The Instigator
gavin.ogden
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
1stLordofTheVenerability
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

Evolution Vs. Anything else

Do you like this debate?NoYes-7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,292 times Debate No: 14159
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (13)

 

gavin.ogden

Pro

This debate is informal, and I thank anyone who accepts it. The rule is, any arguments have to have scientific proof to back them up. Scripture is not scientific proof, and is irrelevent to this debate. I am obviously pro evolution, and look forward to any possible evidence to the alternative. Keep in mind, lack of evidence for one thing does not necessarily point to evidence of another. This is all I have for introductions, and I look forward to a good challenge.
1stLordofTheVenerability

Con

Greetings, good luck and have fun.

I'm going to argue on behalf of Young Earth Creation: that God (we shant contend his existence in this debate) created the earth, animals, plants, man and everything else existing in it in a mere six days.

I am going to utilize reasoning and scientific proof to rebut evolution, but I am going to have to refer to Scripture in order to support Creationism.

I'll outline some flaws in evolution in the first round and then allow my opponent to proceed with his own case and rebuttals.

1. Evolution textbooks first claim that they are religiously neutral, but they then explicitly verbally attack creationism and Christianity.

2. Evolution textbooks are perpetually changing, and scientists "discover" certain links between animals etc. only later to discover that they were incorrect. There is no simply formula as to how evolution could possibly work.

3. Evolution scientists can't agree, and there are dozens of theories and discarded theories - this doesn't seem to indicate a scientific truth.

4. The question remains, "How did an amoeba form from barren rock in inhospitable atmospheres?" And then how did an amoeba morph into a higher life form? They can't even create a living amoeba in perfect laboratory conditions.

5. The debate between evolution and creation is not so much a debate between the two, but rather, "... which bias in the correct bias with which to be biased!" (Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, pg. 17).

6. Mutation causes a loss of genetic data - not gains, as evolution requires.

7. Evolution requires that non living chemicals organize themselves into a self-producing organism. This is virtually impossible. Creationism merely requires interbreeding and reproduction of one's kind.

Cheerio! Enjoy the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
gavin.ogden

Pro

Since my opponent has decided to accept this debate, and not abide the very simple ground rules, I simply suggest that he gracefully bow out of this debate. The rules were easy. No scripture(religion) and the lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary. He simply stated he would not abide by these rules. I urge a Pro vote, especially for conduct, since I now have to start a new debate with an opponent who respects the VERY SIMPLE rules I have provided. Good day to all the readers, and sorry to waste your time.
1stLordofTheVenerability

Con

The only way I will, "bow out," as my opponent utilizes the colloqialism, is if voters either vote for myself or to tie. I simply can't otherwise abandon a debate arguing two credible theories. It seems to me that my opponent is looking for some sort of extraordinary New Age explanation for the origin of the universe - how he intends for anybody to conjure something and debate it with any credibility over evolution or creationism is beyond my faculties to ponder.

Furthermore, my opponent is clearly concluding prematurely that I intend to riddle the debate with Biblical references and verses - I do not in any way intend to debate in that manner, since many people question the authority of the Bible. I do, however, need the readers to comprehend the background and structure of young earth creationism.

Thanks for reading. If anybody is interested, I would like to pursue a valid creation/evolution debate in the New Year.

Apologies to the readers and to pro for the time.

Cheerio!
Debate Round No. 2
gavin.ogden

Pro

My opponent is correct when he states that I would like to get a new and fresh perspective of the human origin. He is incorrect when he calls Creationism credible, at least in the scientific community and for the intents and purposes of this debate. Creationism is based PURELY on scpripture, and some notion of an intelligent designer. Because I have no interest in having the same debate I have had countless times in my life, my opponent tries to accept my debate under false pretenses. To my opponent, I would like to be very concise. You took on a debate without reading the rules, or you decided that the rules did not apply to you. Either way, no one should accept responsibility but you. Also, because of the rules(No Scripture), your argument has not a single leg to stand on. No matter what form of creationism you believe[1], it is based in scripture(my opponent does not even deny this), which is not valid in this debate. Like I said before, I ask the readers for the conduct vote, simply because I got stuck in a debate with someone who decided that his opinion was more important than the rules of this debate. Good day to all.

1.http://www.google.com...
1stLordofTheVenerability

Con

I might say, for the record, that you merely mentioned that scripture isn't scientific proof and therefore wouldn't be "irrelevant". I think I made it clear that I expect few readers to take it as "proof", for I did have several scientific arguments that favoured the belief of creation over the belief of evolution.

Actually, my opponent hyperbolizes when he states that creation has no credibility in the scientific community. Believe it or not, but some of the greatest names of science both in the past and present believe in the validity of creation. The mere fact that such contention exists between the two theories suggests that the scientific community takes both possibilities very seriously.

I will say that I miscomprehended that you wished for an alternate theory and that this was thus a debate in which nobody but yourself could possibly have emerged victorious. For this, I am sorry - it didn't seem to clear cut to me, for all of the reasons I have specified.

I hope that this doesn't create any animosity between us for future debates, especially since we're booked for an Impromptu in 2011.

Cheers!

1st Lord of the Venerability
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by daniel_t 6 years ago
daniel_t
To continue on what Roy said, even if we take all of Con's claims at face value, none of them prove Young Earth Creation in the slightest.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Just for the record, Con's claims are woefully off base.

The ancient Hawaiian religion claims that the god Maui created the Hawaiian Islands by leaping upon the Pacific Ocean. So is the scientific theory of the Island's geology an attack on religion? If so, it is appropriate because scientists are obliged to give natural rather than supernatural explanations. However, contradicting a specific belief says nothing about the religion as a whole. That scientific explanations change is inevitable in the nature of scientific inquiry; not changing is characteristic of religious dogmatism. Immunity to facts is not something to b proud of. Scientific theories improve based upon data, they don't wander. No theory of evolution claims that amoeba developed on barren rock. Mutation certainly can increase genetic information; natural selection determines whether the mutation survives. Nothing that actually happens is impossible. It's like seeing a giraffe and then claiming that no such animal exists.

I'll take a debate challenge on any of these issues.
Posted by Doulos1202 6 years ago
Doulos1202
Life either originated out of natural process or supernatural. Unless Pro can come up with a reasonable alternative to the two than this debate was set up for failure. I give points to neither.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Accepting the debate agrees to abide by the proposers rules. There is no obligation to accept. Pro wins conduct, otherwise there was no debate. Con only used a reference to Christianity in one point, and that reference was not essential. It would have been better to just proceed without it.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Cobo just hit the debate with a huge vote bomb. Boo this man!!!
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
Why are people even voting? There was no debate... I thought a tie would be most respectable, since nothing occurred.

Aye, we were going to engage in a spontaneous ten minute round debate at some point in the New Year, Gavin. :P

I'm not going to respond to your last assertion... This debate could have been about that. Too late, now.
Posted by ErikMontague 6 years ago
ErikMontague
Even though I thought the pro did set up the debate in a somewhat close-minded fashion, I still concede that he set up the debate topic, rules, etc., thus accepting, and ultimately not adhering, to these rules was under complete fault of the Con, thus conduct points go to Pro. I would have given the arguments to the Con, but because he did not abide by the rules, I didn't have a means of justifiably doing so, since the Pro continuously brought up the argument of the binding of the rules.
Posted by daniel_t 6 years ago
daniel_t
As I understood it, this debate was supposed to be two people each supporting a different view of how there came to be such a variety of plants and animals on this planet. As such, I expected Con to open by choosing an explanation and then presenting evidence to support that explanation. (Frankly, I expected whoever took Con to try to support intelligent design.) 1stLordofTheVenerability said, "I'm going to argue on behalf of Young Earth Creation," then made no attempt whatsoever in support of any position at all, much less the one he said he would argue for.

Conduct to pro because of the above.

I can't give "convincing arguments" to either side because no debate actually took place.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
@1stlord
Definitely no animosity. What impromptu? Did I forget about something? Also, to clarify, the scientific community is not divided at all. Evolution is the only viable theory in science. Creationism is a religious theory, and has no authority in the world of science. I look forward to a debate with you, but on a non-religious matter.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
*doffs feathered cap* Thanks for the kind words, Chrysippus. :D
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by KelchUSMC 6 years ago
KelchUSMC
gavin.ogden1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
gavin.ogden1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 6 years ago
Doulos1202
gavin.ogden1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
gavin.ogden1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
gavin.ogden1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
gavin.ogden1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 
Vote Placed by Shestakov 6 years ago
Shestakov
gavin.ogden1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
gavin.ogden1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
gavin.ogden1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by rogue 6 years ago
rogue
gavin.ogden1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30