Evolution could not have created man
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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
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 non
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.
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 http://carm.org...
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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.