The Instigator
Ozzyhead
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
ManofFewWords
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points

Disproving evolution is evidence for god

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 10 votes the winner is...
Ozzyhead
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,220 times Debate No: 52896
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (10)

 

Ozzyhead

Con

Evolution being proven wrong would not be evidence for a god
ManofFewWords

Pro

Evolution is the only, single, explanation of how the species are all intertwined and explains why and how each and every sinlge entity on Earth has formed.

The only other way this could have happened is by the careful illusion of evolution being conjured by an intelligent designer.

There is no third alternative.
Debate Round No. 1
Ozzyhead

Con

The evidence for evolution is very clear, and as far as I can tell, it is unlikely to be proven wrong, but pretending the proposition is likely, we cannot safely assume that a god is real if evolution is proven wrong. Disproving one claim is not evidence for the other. It increases it's likelihood of being true, but increased likelihood and evidence are different things. Lack of evidence for one possibility is not automatic evidence for another claim. Using the basic scientific hypothesis method of "if, then", you can see this does not make sense. 'If I disprove evolution, then god is the cause of life'. That makes no sense. For a claim to have evidence, there must be something measurable about it. Everything that exists with in the universe that we know exists is measurable in some way. If a god is not from the universe, then even if a god does exist, it has not been able to distinguish itself from something that does not exist, so it makes as much sense to believe in a god as it does to believe in something that does not exist.
ManofFewWords

Pro

Actually it makes perfect sense to say 'If I disprove evolution, then god is the cause of life' because there is no third alternative.

It's either creationism or evolution.

What part of this are you finding hard to understand?
Debate Round No. 2
Ozzyhead

Con

A claim is not good enough for something to be true. If evolution is disproved, then it opens up the whole question of where we came from. A claim needs evidence. Lack of evidence for one claim does not prove another claim
ManofFewWords

Pro

My opponent has failed to offer a third alternative to Creationism and Evolution.

I have explained why one directly negates the other and why the other must therefore be true if the other isn't due to a lack of any other alternative.

My opponent has failed to negate my argument and has tried to circle around it the entire debate by repeating that I have no evidence that God exists but that's because evolution is proven to be true so it only furthermore proves the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ozzyhead 3 years ago
Ozzyhead
I believe,I did address his argument, or at least made his question nonsensical because I said a claim followed by disproving the contrary claim is not good enough for something to be true. My opponent's question did not go with the debate. My burden was only to show how disproving one party being true is not evidence for another party being true. I had no burden to address a third party because that has nothing to do with this debate. My opponent randomly brought up a burden for the third party but I had no reason to address it.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Request more votes, but don't debate in the comments...

http://www.debate.org...
"Analysis - Which debater, on balance, did a better job of clearly explaining their arguments and of exposing the weakness of their opponent's arguments?
"Refutation - Which debater critically analyzed their opponents' arguments the best and developed clear, appropriate, and understandable responses?
"Organization - Which debater organized their arguments the best, creating an easily understood and readable path to follow?"

Following these, I shall give a solid RFD; however this does not invalidate any other vote. Debates are often subjective.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
---VOTE RFD---
R1, basically opening remarks:
Con opens with an assertion.
Pro explains how awesome evolution is, then explains his belief that were it somehow disproven then an intelligent designer must have done it (please note, the resolution does not state the Christian God, which gives pro a lower BoP than if he had to prove a certain ID). His key point is "There is no third alternative."

R2, cross examination begins:
Con also talks about how awesome evolution is, reminding us that it's "unlikely to be proven wrong, but pretending the proposition is likely, we cannot safely assume that a god is real if evolution is proven wrong." The resolution is not about likelihood, nor about actual proof.
Pro concisely states "It's either creationism or evolution. What part of this are you finding hard to understand?"

R3, answers and final remarks:
Con "If evolution is disproved, then it opens up the whole question of where we came from." While I agree, this was inadequate on the cross examination, since pros entire case fails if any third option is tossed in; such as a dumb creator.
Pro reminds us of the failing.

Analysis - About even. While I personally disagree with pro on it, he left his weakness well exposed and outright stated, but con never noticed it.
Refutation - Pro wins this, for the obvious reasons explained above. Keep in mind it's not about if one side has the magical truth on their side.
Organization - Pro, very concise and to the point. Used multiple paragraphs... Both would have been improved by quoting the other.

CONDUCT: Tied (neither side conceded this with cheating or being a jerk).
S&G: Tied (neither side conceded this with sloppiness).
ARGUMENT: Pro (two out of three categories we are allowed to vote on; that I personally disagree with him is not relevant to the vote).
SOURCES: Tied (none to grade, a single source would not have shifted this, but a link to disjunctive syllogism would have made arguments a slam dunk for pro.).
Posted by Ozzyhead 3 years ago
Ozzyhead
Please do not offend or influence the voters decisions. It is their choice. I respect them whether or not they vote for me. Please leave them alone
Posted by ManofFewWords 3 years ago
ManofFewWords
Lol jude...
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
I get what you're saying, but the only way I can accept Pro's argument is to deny the function of evidence. Even if I buy (and for the purposes of this debate, and due to the lack of response, I do) that only two possibilities exist, then disproof of one provides logical support for the other rather than actual evidence. At least that's my perspective.
Posted by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
It's called a disjunctive syllogism, guys...

P1: EITHER creationism is true, OR evolution is true.
P2: Evolution is not true.
C: Creationism is true.

It's not a hypothetical syllogism at all.

Disjunctive syllogisms affirm by denying.
Posted by ManofFewWords 3 years ago
ManofFewWords
I am butthurt because the reasoning for these votes is the personal opinion of the voter.
Posted by Complicated_Mind 3 years ago
Complicated_Mind
I'm sorry you're not satisfied with my vote, but you asked. You can't get butthurt every time you ASK someone to vote and they don't vote in your favor.

I will no longer be commenting on this debate.

The end.
Posted by ManofFewWords 3 years ago
ManofFewWords
Cool story.

You are blind to the fact that he never addressed my argument even once.

The end.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
OzzyheadManofFewWordsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Con had the burden of proof in this debate, even though he posed the challenge as a negative. Thus he had to show an alternative other than creationism or evolution. It's likely some such an explanation could be ginned up, but Con didn't try. Technically, "evidence for" is not the same as "conclusive evidence for," because many things are determined by the preponderance of evidence rather than by a single piece of evidence. So if evolution were disproved, the main explanation of speciation according to natural laws would be disproved, and that would increase the case for a magical god-based explanation. Con's assertion that the two issues are unrelated is not sustained.
Vote Placed by judeifeanyi 3 years ago
judeifeanyi
OzzyheadManofFewWordsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I will only award conduct point to pro. Because his questions was not addressed by con. Both debaters did not argue well as such, none of them addressed the over killing issue. No rebuttals was made. Infact the debate is dull
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
OzzyheadManofFewWordsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Basically pro left his case wide open, and con did not even respond to cross examination... BoP failure would have been an issue if a certain ID was named, but such was not a case in the setup for this debate.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
OzzyheadManofFewWordsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro brought up a false dichotomy saying that it's either evolution or creationism. This should have been easy for Con to refute. But he didn't really do this very well. He also didn't understand that a false dichotomy isn't a hypothetical syllogism.. it's a disjunctive one. Well neither side realized that, but I had to give arguments to Pro since Con never sufficiently showed that the dichotomy was a false one. You can't just say: That's a false dichotomy, you're obligated to show another option. If I say: you're either for me, or against me. And my opponent just states: That's false. he hasn't shown why it's false. As such, simply stating that someone has committed a fallacy doesn't show that he does, since he can simply deny that he made a fallacy which is what Pro does.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
OzzyheadManofFewWordsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Evidence requires some measure of proof, albeit it can be in a lot of different forms. I can see the argument from Pro, and I understand that in the absence of another alternative, creationism becomes the most likely among known theories as a result. If this debate was about likelihood or lending credence, it would be enough to propose. But Con sets up the debate as being dependent on evidence. I never see a sufficient link between an increase in likelihood and an increase in evidence. Perhaps if I had seen some analysis of the specifics of the evidence already present for evolution, and how the disproof of evolution would necessitate that that evidence transitions to mainly supporting creationism, I'd be likely to propose. However, as I lack that demonstrated link between disproof for evolution and increased evidence for creationism, I must negate.
Vote Placed by Raisor 3 years ago
Raisor
OzzyheadManofFewWordsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument could have been better explained and he should have explicitly addressed pros assertion that evolution and creationism represent an encompassing dichotomy. That being said I think his responses were marginally adequate, that disproving evolution just opens up other possibilities without directly supporting other alternatives. Good move by con ceding that disproving evolution would increase the likelihood of creationism but would not provide evidence for it.
Vote Placed by Complicated_Mind 3 years ago
Complicated_Mind
OzzyheadManofFewWordsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. I only gave such a long RFD because Pro told me on my profile that he was displeased with the other votes, so I decided to make a more descriptive vote to better appease Pro. In the end, however, I voted like all before me.
Vote Placed by Sswdwm 3 years ago
Sswdwm
OzzyheadManofFewWordsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro attempts to shift the BoP onto Con demanding a third option, and doesn't make substantial argumentation of his own.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
OzzyheadManofFewWordsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con doesn't have to offer a third option. Disproving one thing doesn't prove another. The law of excluded middle doesn't exist in this example.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
OzzyheadManofFewWordsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never proved how proving evolution false automatically proves the existence of God, also Pro just making Con show a third way was not Con's burden, the burden was on Pro to show how if evolution is wrong it automatically proves God. Pro never did this apart from assert it. Arguments to Con