The Instigator
debater12332
Pro (for)
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)

Creationism is more Logical than the Theory of Evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Danielle has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,802 times Debate No: 101288
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

debater12332

Pro

I will be arguing that Creationism makes more sense and is backed by more evidence than the Theory of Evolution.

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.

Evolution: the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

I will be arguing for the existence of a creator, and more specifically the Judeo-Christian God. I will also argue that life was made by the Creator and not through evolution.

Con will argue for proof of evolution, and the origins of life without a creator.
Danielle

Con

Introduction

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate.

While Pro as the instigator (of a positive resolution) has the Burden of Proof, he asked that I begin my case in Round 1.

In this debate, I will be arguing that macroevolution (referred to simply as "evolution" going forward) is more logical than Creationism. Creationism is 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. Evolution refers to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species.

To exemplify why evolution is more logical, I will be utilizing scientific theory and the scientific method. This is the process by which scientists endeavor to construct an accurate representation of the world. Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory [1].

I will prove that evolution meets the criteria of the scientific method, whereas creationism does not.

Criteria of a Scientific Theory [2]

- Consistent (internally & externally)
- Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
- Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
- Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
- Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
- Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
- Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)
- Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Evolution is Consistent

Evolution does not contradict the laws of chemistry or physics or other physical sciences. Additionally, there is essentially universal agreement in the scientific community that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute [3, 4, 5]. We have evidence that supports evolutionary theory and common descent; we don't have evidence of anything else. Questions about evolution do not verify creationism.

Evolution is Parsimonious

Evolution is the genetic change over time. This concept, unlike creationism, does not require us to imagine anything new or unusual in the universe like gods. Instead, the explanations in defense of evolution are largely scientifically verifiable.

Evolution is Useful

Denial of evolution amounts to denial of the foundations of modern biology. Evolution explains anatomical and biochemical similarities between different living organisms, including the vestigial components; why embryos of many organisms develop characteristics very different from the adult organism, but then lose those characteristics in later development; why large amounts of the DNA of many living organisms have little or no function; drug resistant bacteria; ring species; biography; the fossil record, etc. Evolution is the conceptual paradigm that ties together all the life sciences. Without the explanatory framework provided by the theory of evolution, the biological sciences would be disjointed and much within biology would not make sense [6].

Evolution Can Be Empirically Tested

In order to test a theory, you must first make a prediction by utilizing information to infer or explain past events or physical states. You then devise a way to test the theory and see if it adds up. Not only is this possible with evolution, but it's been proven and explained to the point of being near universally accepted by scientists. Evolution is a theory just like gravity and relativity are theories. However we're able to prove gravity through explanation. We can do the same with evolution. Organisms have been observed to adapt themselves to better survive in their environment. Cockroaches have adapted to certain pesticides, and virii mutate to become resistant to vaccines and antibiotics. Evolution is simply how things happen in nature [7]. Evolution can and HAS been tested.

Evolution is Based Upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments; is Falsifiable; and Correctable

The theory of evolution has evolved over time depending on the latest evidence to emerge. Today it is indeed a different theory than the one Darwin has described, and we can expect it to change and develop even further considering there are still gaps in our complete understanding of the theory. However, none of the observable facts stand contrary to the idea of genetic change over time. Additionally, there are innumerable tests and studies done to observe the effects of evolution which prove that this theory has been tested, reviewed and verified [8, 9, 10]. It is also possible to falsify evolution, meaning if it were actually done then evolution would succumb to intellectual defeat. However none of the presented evidence has been able to disprove evolution. Instead, creationists cite a "lack of evidence" which is a vehemently rejected notion by most scientists - 95% of them [11], and does not disprove the theory anyway but merely challenges it.

Evolution is Progressive and Tentative

This is self-explanatory. Austin Cline best explains, "The idea that a scientific theory should be progressive means that a new scientific theory should build on earlier scientific theories. In other words, a new theory must explain what previous theories explained at least as well as they did while providing a new understanding for additional material — something which evolution does. Another way to see how scientific theories need to be progressive is that they can be shown to be superior to competing theories. It should be possible to compare several explanations for a phenomenon and find that one does a much better job than the others. This is true of evolution" [2].

Criteria of the Scientific Method

- Observation
- Hypothesis
- Testing
- Revising

Observation

The idea of evolution was arrived at by examining nature. Looking at existing species, examining their characteristics and commonalities, and considering how they arose led to the idea of common descent [2].

Hypothesis

A hypothesis about observable changes in nature and its causes has been made regarding macroevolution.

Testing

The test for macroevolution is keeping consistent with the Fossil Record, and it does. As you dig deeper into fossil beds, they tend to get simpler and simpler in form. The consistency is indicated by a trend known as progressionism and is consistent with the theory of evolution [7]. Also, even creationists accept microevolution - small changes within a species over time. This is observable fact. For instance, cockroaches have been seen to adapt over generations to become resistant to certain pesticides which acts as a survival advantage. Wouldn't it follow that after a significant number of these changes, the new adaptation would be different enough from the original to be considered another, separate species?

Revising a.k.a. More Testing of Hypothesis

The apparently systematic gaps in the fossil record between the higher levels of the biological classification scheme, especially when linked with the unusual biochemical spacing between various living things, present serious evidential challenges to gradualistic forms of evolution at the macroevolutionary level including the Punctuated Equilibria theory as usually presented [12]. Additionally, various experiments confirm the process of evolution in fish [8] and lizards [9].

Origins of the Universe

While not explicitly stated in the resolution (or opening round), Pro apparently wants to debate competing theories regarding the origins of the universe. To win this debate, all I would have to prove is that the Judeo-Christian God creating the universe per Creationism is not likely.

However, I will discuss some competing theories or challenges as discussed by various scientists and philosophers (more in the upcoming rounds due to character limitations). For example, Immanuel Kant posits: If the universe had a beginning, why did it wait an infinite time before it began? On the other hand, if the universe had existed for ever, why did it take an infinite time to reach the present stage?

In order to think about the origins of the universe, we need to observe and resolve Einstein's general Theory of Relativity with quantum theory. Stephen Hawking argues that time can behave like another direction in space under extreme conditions. This means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, per se. Hawking explains:

"Although the General Theory of Relativity predicted that the universe must have come from a period of high curvature in the past, it could not predict how the universe would emerge from the big bang. Thus general relativity on its own cannot answer the central question in cosmology: Why is the universe the way it is? However, if general relativity is combined with quantum theory, it may be possible to predict how the universe would start. It would initially expand at an ever increasing rate" [13].

Thus to ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question; the beginning of the universe would be governed by the laws of science for which we can try to reconcile theories with evidence. In the upcoming rounds, I can expand on this theory and/or competing theories; Pro will have to prove that his theory is most plausible and supported.

Conclusion

Extraordinary claims require evidence. There is little to no evidence supporting creationism; the alleged evidence does not meet the criteria for the scientific method. This is important as the method exists to elicit truth by measuring data to undermine bias.

SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
debater12332

Pro

I would like to thank Con for participating in this debate.

It is my belief, as well as many others that there are really only two explanations for how we came to be. Either by the hand of a creator or by millions of years of molecules being mixed together until the first cell arose. Some people try to offer an alternate theory to these two like panspermia.

Panspermia: the theory that life on the earth originated from microorganisms or chemical precursors of life present in outer space and able to initiate life on reaching a suitable environment.

But the question still remains the same. How did those life forms begin? This debate is primarily on (as Con has already stated) Macro-evolution. The reason that I feel the need to bring this up is because it is important to understand that the science of how the first life-form came to be has never been proven. So just as Con says I cannot prove the existence of God. The theory of evolution cannot prove the origin of life using the "Criteria of a Scientific Theory" mentioned in Con's opening statement.

"Consistent (internally & externally), Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations), Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena), Empirically Testable and Falsifiable, Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments, Correctable & Dynamic, Progressive, Tentative."

What we do know is how the world works now, and I will argue that the science points to a young earth made by a creator. I find it interesting that Con has "tentative" as one of the criteria of a scientific theory when most of the leading evolutionists say that evolution is a fact; they state that there is no God, without giving any evidence. This does not seem very scientific to me.

Con states that there is "essentially universal agreement in the scientific community that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming" Besides the obvious appeal to authority it is important to note that being a creationist in the "scientific community" is not easy as most evolutionists don't view creationists as scientists. History has proven that the majority is not always right. I would also like to add that creationists are discriminated against in the scientific community which leads to very biased studies and statistics. [1]

"Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species, was published in 1859. It is perhaps the most influential book that has ever been published, because it was read by scientist and non- scientist alike, and it aroused violent controversy. Religious people disliked it because it appeared to dispense with God; scientists liked it because it seemed to solve the most important problem in the universe-the existence of living matter. In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.
Lipson, H.S. [Professor of Physics, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UK], "A physicist looks at evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 4, May 1980, p.138.

Con also stated that "We have evidence that supports evolutionary theory and common descent; we don't have evidence of anything else." This is simply not true. Just because two animals have four legs doesn't mean they have a common ancestor. This is a very common argument, but it goes both ways. If God made everything then we can expect a commonality. Where is the evidence for evolution here?

"This concept, unlike creationism, does not require us to imagine anything new or unusual in the universe like gods. Instead, the explanations in defense of evolution are largely scientifically verifiable." Again, believing in God or a deity is one of the only logical explanations for how life began; if you have any other explanations I would love to hear them. The Big Bang is very unusual and so is the idea of Abiogenesis which goes against the Cell Theory, a theory that has never been proven wrong. Also the Theory of Evolution is not verifiable. If evolution were verifiable, it has failed because in all this time no one has ever been able to prove that life came from non-life, that macro-evolution is possible, or that the earth is billions of years old.

"Evolution is useful" It's actually not useful at all. The idea of vestigial organs was made up by ignorant scientists trying to find evidence of evolution. Those organs that most people learned were vestigial are actually very important, and no the appendix is not vestigial. The more we learn about anatomy the more we learn about the importance of these "vestigial organs." I would urge Con to please check your facts, and if you still don't believe that there's no such thing as vestigial organs I'll gladly give you a long list of examples where scientists were completely wrong and "vestigial" organs turned out to be very important.

"why embryos of many organisms develop characteristics very different from the adult organism, but then lose those characteristics in later development;" I'm guessing that you're referring to "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" this was proven wrong in the 1800's. The guy who introduced this actually faked the drawings so I'm not sure why Con is using this as evidence of evolution. You also pointed out some other examples that I will have to cover later in one of my four remaining arguments due to the 10,000 character limit. [3]

Macro-evolution is the main point of this debate, and there is no evidence to support it. I did a quick google search for proof on evolution and could not find one thing on all of the evolutionist websites that proved the possibility of macro-evolution. You made the extraordinary claim that there was proof of macro-evolution and I can't find anything online so please give me at least one example to prove that macro-evolution is possible.

What I did find when I googled "proof of macro-evolution" was an article entitled "there's no scientist alive today who understands macro-evolution." I found a quote by Professor James M. Tour who is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world that said "From what I can see, micro-evolution is a fact" and "there is no argument regarding micro-evolution. The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of micro-evolution to macro-evolution."

Now that I've shed some light on some of Con's "evidence" I am going to show some proof of creation. I believe that God made the earth in 6 days about 7,000 years ago like the Bible says he did. If I'm right then we should expect to see some evidence that either proves or disproves my theory.

If the Bible is true we would expect proof of a young earth, and proof of a worldwide flood. These are things that could either prove or disprove the young earth account of Genesis.

It is estimated that the moon is 4.53 million years old and 238,900 miles away from earth. The moon moves away from the earth every year. If the moon were more than 1.5 billion years old it would have to have been touching the earth. Even if the moon did not recede this fast, as most all evolutionists claim, the tides caused by the moon would cause many problems for all life on earth. [4]

Then there are the comets. If our galaxy was as old as evolutionists say it is we shouldn't have comets. The lifespan of a comet is only a few thousand years, any longer and it melts. How does our solar system have comets and yet evolutionists claim its 4.6 billion years old?

Diamonds were carbon dated at less than 50,000 years. Evolutionists try to say that the diamonds were contaminated in some way, but not only is this a lot of speculation it would also prove that other dating methods such as Uranium-Lead and Potassium-Argon dating methods are completely unreliable. [5]

Evolutionists claim that the Sun is about 4.54 billion years old. If this is true it means the sun has used up about half of its life and is brighter than it was a couple of million years ago. Evolutionists say that life appeared about 3.8 billion years ago. There is something known as the faint young sun paradox, if the sun is 4.45 billion years old the temperature of the earth would be below freezing. Not only does this contradict evolutionist's theories that the earth's temperature was about the same throughout time, but it would also freeze the life-forms on earth. [6]

We also find evidence for a flood such as seashells at the top of Mount Everest and many other mountains. Things like these collaborate the Genesis account and provide evidence for the theory of a young earth. [7]

Evolutionists like to say that creationism isn't science because creationists will twist the data to make it work with the Bible, but then they'll turn around and do the exact same thing they're accusing creationists of. No matter how much evidence contradicts the theory of evolution, evolutionists will refuse to believe in the existence of God. I never said that I can prove God exists, but I can prove evolution wrong and show that the Bible is consistent with science and is the most logical explanation of our origins. Thank you.

[1]https://www.theguardian.com...
http://creation.com...
[2]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[3]https://embryo.asu.edu...
[4]https://answersingenesis.org...
[5]https://biblescienceforum.com...
[6]http://www.space.com...
https://answersingenesis.org...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[7]http://www.creationscience.com...
Danielle

Con

Unfortunately I have just 1 hour to write my response. I will elaborate more in future rounds.

My opponent begins by pointing out that the "criteria of scientific theory" does not prove evolution.

In the next round, I would like Pro to tell us what criteria he has for establishing the proof of anything.

Pro says he will prove that science points to a creator. Per the opening round, he will have the burden of not only proving a creator, but proving the existence of a Judeo-Christian creator as described in the biblical account. Whereas Pro says many scientists say there is no definitively no God, that is primarily false. More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious [1].

Many scientists are agnostic, or advocate for different concepts of God than the Abrahamic view. For example Einstein believed in God, but not the Judeo-Christian God as described in the Bible [2]. Deism is a view that the universe obeying natural laws is an expression of a sort of absent creator -- but that's not what the biblical account of creationism describes.

The point here is that science is not inherently hostile to religion. Pro has the burden of scientifically making his case, without relying on the supposition that science is simply biased against creationism.

My opponent suggests the overwhelming evidence for evolution relies on appealing to the authority of other scientists. For one thing, appealing to the authority of experts is not the same as simply appealing to a majority of the population. Nonetheless the consensus stems from the presented evidence. If you asked every citizen if Donald Trump were the president, and everyone acknowledged it to be true, one wouldn't necessarily be "appealing to their majority" in noting that everyone acknowledged the facts.

My opponent hasn't explained (nor proven) how creationists endure discrimination. Moreover, even when a consensus is established, scientists adjust theories to the revelation of new evidence. For example, prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant. Even Einstein accepted this theory. Then Edwin Hubble"s discovered the relationship between red shift (the way the color of heavenly bodies change as they move away from us) and distance, which showed that the universe was not constant but expanding. Einstein would subsequently abandon his model, and would later refer to it as the "biggest blunder" of his career [3].

This is just one of many examples throughout history where scientists revised their consensus in the face of new information. The fact is, there is no evidence (that withstands scrutiny) to support creationism at all, which is why nobody has come forth and collected their Nobel Prize for the groundbreaking discovery of such evidence. Whereas I have presented a scientific method to validate scientific theories, Pro has given us no legitimate proof at all to validate the tenants of creationism.

Now I will give a brief critique on his misguided criticisms of evolution. He says that just because some animals have the same number of legs doesn't prove a common ancestor. Of course, that is not the argument for proving a common ancestor. There is GENETIC proof of common ancestry [4, 5, 6]. Furthermore, functional biological similarity is explained by common design just as well as it"s explained by common descent [7]. There are literally thousands of transitional fossils " ones that show features in common with distinct later species [8].

I can go into more detail, but I don't have to yet since Pro isn't offering any scientific scrutiny; he simply mentions something irrelevant about legs.

My opponent then suggests that the commonality does not discredit creationism, but of course it does. After all, Pro is advocating for the BIBLICAL account, which says nothing about common ancestors or anything of the sort. The biblical account is essentially a tall tale, describing such mythological events like great floods and other far fetched stories with no realistic proof. According to the Bible, the entire human race was derived of two people that were created out of each other's bodies... but I'll get into the completely asinine, bizarre and outright preposterous claims of the Bible in the next round. I don't have the time now (sorry!).

Moving on, Pro mentions a completely random tangent on vestigial organs. He seems to be implying that I deny the existence of vestigial organs, but I don't as I explained last round. These structures are strong and direct evidence for proving common descent [9]. The existence of vestigial organs can be explained in terms of changes in the environment or modes of life of the species. Thus I do not deny these exist; they help prove evolution to be true.

Pro misrepresents my argument on embryos; I did not say anything in advocacy of "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" so please drop this argument. What I was referring to was embryos developing different characteristics through comparative embryology [10]. I have no idea who or what Pro is talking about regarding fake drawings, but it has nothing to do with my argument.

Pro asks for proof that macro-evolution is possible. I've explained this at length in round 1. I will refer Pro back to sources 7 through 11 from last round, since he claims he can not find any evidence for evolution on his own. Those sources (as I explained last round) indicate where evolution has been observed in nature.

* * *

Pro says the Earth is 7,000 years old and was created in 6 days. Take note that he offers no evidence for this at all whatsoever. Meanwhile, we have radiometric dating and radiocarbon dating, which measures the ratio between the number of carbon-14 and carbon-12 isotopes in any once-living being. This ratio indicates how long it's been since that being was alive. Through this process and others, the Earth has been measured to be over 4.374 billion years old, though it could be older [11]. I can expand in the next round on the plethora of evidence proving the Earth is without a doubt more than 7,000 years old. I invite Pro to present any evidence he can in his favor.

I will address his point on diamonds, comets and seashells in the next round as I have just a few minutes to submit this.

We can leave off here for now.

[1] https://phys.org...
[2] http://physics.ucsc.edu...
[3] http://www.toptenz.net...
[4] https://www.scientificamerican.com...
[5] http://www.stat.cmu.edu...
[6] http://humanorigins.si.edu...
[7] https://www.evolutionnews.org...
[8] http://www.livescience.com...
[9] http://www.darwinwasright.org...
[10] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
https://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 2
debater12332

Pro

I will start out by addressing a few things that Con said.

In round two Con said "In the next round, I would like Pro to tell us what criteria he has for establishing the proof of anything." I'm not really sure what this means, but I know that I do provide scientific proof to back my claims.

Con also said "Whereas Pro says many scientists say there is no definitively no God, that is primarily false. More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious" but I did not say that, and I don't see how it's relevant.

"Pro has the burden of scientifically making his case, without relying on the supposition that science is simply biased against creationism." This is actually true and the only reason I brought it up was because of Con's appeal to authority in the last round.

"My opponent hasn't explained (nor proven) how creationists endure discrimination." I did provide some links that show examples of creationists being discriminated against, but that's not the point of the debate. The only reason I even brought it up was because you indicated in your last round that because creationists were in the minority they were wrong.

I keep hearing about the genetic proof of common ancestry. Genetics don't prove anything. God created every living thing with DNA and RNA so of course we are going to have some commonalities with every other living thing on earth. Similarity is not proof of evolution.

You mentioned transitional fossils. I have a game to go to so I can't sit and refute each example given on the link individually, but every example I've ever seen has later been proven to be a fraud or just a regular animal. If you have some examples I would be glad to explain what they really are, but I don"t have the time right now to research your link. [1]

Con said "I can go into more detail, but I don't have to yet since Pro isn't offering any scientific scrutiny; he simply mentions something irrelevant about legs." I don't need to offer any scrutiny because similarities in genes prove nothing. If you think genetic similarities proves evolution, explain to me how. How do similarities in certain genes prove a common descent?

Also I never said that Con denied the existence of vestigial organs. I said that they don't exist and Con should deny the existence of them. If you study Health or Anatomy you would realize that there are no vestigial organs. For example one of the three most popular examples of vestigial organs are the Appendix, Wisdom teeth, and the Tailbone. None of these are vestigial.

The Appendix helps the immune system and plays a big role in protecting good bacteria.

Wisdom Teeth are extremely useful to humans. Until recently they played a very important role in eating. People today have a different diet which has caused our jaw bones to become smaller. In the past people didn"t have problems with wisdom teeth because their jaw bones were shaped different.

The Tailbone: six very important muscles are attached to this bone, and without it you would have real problems.

These are just three examples of organs that scientists claimed were vestigial, but turned out to be important. There are many more examples so if you do believe in vestigial organs just know that they are not scientific and provides no proof for evolution. [2]

What about the bacteria found alive in "ancient" layers. Bacteria can only survive for so long meaning that these layers couldn't really be millions or billions of years old. Scientists are scrambling to find some way of proving that bacteria can somehow survive this long, but the obvious and logical explanation is that these layers aren't very old. One kind of bacteria was found alive in a rock layer dated at 250 million years old. Everything that scientists know about bacteria says that they couldn't even come close to surviving this long. It takes a great leap of faith to believe that bacteria could live this long. [3]

When it comes to radiometric and radioisotope dating I don't think that Con knows what she's talking about because I am aware of no scientist that will claim Carbon 14 dating proves a old earth. It's almost completely undetectable after 50,000 years under our atmosphere, and it's arguably proof of a young earth. I know that there are some other kinds of radioisotope dating, but I will cover that in a later round as I'm leaving for my game in a few minutes.

Evolutionists base their entire theory on the idea that rock layers take millions of years to form, but polystrate fossils prove otherwise. There are hundreds of examples of trees sticking through multiple layers of sediment. There is no way those layers are millions of years old. [4]

Con said "Take note that he offers no evidence for this at all whatsoever." this is a flat out lie. My last couple paragraphs in round two were spent giving evidence of a young earth. You may not like my evidence, but don't lie and say that I didn't offer any.

I think the real question is, where's all the evidence for evolution? I've offered scientific explanations for the few claims that Con tried to make; I'm still waiting for some good evidence, and I stand by my claim that creationism is more logical than evolution. Thank you.

[1]http://www.icr.org...
[2]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
https://answersingenesis.org...
http://abcnews.go.com...
http://www.webmd.com...
http://www.reasons.org...
[3]http://www.livescience.com...
https://answersingenesis.org... http://www.its.caltech.edu...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
[4]https://en.wikipedia.org...
Danielle

Con

Thanks, debater12332.

I've asked Pro to tell us what he believes qualifies something as legitimate, scientific evidence. He claims he "doesn't know what this means," yet goes on to insist that he has provided scientific evidence. Well, so have I. What makes his evidence legitimate and my evidence not legitimate? Pro has failed to explain. Meanwhile, I've explained how the evidence for evolution holds up against the scrutiny of the scientific method. Pro has failed to explain how his "evidence" measures against this criteria.

My opponent writes, "Genetics don't prove anything. God created every living thing with DNA and RNA so of course we are going to have some commonalities with every other living thing on earth..."

Before we continue, let's note that he claims "God" is the creator but offers no proof; he simply declares it. This claim must be dropped as it is a fallacious bare assertion. I can just as easily claim that Santa Clause created every living thing and it proves nothing.

Pro goes on, "If you think genetic similarities proves evolution, explain to me how. How do similarities in certain genes prove a common descent?"

Scientists have explained this at length.

"The translation between DNA and RNA codons (groups of three bases) and the corresponding amino acids is almost the same in all known forms of DNA-based life on earth, from humans to bacteria. If the translation between DNA, RNA, and amino acid differs, it allows scientists to probe how creatures have evolved and how different taxonomic groups branched apart" [1].

To put it simply: as we go back on the family tree, there are more and more genetic differences between us and our ancestors. By analyzing these similarities and differences as outlined by the genetic evidence, we can make a prediction from the amount of genetic diversity between two species about the time since their common ancestor population lived.

"Just as scars stay on our bodies as reminders of past events, the DNA code contains “scars” and these are passed on from generation to generation. DNA scars result from the deletion or insertion of a block of bases (not just single base changes as in the previous section). Because we have a lot of these (hundreds of thousands) and they can be precisely located, they serve as a historical record of species. . .

If we have the same scar as chimpanzees and orangutans, then the deletion or insertion must have occurred before these species diverged into separate populations. If we and chimpanzees have a certain scar but orangutans do not, we can conclude the deletion or insertion must have occurred after the common ancestor of chimps and humans separated from our common ancestor with orangutans. In this way we can create a detailed family tree of common ancestors" [2].

Next, Pro claims the evidence for transitional fossils is fraudulent, yet offers precisely ZERO explanation, analysis, or proof that my cited examples are false. Thus we have no reason to take Pro's claim seriously, and it will be dropped until he proves that the fossil evidence is fake.

Indeed the fossil evidence is strong. While by itself it does not prove common descent, coupled with DNA evidence there is direct proof of evolution. We have evidence of transitional fossils that anatomically distinguish how species changed over time [3, 4, 5]. Paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs [6].

Pro writes, "If you study Health or Anatomy you would realize that there are no vestigial organs." That is completely false. My opponent goes on to highlight that some vestigial organs were useful, however, vestigial structures are not necessarily without function. They describe anatomical structures with a purpose that is no longer clear [7]. That means they were at a time functional but no longer needed. Pro's very own examples prove this. For instance he points out "until recently" we needed wisdom teeth, admitting that we no longer need them.

My opponent claims he finds a source suggesting bacteria "couldn't live that long."

All of Pro's sources from last round are jumbled up and not labeled correctly. I have no idea which source he's referring to that allegedly proves this claim. It's unclear what his point is here, but we do have some indication that bacteria can be used to help prove evolution.

A team of scientists collected fossilized sulfur bacteria that was 1.8 billion years old and compared it to bacteria that lived in the same region 2.3 billion years ago. Both sets of microbes were indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found off the coast of Chile. Evolution doesn't call for organisms to evolve unless their environment changes, so the microbes' lack of change is consistent with the theory [8].

But again I have no idea why Pro is bringing up bacteria here. Is he denying that scientists have observed the bacteria of evolution? Not only have scientists witnessed this and explained it at length, but they have created a video showing evolution in action here in source #10 [9, 10].

Pro insists he has given evidence of a Young Earth. His proof includes:

A) The Faint Young Sun Paradox

B) Seashells found on top of Mount Everest

C) The existence of comets in our solar system

On the Faint Young Sun - Researchers have made headway in finding the answer. "Atmospheric and surface conditions during the first billion years of Earth's history are poorly understood due to the scarcity of geological and geochemical evidence However, ancient zircon crystals in sedimentary rocks provide evidence that our planet had liquid oceans, at least intermittently, during this earliest period" [11].

Scientists explain it's possible, that is, if you can keep these factors happening in the right order in the right quantities to resolve the paradox:

1. Bring in lots of asteroids to heat the surface. You need some big ones, 100 km in diameter.
2. Make sure the asteroids have lots of sulfur. This will be needed for life.
3. Let the asteroids cause outgassing of lots of sulfur and carbon into the atmosphere to provide global warming (but not too much).
4. Keep the impacts from being too big or frequent to destroy the life that is trying to emerge.
5. Reduce the impact rate as the sun warms up.

On seashells at Mt. Everest - the oceans and landmass that we know now were not always this way. The Earth's crust is constantly changing. The rock that was once below the ocean is at the top of the mountain now [12]. Shells were once in ocean sediments, where they became fossilized parts of rocks [13]. The rock forming the Mt. Everest was once under the Tethys sea that used to exist between main Asia landmass and small indian tectonic plate [14]. Those specific mountains were formed (two earth plates pushing against one another for millions of years caused the mountains to form; the earth used to be flatter way back in the day).

On comets - Scientists believe that comets were born with the rest of the solar system and have been stored since formation in a cold place where the nuclear ices could be stable. The two deep-freeze locations now under discussion are the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt [15]. There is little doubt within the scientific community that the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt exist.

"The young-Earth creationists' attempt to date the age of the solar system, and consequently the Earth, as very young directly opposes accepted scientific evidence. With ever increasing validity through continued research, the proposition of the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt are the best explanation for the existence of comets, despite claims by young-Earth creationists that the existence of comets is evidence for a young earth" [16].

No Proof of Flood

For a global flood to be correct, ALL fossils from ALL species of living things would need to be found in the same layer of earth (whenever the global flood occurred); that means that you should be able to find a human’s skeleton next to a dinosaur’s. This has never been the case [17].

Proof Earth is Not Young

"The process of figuring out a rock's age often falls to the scientific techniques of radiometric dating, the most famous of which is radiocarbon dating. This process focuses on the ratio between the number of carbon-14 and carbon-12 isotopes in any once-living being: that ratio indicates how long it's been since that being was alive. But carbon is not the only element that can be dated—a whole host of others exist. In uranium-lead dating, for instance, the radioactive decay of uranium into lead proceeds at a reliable rate. Based on the very old zircon rock from Australia we know that the Earth is at least 4.374 billion years old" [18].

Swedish researchers have found a tree on Fulu Mountain that is over 9,000 years old [19]. The fossil record also indicates the Earth is much older than 6,000 years. I can expand on this next round if need-be.

SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
debater12332

Pro

I am not quitting, but due to my busy schedule I have to skip this round. Hopefully I can fit everything into the next round.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by judaism 1 month ago
judaism
Well, it's great to be Jewish!

I don't say that lightly.

We believe that both happened. Well, how does that make sense? Let me explain. G-d created everything 15 billion years ago (this is stated in Kabbalah), man evolved (stated in the Talmud), and that it was all an act of G-d (as stated in Bereshit Aleph and the cycles of Tohu and Bohu). But the Rambam said that most all of Bereshit, especially the creation account, was metaphorical. Hence, HaShem first created the world with Midot HaDin, but then added Midot HaRachamim after, hence, the world's birthday isn't what's celebrated in Rosh Hashana, but Adam HaRishon in the last shemitah. Thankfully, Yitzchak of Acco calculated for us the age of the universe via the Sefer HaTemunah, we know he further believed in the Zohar because his Otzar HaChaim, written 20 years after his investigation. This is why Judaism matches perfectly with both creation and evolution, and these things were discussed centuries ago! So no apologetic here!
Posted by PGA 10 months ago
PGA
Hi Danielle,

We are looking for judges to judge a soon to be debate. Will you?

http://www.debate.org...

Peter
Posted by Spud 11 months ago
Spud
I'm cringing so hard looking over the sources that Pro gave in debate.
Posted by debater12332 1 year ago
debater12332
I was waiting for someone to make a comment on that. Of course people change over time. When was the last time you saw a ten foot person walking around? I'm sure there ancient civilizations rarely saw 600lb people walking around. Native Americans have jaw bone structures that differ from the average Americans.
No sane person would deny the existence of adaptation changes caused by food or the environment. What I deny, and what no science has ever proven is the possibility of changing your genetic code. You can mix up your genes all you want, but you can't get new ones.
Posted by Blade0886 1 year ago
Blade0886
Pro here makes an interesting statement about Wisdom Teeth. Look at how this is worded:

"Until recently they played a very important role in eating. People today have a different diet which has caused our jaw bones to become smaller."

That's something I find surprising to come out of the mouth of a creationist xD.
Posted by debater12332 1 year ago
debater12332
Yes I do think that dinosaurs lived within 7,000 and that there is historical evidence of them.
Posted by Blade0886 1 year ago
Blade0886
You didnt answer my question though. Why would there be bones of species that were obviously not part of the world envisioned by the Creationists? Unless you thin that Dinosaurs were made, lived and got extinct during that 7000 year timeframe, despite there being no historical records of such?
Posted by debater12332 1 year ago
debater12332
God didn't bury dinosaur bones, the dinosaurs died and were buried like everything else. As far as proving a good reason for God to include the bones of thousands of species I'm not really sure what you mean, but I'm sure I can sell it :P

If you want to debate me I would be more than happy to have a debate with anyone.
Posted by Blade0886 1 year ago
Blade0886
So, I'm guessing God buried all the dinosaur bones for... what reason exactly? The bones are most certainly not 7000 years old, and history proves that dinosaurs didn't exist 7000 years ago (which is when humans were starting to make sedentary societies, from the Evolutionists point of vue). If you can provide a good reason for why God would include bones of thousands upon millions of species that most obviously do not belong to our world following the Creationists theory, then I'm sold :P
Posted by debater12332 1 year ago
debater12332
Round 1 because this is a big topic and there are only 5 rounds.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.