The Instigator
hayhen13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mike_10-4
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Evolution (Pro) vs Creationism (Con)

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...
Mike_10-4
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 67413
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

hayhen13

Pro

First round is acceptance only. A forfeit is an automatic loss.

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

Creationism:the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by processes such as evolution

Anyone who wants to seriously debate this topic should accept.
Mike_10-4

Con

I accept and looking forward to a mutual learning experience.
Debate Round No. 1
hayhen13

Pro


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. My opponent will be trying to prove the biblical account of creationism and I will be proving evolution.


Argument:


“Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.”


If you can find fossil evidence, or any kind of evidence to prove that God created life, it would be wonderful to make that evidence visible for us. For in order to win this debate you need to prove that God created life.


Now let’s focus on Evolution by Natural Selection. The idea was first proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in the 19th century on the transmutation of species. But later in 1858, Charles Darwin and published a new theory that was explained in detail in On the Origin of Species (1859) by Charles Darwin.


Evolution by Natural Selection is a long process that takes millions of years to see significant change. This process is disrupted in human life today since we no longer live in a state of nature. But in a state of nature, you would agree that the human with bad eyesight, or bad athletic ability would be more likely to be killed by a predator. Since these human’s do not survive as well, they are usually killed, and unable to pass on those genes. Therefore the organisms better suited to their environment live, and pass on those genes. So frogs start to have longer and longer legs, lions with sharper teeth, etc. Over millions and millions of years these slight changes add up and you notice significant changes.


But since we are no longer dependent on these attributes today, evolution still happens, but it is much different since it is a different environment. The visually impaired can get glasses, and etc.


Now in order to know Evolution to occur, we need to have evidence. We have a series of snapshots along this process visible with bones, the human skull changing more and more from an ape like to a human like form. This is how we know evolution to be true.


Conclusion:


I have made clear the process of evolution and shown significant evidence to show how evolution is true. I would expect the same from my opponent. Thank you.






http://evolution.berkeley.edu...


http://www.talkorigins.org...


http://humanorigins.si.edu...


http://en.wikipedia.org...


Mike_10-4

Con

Thank you Pro for your argument. The following is Con's argument ending with two comments on Pro's argument:

The foundation of this debate has been set in Round 1 by Pro and it follows:

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

Creationism:the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by processes such as evolution

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; Con finds Pro's definition of “creationism” to be more accurate to the creation of the universe, compared to Pro's definition of “evolution.”

This debate has nothing to do with proving the existence of a God. And with that said, Con is a Deist 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 Pro's definition of “Creationism” ended with the phrase “...rather than by processes such as evolution.”

Pro'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.

Con has only two issues with Pro's argument:

1. Pro stated,For in order to win this debate you need to prove that God created life.”

Proving the existence of God (“...prove that God...”) is not a debate parameter defined in Round 1. Again Pro's definition of “Creationism” contains the phrase, “as in the biblical account.” The bible and all of man's written scriptures about the supernatural is only based on belief. Hence, there is no proof of a God. God is only a relationship one has with their faith.

We could eliminate the concept of God and the bible from this debate and little will change. For example, the Big Bang is the event beginning, the creation of the universe and time where evolution is a function of time. Therefore, the Big Bang is not part of evolution but the creation thereof. Right after the Big Bang starts evolution according to the Laws of Nature as a function of time. And in saying that, creation created evolution, whether there is a God or not in the event entity that caused the Big Bang. The men of science have no empirical evidence of what caused the Big Bang; hence, faith (God), philosophy, and hypothetical assumptions thereof.

2. Pro stated,This process [Natural Selection] is disrupted in human life today since we no longer live in a state of nature.”

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.
Debate Round No. 2
hayhen13

Pro


Thank you Con for that… interesting response.


I found your response very, very confusing. I’m not sure what’s going on with your language, are you seriously talking in 3rd person? If so I would like to politely ask that you start writing in 1st person so that the audience and I can try to interpret what you are writing.


Rebuttal:


“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; Con finds Pro's definition of “creationism” to be more accurate to the creation of the universe, compared to Pro's definition of “evolution.”


I hate to break it to you, but evolution actually ‘pertains’ to living organisms, and is based on that idea. And about the definition of ‘creationism’ it mentions God creating the universe, but it also mentions God creating life. That is the definition of Creationism, I’m sorry if you didn’t know what creationism was until now, I apologize for that too.


“Pro'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.”


In this paragraph Con whines about the definition. If you didn’t like the definitions of the words I addressed in round one, you should have said so in round one. My opponent has not brought up any arguments so far, so I cannot address any thus far.


“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.”


We are not battling for survival now are we? Once governments and nations were set up, we stopped living in a state of nature. If you are a citizen of a country, then you no longer live in a ‘state of nature’ Your argument was that we still live around natural laws, and we still live in nature. I’m not sure if you know anything about this subject, but we no longer live in a state of nature.


Conclusion:


My opponent has not brought up any real arguments and has not defeated any of my arguments. In your response please show evidence to support you position on creationism.



Mike_10-4

Con

Sorry about the confusion over the third person, I, Con, will continue in the first person, for the remainder of this debate.

Pro stated, “If you didn't like the definitions of the words I addressed in round one, you should have said so in round one.”

Pro also stated in Round 1, “First round is acceptance only. A forfeit is an automatic loss.”

According to your rules, I could only use the First Round for “acceptance only.” That means no debate on definitions in the First Round. Therefore, this debate becomes, in part, one of a debate over definitions and belief.

Pro stated, “I hate to break it to you, but evolution actually ‘pertains’ to living organisms, and is based on that idea.”

I like debates, for the sole reason of the learning experience. Therefore, debates are a form of evolution in learning. Evolution covers a wide spectrum relative to the Constructal Law in both inanimate and animate, where the Constructal Law is part of the Laws of Nature. The Laws of Nature trumps any previous metaphysical definitions of evolution from the Darwinian Era. And in saying that, I recommend Pro should move from those classical concepts and explore the current discoveries on evolution.
http://www.amazon.com...
http://www.youtube.com...

Pro stated, “And about the definition of ‘creationism’ it mentions God creating the universe, but it also mentions God creating life.”

I agree with Pro about God creating the universe and life through evolution via God's Laws of Nature after the event of creation known as the Big Bang. As I mentioned, my belief in God creating the universe and everything in it aligns with the “creationism” philosophy known as “Theistic Evolution.” Please read the following link: http://ncse.com...

Pro stated, “We are not battling for survival now are we? Once governments and nations were set up, we stopped living in a state of nature. If you are a citizen of a country, then you no longer live in a ‘state of nature’ Your argument was that we still live around natural laws, and we still live in nature. I’m not sure if you know anything about this subject, but we no longer live in a state of nature.”

We humans are battling for survival every day. Each breath we take is the bio-energy required in the pursuit for survival. Bio-energy is not free, we need to battle, as in work, for the money needed to buy food. If you are on food-stamps, or living off your parents, aka on the dole, someone else is battling to keep you alive. “A citizen of a country” is a member of a social group like any other group found throughout the symphony of life, to name a few, in the beneficial formation in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, etc.

With the evolution of technology and social systems, Pro thinks humans are now above the “state of nature,” oh, what arrogance.

In conclusion, since I believe in God, I find Pro's definition of “Creationism” more accurate than his definition on “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 processes such as evolution.”

To emphasize by parsing, "creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms (both inanimate and animate) originate from specific acts (acts from God's Laws of Nature) of divine creation (the Big Bang), as in the biblical account (interpretation of the Book of Genesis), rather than by processes such as evolution (Pro's incomplete definition of evolution)."
Debate Round No. 3
hayhen13

Pro

hayhen13 forfeited this round.
Mike_10-4

Con


Standing by.


Debate Round No. 4
hayhen13

Pro

Ah crap, I forgot to post my argument for this debate. Sorry guys but I guess I've lost this one. I was too busy with Christmas sorry.
Mike_10-4

Con

This time of year is a busy time while enjoying the holidays. I hope you and your Family had a Merry Christmas today. Just one of those holidays from those who believe in “Creationism.”

I'm looking forward in meeting Pro again on the debating floor.

Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
hayhen13Mike_10-4Tied
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: FF, I suggest a rematch.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
hayhen13Mike_10-4Tied
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: As per the rules, any forfeiture result in "an automatic loss".