The Instigator
GarlicBred24
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Midnight1131
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Creationism is more believable compared to 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Midnight1131
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 628 times Debate No: 71597
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

GarlicBred24

Pro

Atheists seem to believe that the world just magically appeared. They have no prove of it. In the Bible, they clearly state what happened.
Midnight1131

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. I'd like to start out with definitions. All definitions are from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


Atheism -
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

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

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.

So, first of all. I'd like to point out to my opponent that atheism and evolution are two different things. Evolution explains how humans became the way we are, and atheism is simply a rejection of the idea of god, nothing else. I would like my opponent to clarify in the next round whether or not he's debating against atheism, or evolution. But since the title suggests this is a debate between creationism and evolution, I'll provide arguments for the evolution standpoint.


Evolution is fact. In science fact is, as described by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, is data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent,"

Evolution has been observed before, such as day flying moths. At first they had light skin, and there were a few dark skinned moths, at first light skinned moths had a better chance at surviving and reproducing because they were calouflaged against the nearby trees, which made it harder for birds to see them. But when factories were built, it caused pollution, and the nearby trees turned to black. Now the dark skinned moths camouflaged against the trees, and the light skinned moths stood out, causing more of them to be eaten by birds. More dark skinned moths reproduced and they became the majority. Now there rae controls against polution, and the light skinned moths have the advantage, and are more common than dark skinned moths.

Evolution has been explained and observed to the point where it's impossible to deny it, unless of course you don't understand it. There is no evidence for the events in the Bible, nor have they been observed. They are not even theoretically possible.


Debate Round No. 1
GarlicBred24

Pro

Atheism and Evolution are indeed connected.

Atheism -
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

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

People who support evolution completetly deny the fact that a god created the universe. Therefore, you cannot support Evolution without being Atheist.


Con mentions thats light skin moths are an example of evolution, even though that is an example of microevolution.
Con says Evolution has been explained and observed to the point where it's impossible to deny it, but fails to provide any legitimate examples.

In the next round, I encourage Con to provide examples that are not examples of microevolution.
Midnight1131

Con

I'd like to start by saying atheism and evolution AREN'T the same thing. Many people believe in god and also believe in evolution. A good example of this is THE POPE.

Sources of this -
http://www.npr.org...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.cnet.com...
http://www.religionnews.com...

So, I think this settles that you don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution. Moving on.

My opponent is trying to say that microevolution is not evidence of evolution. But I'd like to point out that evolution takes place over a very long time. And these small changes will eventually lead into a different stage in development. And I'd also like to point out that this is a legitimate example, especially when put up against the non existant proof of god, and creationism.


A good example of macroevolution is the evolutionary path of humans.

We developed from the Australopithecus, it had smaller molars, and a 50% larger brain capacity than its predecessor. Homo habilis later developed into Homo erectus. More small changes occurred, Homo erectus had a cranial capacity that was great than that of Homo habilis, and the frontal lobe of the brain was not as sloped. They were slender, with long arms and legs, and stood up straight.

Small changes like these are what led up to Homo sapiens. All of these small changes gave these species an advantage over the other ones, and they were more likely to survive and reproduce. You can’t say that Homo sapiens and Australopithecus are still the same species.


You can see how microevolution is small changes over time. But over a longer period of time, these changes become so drastic and the result is so different than the original species, that the resulting product becomes a new species on it's own.

My opponent is trying to prove that creationism is more credible than evolution, I encourage them to try and provide evidence for creationism, which they have not done.
Debate Round No. 2
GarlicBred24

Pro

According to Pro's narrow scope of "evolution" pertaining to only "living organisms " during the history of the earth," and with Con's belief in the existence of a God.
This debate has nothing to do with proving the existence of a God. And with that said, Con is a Athiest who believes God set off the Big Bang (Creation) but has since remained indifferent to the universe, as God's Laws of Nature is the instructions, or program, defining the evolutionary process of the universe both inanimate and animate.

From the Laws of Nature, the handwriting of God, there exist a common design, not random or chaotic, found throughout the universe and is elegantly described by the Constructal Law.
http://www.amazon.com......
http://www.youtube.com......

Con's alignment with Creationism runs closest to "Theistic Evolution."
http://ncse.com......

Pro's definition of "Creationism" also includes the phrase "...as in the biblical account..."

In reference to the Bible---man's written scriptures. For atheists and those of us of faith, including preachers, prophets etc, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all ("72 virgins" upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc.).

And in saying that, "the biblical account" is a scripture for interpretation. In the Book of Genesis, Con simply interprets that God created the universe and everything in it.

Finally Con's definition of "Creationism" ended with the phrase "...rather than by processes such as evolution."

Con's definition of "evolution" is simply incomplete, it only includes the animate ("process by which different kinds of living organisms") and left out the evolution of the inanimate. Inanimate evolution is a prerequisite for life. How could you have life without the elements of the Periodic Table? Those elements did not exist at the Big Bang, therefore they too had to evolve. Pro's definition of "evolution" also restricts it to the "history of the earth." According the God's handwriting (the Laws of Nature), evolution is throughout the universe.

Life is a way for nature to see and experience itself. Humans are part of life, part of nature. All what humans do are confined within the matrix of the Laws of Nature, there are no exceptions. In this universe it would seem the "blue" pill is life, where the "red" pill is death (https://www.youtube.com......).

Humans are also confined to the "Natural Selection" process as in wars, disease, natural disasters (when the next meteorite hits the earth), etc. One may argue humans could interfere with the "Natural Selection" process. Since humanity is part of nature, the event of human interference is therefore, part of the "Natural Selection" process.
Midnight1131

Con

Pro said - According to Pro's narrow scope of "evolution" pertaining to only "living organisms " during the history of the earth," and with Con's belief in the existence of a God.

I'm going to assume this was a typo, because I am con, and my opponent is pro.

This debate has nothing to do with proving the existence of a God.

This debate DOES have to do with proving the existence of a God, because creationism depends on the existence of a god.

Con is a Athiest who believes God set off the Big Bang (Creation)

Con, being me, is an atheist who DOESN'T believe in a god. Because, the definition of atheism, as I pointed out before, is a person who doesn't believe in god. Atheists that believe in god don't exist.
However, I think my opponent made another typo, because CON is me, and PRO is my opponent. Even then, you can't be an atheist if you believe in god. The ONLY thing that makes you an atheist is not believing in a god, or gods.



In reference to the Bible---man's written scriptures. For atheists and those of us of faith, including preachers, prophets etc, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all ("72 virgins" upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc.).


If man cannot be trusted to correctly interpret what god wrote in the Bible. Then how does man worship the god in their preferred religious text. What if that god was also interpreted wrong?


Putting aside the confusing choice of my opponent to refer to myself as pro, and then halfway through starts calling me con.

My opponent references the existance of the elements. That has been explained scientifically. To scratch at the surface, after the big bang only the 2 lightest elements were formed, hydrogen and helium. As the cloud of cosmic dust and gases from the Big Bang cooled, stars were formed. Nuclear reactions and supernovas are what created the other 86 elements we know today. And many unknown ones are probably out there to discover. My opponent argument is flawed, because the existance and making of the elements isn't even remotely close to the evolution of life forms.

My opponent also references that humans are confined in natural selection. I'll give definitions here - From http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Natural Selection
The process whereby organism better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

My opponent says humans could interfere with the natural selection process. I'd like my opponent to look into ARTIFICIAL SELECTION, which is humans interfering with the natural selection process.


This round was very hard for me to respond to, because my opponent provided 4 sources, and none of them worked. Such as the youtube link, which just takes you to the youtube homepage.


Throughout the debate, my opponent hasn't provided a single shred of evidence in favour of Creationism.

To sum up, evolution is much more credible than creationism, because evolution has been observed over a shortened timeline [the moths I referenced earlier,] and it's been fully explained to be theoretically possible. Whereas creationism has no evidence, and it's never been explained. Which is why creationists have such a hard time providing evidence for it.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by YoungLeader4216 2 years ago
YoungLeader4216
I personally believe that things forming from other things is much more believable than things just appearing out of no where.
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
Pro you suck. You copied stuff from another debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
GarlicBred24Midnight1131Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con outargued Pro in every way possible. Pro copied and pasted from another debate.
Vote Placed by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
GarlicBred24Midnight1131Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Well... This just seemed a mess from the start for Pro. Pro never attempted any affirmative argument! Con did nicely with his, even humoring pro with a rudimentary description of the big bang (clearly outside the scope of the argument). Pros 3rd round was... I just don't know. Very confusing. In these debates, Christians need to understand what exactly evolution is. The bible created the universe, and everything in it in about... well, I would have to look it up, but it is very short. Science actually has to deal with fact. It takes more than just one branch of study to get to the same point the bible just states as fact. Short, evolution has nothing to do with making planets, stars, the nebula that these come from, the big-bang that created it all.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
GarlicBred24Midnight1131Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and Grammar to Con due to Pro constantly confusing himself with his opponent and numerous other grammatical mistakes. Arguments to Con, however I was surprised at the arguments Pro brought up in the third round, they actually weren't too bad, however Con was able to dismantle and dispute every single one of them. Con also showed that Pro did not provide a single piece of evidence for intelligent creation, and in fact said the Bible is UNRELIABLE, even though Pro states in the first round that "In the Bible, they clearly state what happened" - so Pro basically discredits his own source. For that reason, as well as his broken links, and Cons' working links, I give the sources point to Con. It started to become a decent debate in the third round, but unfortunately that was the last round. Nice try, GarlicBred.