The Instigator
CandySmith
Pro (for)
The Contender
Amedexyius
Con (against)

Creationism vs Evolution. I'm for Creationism

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
CandySmith has forfeited round #3.
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: 7/10/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 381 times Debate No: 93536
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

CandySmith

Pro

Why creationism is right and evolution is impossible?
Amedexyius

Con

Since my opponent has not provided an argument in round 1, I'll be using this as an acceptance.

Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
CandySmith

Pro

The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. Since we can prove the Bible is true, it makes sense to find out what the Bible tells us about how life was first created and how we got here. After all, if God is really God, He was there at the time and would know how to tell us what happened. The Bible"s account of the beginning of life in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 can be understood by anyone.

Scientists discovered "living fossils" like the coelacanth that have not changed in form for "millions of years."
This is a genuine embarrassment for scientists who believe in evolution, who had to scramble for ideas that explained why these animals did not evolve while others did. (They had to find some explanation, or admit that the theory of evolution was wrong.) A popular example of such an explanation uses the concept of "stabilizing selection," which would be worded like this: "Natural selection prevented change by eliminating all the innovations, sometimes for periods of millions of years." Notice that this statement is the exact opposite of normal evolutionary thought. If that is really the case, we wonder why some "renegade" species chose to follow stabilizing selection while others chose to evolve. The reality is that the theory of evolution has no valid explanation for living fossils.
This is an example of the concept of stasis"standing in one spot. It may help you to know that stasis is not limited to "living fossils." Stephen Jay Gould (an evolutionist) stated, "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." Therefore, both living fossils and the fossil record itself are in conflict with the theory of evolution, which normally teaches that we should see constant change in species"not stasis. Actually, the concept of stasis fits the Bible"s creation model perfectly. We would expect created plants and animals to remain in stasis"the way God created them.
Amedexyius

Con

I thank my opponent for providing their argument.

Rebuttals and Counters

My opponent makes the claim that the Bible is scientifically accurate and that "we can prove the Bible is true". Due to the size of the Bible and the tales in which it contains being beyond the amount of effort I am willing to put into this argument, I will simply state that my opponent has not been able to back up their claim with a study source. I will use one simple example of how the Bible is in so many ways, scientifically impossible. The Bible has made the claim that the Sun is the astronomical object that orbits the Earth. Science has proven that incorrect as the Earth (As well as many other planets) that orbit the Sun [1].

My opponent then makes another claim that the "living fossil" of the Coelacanth has not changed forms in millions of years. This statement is manipulative as not only did Pro not create a source to make their claim sound, but also did not put in much research to find that the Coelacanth has evolved, but only very slowly [2]. This argument in which I have made describing the manipulation of words in my opponent's sentence has rendered null the next 3 sentences made by my opponent describing why it was a "genuine embarrassment", or how evolution "has no explanation" without other foundations, while my source marks these two statements as fallacious.

Pro furthers their claim by stating that the only other logical explanation for the "lack of explanation" on the side of evolution to be the state of stasis instituted by God. In a simple answer, when my opponent did not refute the existence of the Coelacanth and its proven million years existence, their argument of creationism collapses upon itself as creationist believe that the Earth was created 4,000-6,000 years ago [3].

Onto my primary argument, the factual existence of proof of evolutionary traits in life comes at the expense of the principle creationist ideal of the age of the Earth. The fundamentals of evolution itself, dismisses one of the greatest arguments in Creationism and the marked fallacy of God-given stasis in certain animals [4]. Evolution has made it's mark in multiple species, one of them being the inhabitants of the Galapagos Islands where Darwin had made his visit and documented the historical traits of the Galapagos turtles [5].

Due to the arsenal of arguments that evolution harbors, I will leave any speculation of the fallacy of it, to be placed on my sources which will indubitably disprove any doubts as they hold more information then the containment of this debate is willing to hold.

Sources
[1] http://rationalwiki.org...
[2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.amnh.org...
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
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
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by CandySmith 1 year ago
CandySmith
I've never done this before, so maybe you could help me through this the first time, if you don't mind?
Posted by Amedexyius 1 year ago
Amedexyius
I was thinking that in the back of my mind. I'm trying to get my win ratio back up over 75% .3.
Posted by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
It will probably be an easy win.
Posted by Amedexyius 1 year ago
Amedexyius
Sorry, I noticed you were exactly 12 seconds behind me. I was debating myself whether or not to accept and whether it's worth my time.
Posted by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
Gah you accepted just as I was.
Posted by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
I would like to accept
This debate has 4 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.