we see today. If we skip the very first step, evolution may seem to make sense in some respects, but you cannot skip over that very first life form. For it to exist violates all kinds of what science would tell you are immutable laws. However, for God to have created not only the creatures, but also the laws and systems that regulate those creatures, the planet, and the entire universe, not only makes sense, but the best sense of the data we have today.

References:
1. http://www.space.com...
2. https://www.youtube.com...
3. http://info.geonet.org.nz...
Debate Round No. 2
jo154676

Con

"Abiogenesis has never been replicated"

Well not really, there was an experiment called the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952 where they produced organic molecules using gases in the early earth atmosphere, and electricity. (1) Sure the chance of getting it right is low, but imagine every lightning strike that strikes earth every year. There are about 25 million. (2) So if there are 25 million per year, and life started about 1.5 billion years after earth was formed, there were a LOT of chances for it to happen. And it only needed to work once.

The omnipotent remark was more of a joke, but you in your response state "God is outside of creation" asserting he is outside of nature. And I would tend to agree, as "he" only exists in people's minds. They have only been diagnosing schizophrenia for 100 years or so.

Yes adaptation does happen, but evolution is a much better explanation than God here. When you are dealing in a preponderance of evidence it does not suffice to say "this could have happened", you need to show that it is more likely than the other choice. I hope the voters realise this. I believe that if God was real he wouldn't be so mysterious, as there is no reason to be. If he wanted everyone to follow him and go to heaven then he should give more proof. And why has there not been another prophet in the last 2000 years?

Evolution does not dictate that we would live better in salt water. Humans actually have gill like structures in the embryo and lose them during the process of developing in the womb (3), because we have more food on land and the way our eyes work we are better suited for land.

Radiation dating, some methods are flawed and no method is perfect, but there is a new method called cosmogenic dating that measures the level of isotopes that form due to exposure to cosmic rays to show how long it has been on earth surface. This method does not require knowing how much of the radiation was there before, as it is 0, the isotopes don't form without the rays and then we can measure how much is there and get an estimate on how long the rock has been on the surface. (4)

"Science is not infallible"

Of course not, one of my professors said it best, "science is like a drunk driver driving down the road, there are going to be some mistakes along the way but eventually it reaches the target." And the difference between science and religion is that science not only accepts that, but it encourages it. If you told a lifetime evolutionary biologist that you could disprove evolution and you had sufficient evidence, they would be overjoyed, and the person would get the highest accolades in the science community. When that happens in religion, it is not quite the same. The people are often intimidated, hurt, or their finding are destroyed, plus most members of the religion refuse to admit the truth. (5) If you look further you can find oodles of stories of Christians burning down libraries. A diamond is a carbon molecule with a certain structure, although I could not find the story of them being found in the railroads so if you could find a source that would be great. Yes natural disasters happen and that is not a new thing, early earth was volatile, it is quite tame now compared to what it used to be.

Noah's ark

Even if they were babies, we are talking about 14000 animals on this boat, all surviving for a year, all being maintained by 8 inexperienced ship builders who built the largest wooden boat ever created. Common sense says this is preposterous, but that can be our greatest enemy at times so let's do some number crunching. According to Ken Ham, creationist who debated Bill Nye on this topic there were 7000 kinds that were on Noah's ark which ended 4000 years ago. Today there are millions if not billions of species on Earth. One article here estimates close to a trillion (6) But lets take a number 50 million. This would mean that 12,500 new species would be forming every day for the last 4000 years. Is this possible? Maybe. But is this probable? Absolutely not.

Pangaea was around millions of years ago, but even if there was a super continent we would have to find fossils of kangaroos on them somewhere and we have not seen any anywhere except Australia.

Yes it requires mass amounts of faith, and being someone who is never satisfied with a weak answer that uses explanations that defy logic like God made things look old or that he just snapped his fingers and created the universe does not hold up. The problem with your second law of thermodynamics argument is that it only applies to closed systems and living things are not closed systems. The first step is still under debate by scientists and all we can do is theorize until we can prove what happened. And the key word there is prove, rather than rely on an ancient religion text. Evolution is the only way that humans could have been here.

1. (http://www.windows2universe.org...)
2. (https://weather.com...)
3. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...)
4. (http://www.landforms.eu...)
5. (http://www.landoverbaptist.org...)
6. (http://www.livescience.com...)
JonHouser

Pro

The Miller-Urey experiment produced amino-acids. These, while "organic" in nature, are not life. As I showed in round 1, for amino acids to become proteins they have to be arranged and bonded in a particular order and then folded in a particular way for them to be effective in their designated function. If they are folded wrong, they don't work. If they are arranged wrong, they don't fold right, and cannot work. There has never been an experiment where a functional protein was created outside of a living being, because it takes a living mitochondria to fold the amino acid chain properly.

God indicates in the Bible, which I sometimes refer to as the users manual for life written by the manufacturer, that He wants us to follow Him of our own will. There is a reason for God to be mysterious. He wants us to seek Him out. In human terms (and this won't be a perfect analogy, but it will get the point across I hope), it is like Rey from Star Wars Episode 7. Luke (who I believe is her father) left her on a planet in the hands of a cruel man. Then he leaves clues all across the galaxy for her to follow that lead her to him, if she is willing to search. For a long time, she expected him to come to her and prove he loved her. But that is not what he wants. He wants her to prove that she loves him by seeking him out. He doesn't want another Kylo Ren, who was forced to become his student and then rebelled (just like Satan). The harder the journey to get to the teacher, the more sure the teacher is of the student's desire and willingness to learn. This, I believe, is one of the reasons that God made Himself so mysterious, as my opponent called Him.

My worthy opponent assumes that evolution made us the way we are and then says that because we are the way we are, evolution got it right. He says that " we have more food on land and the way our eyes work we are better suited for land." OK, but there is vastly more space in the seas (as my opponent pointed out in round 2). There is vastly more nutrients in the seas. There are fewer natural dangers and threats to creatures that live in the seas. So where is the evolutionary imperative that drove us from the seas however many years ago? What caused our eyes to work better in the air than in the water? Why the change? And why didn't every creature in the seas leave the sea and come onto land as well (if it was so much better on land)?

Cosmogenic dating must then presuppose a uniform level of radiation over time and a zero isotope baseline. But we know that solar radiation changes dramatically from year to year. It also changes as the sun ages. The theory also does not take into account the preexistence of these isotopes in the quartz, or the creation of those isotopes in response to other radiologic effects.

Your professor got it wrong. A lot of the time, that drunk either reaches the wrong destination, or he doesn't reach any destination at all (he dies). Science is the same way. Science has taught us many things over the last 2 or 3 hundred years that we were certain were true that turned out to be false. And I will admit that a lot of people who hold religious belief don't want to hear things that would seem to contradict their beliefs. Religion can be a terrible thing, and many terrible things are done in the name of religion. But God is not a religion. Jesus Himself taught against religiosity throughout His ministry.

Your source references mathematical estimation of the probability of species in a given environment. This goes a little too far for credibility's sake. According to the BBC (1) there are about 8.7 million species on the planet. This includes, "animals ... fungi, plants, protozoa ... and chromists". They say that of the 8.7 million species, 7.77 million are animals. But I would submit that this is counting as separate species animals that are genetically similar but with different appearance. These are not separate species. They are the same species that have adapted to different environments, but have not changed genetically. Also, this takes into account all the animals on land and sea. The Ark only took land animals. I would submit that the Ark very easily could have contained all the animals sent by God to ride in it.

I would challenge the assertion that kangaroo fossils should be found all over the world. That is not necessarily true. It is entirely possible that the two kangaroos off the Ark journeyed to a particular area of the super continent before it split up. Elephants are not native to Australia, and there are no fossils of elephants there. Which can be explained the same way. There were no elephants in the part of the super continent that became Australia when it split apart.

Neither the sun nor lightning is an organizing source that would cause a violation of the second law of thermodynamics as applied to the puddle in which the first life supposedly formed. For that first life to form, it would have had to violate this law by spontaneously growing in complexity. Not only has that never happened, but it cannot happen under any circumstances. There is no time when energy spontaneously grows in complexity. There is never a time when anything spontaneously combines with something else to make a more complex thing. It just doesn't happen. (2, 3) For order to increase, not only energy must be input, but that energy must be intelligently input. Random energy does not account for increased complexity, especially to the level of complexity required for life (again I give you the protein). That being the case, there had to be some kind of intelligence that directed the input into that system to have created life. That input had to have come from an intelligent, powerful, organized, thoughtful, rational being. That being is God.

References:
1. www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14616161
2. http://www.christiananswers.net...
3. https://www.quora.com...
Debate Round No. 3
jo154676

Con

My opponent starts off his final round by stating that a mitochondria is needed to properly fold the amino acids, so I ask my opponent if he knows how mitochondria became a part of cells, they used to be independant organisms with their own cell membranes, so if they were an organism, how were their amino acids folded? And luck may seem like a weak answer but when you think about how many attempts there were, the fact that it happened once should not come as a surprise. Lets use my numbers from last round, 25 million strikes per year, for 1 billion years that is 25 million billion chances for it to be right one time. If you think that is impossible then I am not sure you understand the gravity of that number. That is 25,000,000,000,000,000 tries for 1 success. I do not think that is outside the realm of possibility. I think that science owes an answer but at the rate that it took for it to be successful it could take a long time to prove it.

My opponent then compares the bible to star wars which makes lots of sense as they are both fictional stories told to make children feel better.

Natural selection told us what we should be and evolution made it happen. As to why some creatures became land animals, I would assume that it is because there was an overcrowding problem, but its hard to tell. If you want to learn about eye development read Darwin's talk about it, it is wonderful.

The base level 0 is when it reaches the surface, so there is no problem in that regard. So the only problem then is adjusting for levels of radiation, which is why there is a margin of error, and obviously the suns radiation would be displayed in some sort as a function of time to adjust for levels of sun radiation.

The drunk driver gets home one way or another, and so does science. Science doesn't stand there and insist that it is right even once its been proven wrong, it gets up and says okay this is accepted now. And if evolution was as flawed as my opponent states he is welcome to try and debunk Darwin's theories and make billions.

The Noah's ark argument, you won't let this go even though it is absurd. Science does not consider an animal a new species unless it becomes enough different genetically from the species it evolves from. Even still 7.7 million species/4000 years is still almost 2000 species per day. Evolution is a slow process that is not realistic. Not to mention that Noah is supposed to have built this boat with untrained family members, but it requires advanced ship builders with modern technology to replicate it today. Also there are a few other issues such as the fact that Noah would have had to gather 2 of each species in the world and controlled them and made sure none of them had sex for the whole trip.

The kangaroo fossils should be found as they would have to walk from where the boat landed in the middle east, to Australia. As you can see here (1) Australia would have been quite the trek to not leave a single fossil.

"The fundamental problem which creationists seem to have is the idea that organization and complexity can arise naturally, without any guiding or intelligent hand and without violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We can easily see exactly that happening, though, if we look at how gas clouds behave. A small amount of gas in an enclosed space and at uniform temperature does absolutely nothing. Such a system is at its state of maximum entropy and we shouldn't expect anything to happen. However, if the mass of the gas cloud is large enough, then gravity will start to affect it. Pockets will gradually start to contract, exerting greater gravitational forces on the rest of the mass. These clumping centers will contract more, beginning to heat up and giving off radiation. This causes gradients to form and heat convection to take place. Thus we have a system which was supposed to be in thermodynamic equilibrium and maximum entropy, but which moved on its own to a system with less entropy, and therefore more organization and activity. Clearly, gravity changed the rules, allowing for events which might seem to be excluded by thermodynamics. The key is that appearances can deceive, and the system must not have been in true thermodynamic equilibrium. Although a uniform gas cloud should stay as it is, it is capable of "going the wrong way" in terms of organization and complexity. Life works the same way, appearing to "go the wrong way" with complexity increasing and entropy decreasing. The truth is that it's all part of a very long and complicated process in which entropy is eventually increased, even if it appears to decrease locally for (relatively) brief periods." (2) I am not an expert in the field so I consulted someone else to explain.

Thus I believe I have proved that evolution is a more realistic model for why humans are here, than creationism, and why God is not the most likely solution. I thank my opponent for an interesting debate and I hope the voters see it the same way I do.

1. (http://eatrio.net...)
2. (http://atheism.about.com...)
JonHouser

Pro

As agreed, I will forfeit this round.

I would like to thank my opponent for an engaging debate.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Evolution is False which is why no one can answer these questions:
1. Name the sentient animal created by evolutionists during experimentation:

Answer #1 here:__________________________________.

2: Must have EVOLVED from microbe to a sentient living air breathing, crawling, walking, flying ,egg producing, reproductive animal :

Answer #2 here:__________________________________.

.... because Sentient creatures ARE the recognized Life on earth. Otherwise it's a bacteria, and while they may be a form of life, not a single example of one ever becoming a creature sentient OR otherwise exists in the History of Science.

Medical Definition of Microbe
Microbe: A minute organism typically visible under a microscope. Microbes include bacteria, fungi, and protozoan parasites.

Not excuses please.

3. Name the scientist and the experiment that SUCCESSFULLY produced that specific sentient Life form.

Answer #3 here:__________________________________.

4. Name a single animal that changed from one species to a completely different species in history that IS 100% proveable!

Answer #4 here:__________________________________.

Like dog to fish, bird to lizard, elephant to flea, ape to Man, pig to dog, must be 100% factual OR it CANNOT BE CALLED TRUE as defined by dictionary.
Posted by DrCereal 1 year ago
DrCereal
@Boris
Well, no it isn't. There's evidence that shows it happened (background radiation).
Posted by jo154676 1 year ago
jo154676
That is why bop is shared, neither can 100% prove it.
Posted by KnowledgeBot5 1 year ago
KnowledgeBot5
there is so much we just don't know, its a broad debate- evolution only goes so far, while creationism cannot provide absolute proof, so it too can only go so far-
Posted by Boris7698 1 year ago
Boris7698
I am for evolution but I reject Big Bang theory because it is equivalent to creationism.
Posted by tommylibertarian1 1 year ago
tommylibertarian1
You should narrow this to either evolution or big bang. In other words, discuss either the original formation of the universe or an explanation for the diversity of life. Talking about both seems to cover too much territory.
No votes have been placed for this debate.