The Instigator
emospongebob527
Pro (for)
Tied
1 Points
The Contender
Levine
Con (against)
Tied
1 Points

Evolution (Pro) vs. Creation (Con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,904 times Debate No: 26939
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (47)
Votes (3)

 

emospongebob527

Pro

Thanks to Levine to his willingness to debate this topic.

My resolution: Humans most likely evolved from earlier hominids.

Rules-

Please no trolling or semantics.


Definitions-

evolution-

the change in the inherited characteristicsof biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and moleculessuch as DNA and proteins.[1]

Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestorapproximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergenceof life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstructevolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.

creation- the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God.


Round Structure-

1. Acceptance

2. Main Arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals/Resolution Reached



Levine

Con

Hello and thank you for challenging me to this debate.

I ask that we refer to the GTE (General Theory of Evolution), defined by evolutionist Gerald Kerkut -- "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form."

Also where you call creation a religion belief, you can also add that on to your definition of evolution. Religion can be defined as 'a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.' The theory of evolution is just that. Evolution is a belief about what happened in the unobservable past. It's a believe about the cause of the universe, and Richard Dawkins even comments on the purpose.

And yes I am referring to our Creator, the God of the Bible who created everything about 6000 years ago.

Our Different Starting Points

We have different presuppositions (unprovable beliefs). Presuppositions are just beliefs that affects how we think, view the world, and interpret the evidence. Creationists and evolutionists, we all have the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars, the facts are all the same. The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret the facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions; these are things that are assumed to be true without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions. This is even all the more important when dealing with past events. For example, my starting point is that the Bible is true, and it is the word of God. Therein, my presuppositions are that the earth was created 6000 years ago by our God. Your starting point is there is no god, and that the universe is billions of years old. So evolutionists interpret the facts in a way that will make that seem true, because of their presuppositions

This was not part of my argument, just informing you and others that we all have these unprovable beliefs -- presuppositions, that we start with.




Debate Round No. 1
emospongebob527

Pro

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Levine

Con

Levine forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
emospongebob527

Pro

Arguments-

Cutis Anserina

One notable feature our hominid ancestors had that are useless to us i.e, mutations/natural selection would be Cutis Anserina or goosebumps. Animals today such as humans, dogs, cats, and porcupine may get goosebumps when they are cold, frightened, agitated, or surprised. This reason these are created is because in cold situations, the rising hair traps air between hair and skin to create a sensation of warmth. In response to frightening or agitating situations, the influx of hair will make a creature appear bigger, warding off any foes or such, these are useless to humans because, once our ancestors started wearing clothes and advancing to a point when natural enemies weren't common, these became useless, the process of natural selection disposed of the thick hair but left the mechanism for the cutis.
Vomeronasal organ
At a time when our ancestors were unable to communicate, they used an organ that humans today still have, although useless, called the Vomeronasal organ or Jacobson's organ. This organ was used by our ancestors to detect pheromones useful for triggering sexual desire, alarm, or finding food trails. Humans are born with this vestigial structure but through the advancement of social structure, communication, and technology, this organ has become useless.

Plantaris Muscle
The plantaris muscle is a muscle used by modern animals who are able to grip and handle objects usefully with their feet, such as we use our hands today, this is observable in many great apes today i.e, gorilla, chimpanzee, orangutan, gibbon, etc. This was also useful for our tree-dwelling ancestor, Australopithecus Africanus, however these muscles are very useless for humans today, so underdeveloped that today it is often times removed by doctors to be used for reconstruction in other parts of the body. Another vestigal struture.

Wisdom Teeth
Another structure useful to our ancestors, but virtually useless to us would be, wisdom teeth, these extra setof molars were useful for our ancestors because they needed to chew and eat shoots and leaves quickly enough to burden a suffiecient amount of plant nutrients today, this was also useful for them because our ancestors weren't as efficient at digesting cellulose as us, the larger teeth could grind up the food and made it digestible. As hominid evolution progressed, diets changed, jaws grew considerably smaller, and wisdom teeth were virtually useless, so far as to some human populations have completely stopped growing these teeth.

Coccyx
The coccyx is the tailbone that lingers in humans today, as the name implies, this was once useful for a tail by our ancestors, as the pelvis evolved, our ancestors began to walk upright and trees weren't very commonplace to hang out, although useless as a tail appendage, it is still useful today; it is now used by humans to support various muscles and support someone when they sit down or lean back. The coccyx is also useful for supporting the positioning of the anus, another vestigal structure.

Appendix

Another internal organ very useful for our ancestors that is virtually useless for humans today would be the appendix. Often times becoming inflamed or infected and causing horrific abdominal pain, to the point where it must be removed. It's use by our ancestors was to help digest and process the cellulose found in their plant based diet. Of course through evolutionary changes, a plant based diet of today's omnivores is quite irrelavent. Another interesting spetacle created through natural selection was the slection of larger appendices because they were substanstially less likely to become inflamed or disease, another vestigal structure.


References-

http://listverse.com......
Levine

Con

We both have decided for a tie, and have agreed to debate at a different time. This is due to him not having time for the first few rounds i suppose.
Debate Round No. 3
emospongebob527

Pro

I urge a tied vote.
Levine

Con

I do too. You can challenge me to another debate with the same argument if you want.
Debate Round No. 4
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
Ok, I'll advocate a tie.
Posted by Levine 4 years ago
Levine
Challenge me to another debate if you wish for this to continue. I encourage this to be allowed a tie. You forfieted the first round without warning or telling me.
Posted by Levine 4 years ago
Levine
Emospongebob i seee this debate won't be happening. You can challenge me to another debate whenever you like
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
Sorry for not replying to all you said, I was using my mobile and it was fairly late. I was refering to your claim the Dawkins does not treat ID with the same disdain as creationsim. That is as non-sensical as saying me treating eminem with disdain is not the same as treating Marshall Mathers with disdain. The point of this being that Marshall Mathers is Eminem's real name. Just like how, in mine and Dawkins opinion, ID's real name is creationism.

Now onto Meyers and Dawkins. What you have just commited against Meyers is, by definition, an Ad Hominem. Just because he is an a$$ doesn't mean his information is incorrect. I asked you where you got the information that Meyers was expelled for disruptive behaviour, you have yet to provide your source. And when you want to claim someone is making a strawman please don't point to an entire book. If you want to say he is strawmanning please give me a specific example, IE: direct quotes of his supposed strawmen with reasoning as to why it is actually a strawman.

I do not like Meyers because of his recent actions on Freethoughblogs, but that doesn't mean he is lying about any of this. Again, if you can show me evidence of their guilt then I will concede to it, until then 'innocent until proven guilty' will remain my position. I'm also going to ask you again, exactly what is it you think they are lying about, and please provide some evidence.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Now I don't think you understand what I said. I assume here that you're speaking of when I said they were not being honest. Firstly, that is not at all similar to my logic.

Secondly, Meyers is...you've said it right. This brings into doubt his credibility. Dawkins straw man also brings into doubt his honesty. Hence my stating that, paraphrase, I doubt their honesty in the video. I cannot prove it, however, hence I cannot say emphatically that they are being dishonest.

Therefore, not only is my logic sound, I also do not insult eminem or mathers.
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
Wow..... I don't think you understand what you just said. By the logic you're using, if I insult eminem it wouldnt be the same as insulting marshal mathers
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
I am willing to tout that opinion and I have read his works. His choicest barbs are not used against ID but against creationism. That ID is disguised creationism is his opinion, no doubt about that. He just is not as vitrolic at ID.

You can see some of his straw man here. If you compare what he says creationist say with what creationists says.
http://books.google.com.sg...

The difference is that one must be backed up by the evidence and the other is just an opinion.
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
If you are willing to tout the opinion that Richard Dawkins was not as adverse to ID as he was to creationism then you have never read his work. Dawkins, in much of his work, expresses the opinion that ID is just creationism in disguise.

I have never seen Dawkins make a strawman argument, but I will concede that as of recently P.Z has become, to put it nicely, an a$$hole.

Also can you please tell me the difference between saying someone is being dishonest, and saying you think they are being dishonest?
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Actually I've read some of Dawkins works on ID, and compared to creationism, he is definitely not adverse to it. Compared to evolution, he of course is very adverse to it.

Now I was not saying they were dishonest. I'm saying that I think they are dishonest. My opinion, and based on their past records. Dawkins, his frequent, if not consistent, straw man of creationists arguments, best shown in the book greatest show on earth. Meyers, his consistent ad hominem makes me sick of even looking at him.
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
Muted,
Where is it that you got this information that Meyers was expelled for disruptive behaviour?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
emospongebob527LevineTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Tie requested
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
emospongebob527LevineTied
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: Con's account is no longer active
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
emospongebob527LevineTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: vote tie as per request