The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Evolution could not have created man

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 464 times Debate No: 35717
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




First round is for acceptance.


There's really nothing here to debate--this is a Prima Facie case.

Evolution doesn't preclude the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient God, so let's just say God created man through evolution. God could've created us any particular way he wanted.

Believing in the existence of "God" and the process of "evolution" are not mutually exclusive, so where's the possible argument going to come from, unless you're prone to puerile nonsense.

There's not a single inch for any possible refutation here. Lets substitute "Evolution could not have created man" for "That grey cheeseburger from McDonald's could not have caused me to vomit." Simple causality. Of course that grey cheeseburger from McDonald's could've cause me to vomit. Anything is possible.

This is lame.
Debate Round No. 1


First round was for your acceptance only... and if you didn't want to debate with the premise you shouldn't have accepted. I hadn't even made the argument that I believed they were mutually exclusive either. I'll make two separate arguments.

IF God created mankind by unhindered process of evolution

1. Probability of enhancing mutations

Evolution relies on mutations which enhance the species. The probability of mutations which enhance the animal (or thing) is 1 out of 1000 (Davis 1).

2. Missing evidence of "missing links"

If there were millions of "missing iinks" or in between species, why is there no significant evidence of their existence? We find dinosaur bones which supposedly existed billions of years ago, but we can't find a conclusive evidence of any missing links in between that time?

IF God does not exist

3. There is no moral standard

The moral standard becomes to help your fellow man. The problem is changing morals within a society. If society views jews as a hazard to the survival of mankind, then morally it is appropriate for them to subdue them.

4. The origin of the matter used to create "The Big Bang" is still unexplained




What is this, an open book debate? That's understandable, as the arguments against evolution require such convoluted nonsense that it must be hard to keep it all straight. I'll wing it, just as I would if I had to prove that water makes clouds, so there will be no citations.

As Darwin developed the theory of evolution, I'm guessing we're using his definition and understanding of it, not Jerry Falwell's. The engine of evolution does not rely solely on mutations. There are roughly(relying on memory here) 50 or so equally important drivers of evolution that DO account for variation of species, such as heredity, fecundity, demography, environmental change, et al. Further, each one of these engines speeding evolution on have themselves many factors that mutate the mutations (such as retroviruses) making mutation an engine that runs on an exponential infinity of possibilities, not on some simple probability as posited by my worthy opponent.
Forgive me as I'm not sure what they teach in Sunday school, whether animals are made up of a couple dozen magic "Jesus beans" or what, but we're actually made up of billions of tiny cells that are constantly dividing. But before those cells can divide, they've gotta make a copy of their DNA.And DNA replication is an amazing biological phenomena, with some DNA dividing nonstop, over and over and over again, increasing the number of mutations possible for just one particular animal infinite. The population of an entire species would have an unfathomable amount of Jesus bead...err...cell mutations. So, while the God squad sets up the straw man fallacy that evolution depends on ONE force, there are actually closer to 50, which themselves can produce at least three different genetic variances during evolution: natural selection, sexual selection, and, that old standby, random genetic drift.

While it's evident that my opponent is serious about this debate (I think), it's pretty obvious from his citation that he didn't care to really explore the argument too deeply, citing "Davis 1." He is all hopped up on his confirmation bias, found it on page one, and didn't bother to go any further. For the sake of this debate, I wish he would've.

When it comes to the apparent lack of transitional fossils, he is, however, crazy right. No, wait. That should've read just plain "crazy." My apologies to you and your creator. There are, in fact, way too many "transitional" fossils to even begin to list them here. Fossil collection is still in its infancy, yet we've found a lot. Sadly, the creationist goes to the museum and only looks at the dinosaurs, the "page one" of the fossil record. The early human evolutionary tree is actually more of a bush, as evolution would predict.

Now my opponent starts to get a little screwy. "If God does not exist, there is no moral standard." That would mean that God is moral. If there is no God, then civilization risks being thrown into a state of ...gasp... survival of the fittest. Right:evolution.

Then things get weird and bad. Something about "jews" being a hazard to mankind and having to "subdue" them. Suddenly, I'm debating the Nazi Final Solution with Goebbels himself. Nein danke.

Lastly, the problem of where did all this stuff come from? That is a fallacy of language. We are accustomed to ever noun having a verb. We say "It's raining." What is "It's?" There is a state of rain. We get uncomfortable and want to know where did all this stuff come from? It didn't have to come from anywhere. It simply is. It always ways and always will be. I will not let our amazing human race be reduced to artifacts of a creator. However, it's much easier to explain where the stuff came from then where an imaginary guy who made all the stuff came from. And where did the guy who made that guy come from? Nonsense. Have some faith.
Debate Round No. 2


Logical inconsistencies of my opponent:

1. Accuses me of confirmation bias, but in the first round of the debate it is evident of his bias.

2. Accuses me for not citing my sources properly but uses no sources himself.

Full source I referenced: Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co. 1990).
Which was taken from this website

You speak of fossils as being an acceptable source explaining missing links. Where are the bones? Where is the conclusive evidence non-missing link species have? Fossils are very inconclusive evidence to begin with.

The point I'm making with morals that can change, is that your morals are not based on any set standard except the survival of the species. If, at some point, mankind determines another person to be a threat, they are morally sound in subduing that person like in my example.

Your arguments don't back up your assertions well and you don't have any sources. Also you said that the matter to create the Big Bang "just is" but the concept of God being "just is" is totally fallacious. I don't see the logic in that


sanangelobutton forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.