The Instigator
jamccartney
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Bendurisgrate
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Do you agree with 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
jamccartney
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 919 times Debate No: 42829
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

jamccartney

Pro

I would like to debate with someone who does not agree with the theory of evolution.

Rules:
1. You must cite your sources
2. Please use proper grammar and spelling

I look forward do debating this subject with someone who does not agree with the theory.
Bendurisgrate

Con

I would like to say that even though I believe in the theory of evolution there are some flaws with it.
For right now i only have this
"1. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
2. How did the DNA code originate?
3. How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
4. Why is natural selection taught as "evolution" as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
7. How did multi-cellular life originate?
8. How did sex originate?
9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
10. How do "living fossils" remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
11. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
12. Why is evolutionary "just-so" story-telling tolerated as "science"?
13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
14. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as the operational science?
15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? "
http://creation.com...
Debate Round No. 1
jamccartney

Pro

Hello and thank you for responding.

It seems you have a lot of questions. I will answer them the best I can so you can begin to agree with the theory.

"1. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?"

Well, I believe the answer is: Millions of years. Over that much time, hundreds of proteins are bound to originate by chance. I am actually surprised there weren't more than there are.

"2. How did the DNA code originate?"

Simple organic molecules were formed. Experiments in a lab show that organic molecules could have been synthesized in the atmosphere of early Earth and rained down into the oceans.[1] Then, Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection.[1]

"3. How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?"

I am not sure what you mean by "microbiologist", since it is a scientist that studies microbiology, but I'm guessing you are talking about other organisms. The same answer applies here: It took place over millions of years.

"4. Why is natural selection taught as "evolution" as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?"

Because natural selection is a part of evolution. It defines how evolution works. It really does explain the diversity of life.

"5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?"

Like I said before - Millions of years of time.

"6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?"

To me, they do not look like they were designed. Everything I see when I look around, looks like it has evolved. I see so many similarities in species, that I find it amazing.

"7. How did multi-cellular life originate?"

Many of the single cells that I mentioned earlier came together, slowly gaining similarities. Then, they began to multiply.

"8. How did sex originate?"

That is a good question; it is one that many evolutionists struggle to answer. I have not found an answer to that. Good question, though.

"9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?"

Because over time, things may happen to them. For example, fire, lighting, people, other animals, being buried very deep, etc.

"10. How do "living fossils" remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?"

Most have been buried for so long, there was nothing there to change them. When things are preserved well enough, they remain unchanged.

"11. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?"

Consciousness is an energy, which is stored within the brain. Chemistry has little-to-nothing to do with being conscious. It is an external energy that exists at a quantum level, which creates "mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality".

"12. Why is evolutionary "just-so" story-telling tolerated as "science"?"

Because it involves research, theories, biology, and chemistry. It involves studying the human genome, as well as the Neanderthal genome.[2] There is nothing but science involved.

"13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?"

1. Mapping the human genome.[3]
2. Mapping the Neanderthal genome.[2]

"14. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as the operational science?"

Because evolution involves a lot of science. It is mostly science. It is history, yes, but students would ask many questions, most of which a history teacher could not answer.

"15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?"

Evolution is not a religious belief. Religion states that a god or gods put man on the planet. Evolution states otherwise. Evolution does in fact have science, whether you think it does or not. If you do research, you will find the proof.

[1]http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[2]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[3]http://www.genome.gov...
Bendurisgrate

Con

I apologize if this is not the arguement that you would like to hear but have a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
You have been well prepared for this as i can see and wish you the best of luck.
I apologize if the arguements in the past were not as clear i am using it from quotes and refrences.
Debate Round No. 2
jamccartney

Pro

jamccartney forfeited this round.
Bendurisgrate

Con

I must apologize for not making it clear about not forfeiting i should have posted that in the comments.
This can go to both disprove both god and evolution but who or what created the first particle that created all of this chance would have needed something to do it.
The first commenter did have a good point of evolution being debated quite frequently and simple pro and con arguments will most likely be used in this.
Also i would like an example of a being evolving in modern times.
Debate Round No. 3
jamccartney

Pro

Hello. I apologize for not responding. I got caught up on other things.

I agree, this topic is debated a lot, but I still wanted to debate someone for myself.

What you said about "disprov[ing] both god and evolution" and "who or what created the first particle that created all of this" is true. Asking about the first particles is a dead end question - at least for now. If we can figure it out, then yes, it could disprove god, but not evolution. Evolution has so many facts and research behind it, it is safe to say it is a fact.

You said that you "would like an example of a being evolving in modern times." It is hard to find an example of that because technology is allowing humanity to adapt in a different way, without evolving. The same is the case for other species. Humans are either caring for them and giving them homes or killing them off. I could not find an example of modern evolution, but I can tell you this: Humans may soon evolve again. Because of global warming and pollution, we will need to adapt to be able to deal with the carbon dioxide. But, that is just a theory. There is no way to tell for sure.

Again, I apologize for not responding, as do you. It seems we both got caught up on our daily lives. Your response is the last one, so be sure to make your rebuttals - if you have any - strong. Then it will be up to the people to vote. Thank you for debating this topic with me.
Bendurisgrate

Con

Bendurisgrate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Bendurisgrate 3 years ago
Bendurisgrate
I apologize for not making this clear but i am willing to go on in the debate i have a few more arguements.
Posted by jamccartney 3 years ago
jamccartney
Hello. This is Pro from the debate.

I just wanted to ask about Con's reply in round 2. I do not know if he is giving up or not. Con, if you are reading this, please clear this up. Thank you.
Posted by Bendurisgrate 3 years ago
Bendurisgrate
I would like people to disregard J-smooth's comment.
It's not right to jump to conclusions about people also just because they believe in evolution does not mean they're a virgin or an atheist.I believe in god,have had several relationships and have a happy life.
Posted by J-smooth 3 years ago
J-smooth
Getting really tired of all these asswipes trying to pick a fight with somebody about evolution. It's been done like a thousand times, and the theory of evolution doesn't need some 10th grade virgin-face atheist defending it, the entire scientific community defends it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
jamccartneyBendurisgrateTied
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 abandoned the debate.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
jamccartneyBendurisgrateTied
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 conceded the resolution almost immediately.