The Instigator
Maryland_Kid
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Microsuck
Con (against)
Winning
52 Points

Evolution is Flawed

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 12 votes the winner is...
Microsuck
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,247 times Debate No: 27556
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (88)
Votes (12)

 

Maryland_Kid

Pro

Hi, I'd first like to say that I'm not a professional Christian Apologist Scientis,t so if you want to really talk to someone who knows their stuff talk to them. I would like to cite the fallacies that neither of us should use and the arguments I suggest my opponent not use [http://www.logicalfallacies.info...] [http://en.wikipedia.org...] [http://www.theskepticsguide.org...] [http://www.fallacyfiles.org...] [http://utminers.utep.edu...] [http://www.nizkor.org...]

My position is that gene mutation does happen and sometimes it is beneficial but it doesn't happen enough to come up with the design, fossil record, rate of decay, or probability that the world has.

Definitions:
Let's define evolution: "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."[http://www.talkorigins.org...].

Second Law of Thermodynamics:
Second Law of Thermodynamics says that once a system starts, it decays over time, and doesn't get better. The source I cited used the term "ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time." [http://www.christiananswers.net...] The objection that Talk Origins explains is that the world isn't a closed system because of things like sun light. [http://www.talkorigins.org...] Sunlight doesn't bring things back in order, as mentioned in the previous article. [http://creation.com...]

Problems for Evolution:
Bats are a problem for evolution because half formed wings are useless.[http://creation.com...] Vestigal organs are organs once used in the evolutionary past but not in the present. Vestigal Organs prove devolution not evolution, because we lose information over time. Evolutionists need to prove that there are organs that come from useless, nothing organs to complex, useful organs called Nascent organs defined as organs that become more complex. [http://creation.com...]

Genetics:
Mutations destroy much more information than gain helpful ones. [http://creation.com...] The odds of this entire universe coming from random DNA mutation is staggeringly low. Time is also a factor that doesn't help. [http://creation.com...] [http://www.answersingenesis.org...] Species are more likely to die out than gain new genetic information. Gene duplication doesn't seem to have the odds favor it.
[http://creation.com...] [http://creation.com...]
How did DNA originate? [http://creation.com...] [http://www.youtube.com...] It turns out that human DNA is more close to mice DNA than chimps.[http://www.godandscience.org...]

Fossil Record:
There are many still missing links and some have been debunked.[http://www.nwcreation.net...] [http://calvarychapel.com...]How come living fossils remain unchanged for an alleged millions and billions of years? [http://creation.com...] Dinosaur fossils were found by modern day organisms. [http://www.icr.org...] One example of missing transitional fossils are the insect evolutionary transitional fossils are absent. [creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_91-97.pdf]

Design:
How could life appear designed, but without an intelligent designer? Hence, the Teleological Argument is presented. [http://creation.com...] [http://plato.stanford.edu...]
Microsuck

Con

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. I look forward to a great debate and wish you the best of luck. In this round, I will present evidence for evolution and refute my opponent’s very flawed arguments.

Part 1: Responding to my Opponent’s Arguments

Let’s dive right into my opponent’s arguments.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

This is such a common argument against evolution and yet it is flawed in so many ways: First, it misunderstands what the Law of Thermodynamics is; secondly, it misrepresents what evolution is.

First, what is the Second Law of Thermodynamics? The concept of entropy is defined as heat (in calories or Btu’s) absorbed by a system, divided by the absolute temperature of the system the time the heat is absorbed. Absolute temperature is the number of degrees above “absolute zero”, the coldest temperature that can exist.[1] Consequently, heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that the total entropy in a closed system will not decrease.[2]

Evolution is simply the process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. I am at a complete loss to understand how this violates the Law of Thermodynamics. Firstly, the earth is not a closed system. Sunlight has low entropy and shines on the Earth and heat has higher entropy radiates off. This can, and will power local decreases in entropy on earth. Secondly, this confuses the difference between entropy and disorder. They are not one in the same. Although at times the two correspond, at times order increases as entropy increases.[3] Finally, in a closed system, pockets of left over entropy form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. This happens on earth all the time.

Conclusion: My opponent’s criticism via the Law of Thermodynamics fails to understand what Thermodynamics is and misrepresents the Theory.

Evolution and the Bat Wing

My opponent fails to understand exactly what a vestigial structure is. In science, a structure does NOT have to be functionless in order to be vestigial.[4] Indeed, Charles Darwin explained vestigial structures this way:

"Useful organs, however little they may be developed, unless we have reason to suppose that they were formerly more highly developed, ought not to be considered as rudimentary."[5] (Emphasis added).

The proper definition of a vestigial structure, according to biology-online is thus:

An organ or part which is greatly reduced from the ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function.[6] (Emphasis added).

So, are there any true vestigial structures? Yes. For example, dandelions reproduce without fertilization (called apomixis), yet they retain flowers and produce pollen (both are sexual organs used for sexual fertilization). Thus, the dandelions have those vestigial structures.[7] Other interesting examples include cave-dwelling arthropods that are completely blind, yet remain their eye shaft – albeit with no eyes![8]

Conclusion: My opponent’s criticism fails to fully understand what is meant by a vestigial structure and ignores the fact that vestigial structures exist.

Genetics

This is facepalm territory here. The universe did not come from random mutations. My opponent confuses two different fields of science; namely, biology and astrophysics. Mutations have absolutely nothing to do with the origin, the creation, or the development of the universe.

Secondly, most mutations are not harmful – instead, they are rather neutral – neither helping nor harming the organism.[9] Moreover, it fails to account for mutations that are beneficial; for example[10]:

1) Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon;

2) Plant breeders used mutation to induce mutations and select beneficial ones;

3) In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as ribozyme; and

4) Humans acquired a resistance to malaria via a disabling mutation of the CMAH gene.[11]

Fossil Record

I am debating you and not your source. In the next round, I request that you bring up any instance in which a dinosaur fossil was found mixed in with other – more modern day – creatures. As far as the “living fossils” is concerned, the ToE does not say that organisms must evolve morphologically. In fact, in an unchanging environment and in a stabilizing selection, we would predict that most organisms will remain largely unchanged. Moreover, some of these so-called “living fossils” have evolved significantly. Cockroaches, for example, include over 4,000 species in various sizes and the immune system of the horseshoe crab is quite different from that of the same species millions of years ago.[12]

Please give more detail on the “missing link.”

Design of Nature

Evolution does not mean atheism. God can still exist alongside evolution. We are debating evolution – not atheism.

Part 2: Evidence for Evolution

Evidence for evolution exists in abundant amounts, but first, we need to understand what we mean by scientific evidence. In science, nothing is absolute, but we can confirm to beyond a reasonable doubt. Scientific evidence is defined as thus:

Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions. [13]

We can formulate this logic by the following:

Premise 1: Theory T predicts Observation O
Premise 2: Observation O is not observed
Conclusion: Therefore, theory T is probably false.

Or conversely

Premise 1: Theory T predicts Observation O
Premise 2: Observation O is observed
Conclusion: Therefore, Theory T is given added support.

Evidence for evolution is abundant. For example, vestigial structures exist (see examples in Part 1) and pseudogenes exist. In fact, a mutation in CMAH pseudogene allowed humans to enjoy resistance to malaria.[14]

I am out of room. I will expand on this evidence in the next round.



[3] Aranda-Espinoza, H., Y. et al. 1999. Electrostatic repulsion of positively charged vesicles and negatively charged objects. Science 285: 394-397. From http://www.talkorigins.org...

[4] Fairbanks, D. (2012). “Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters.”

[5] Darwin, C. “The Origin.”

[8] Coyne, J. (2010). “Why Evolution is True.”

[9] Fairbanks, D.

[11] Fairbanks

[14] Fairabanks.

Debate Round No. 1
Maryland_Kid

Pro

It violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics because an orderly system doesn't become more complex without an intelligent life helping it out. Take my room for instance, it doesn't become more orderly and add more fitting pieces, it decays without my intervention. It may not be exactly the what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is, but the principle still stands. As said before, there are beneficial mutations that sometimes help but its rare and not enough for the Earth to keep on going for millions and billions of species and years like what most textbooks say. Sun light can't help organisms account for the losses of decay because that is still part of the system. No new information needs to be cited.

As for the dinosaur fossils being found with modern day organisms, he doesn't site anything that refutes it so I am going to say that's an Argument by Dismissal. There are fossils of Dinosaur bones that have fresh blood, soft and flexible tissue, on them. I will cite two sources on this. One creationist and one that's not. [1][2][3]

Dandelion and Blind Eye fish don't support macro evolution. Dandelions can use both sexual and asexual reproduction to increase the number of dandelions produced. According to Creation Studies, "several species of algae, many protists and fungi, flora, and aphids along with some species of amphibians and reptiles, the hammerhead shark (Eilperin 2007) and the blacktip shark (Chapman et al. 2008)" also have both abilities of reproduction.[4] Blind Eye fish losing the ability to see is a loss of function that is part of a fallen creation and that things get more disorderly and decay.[5]

If we didn't come here by beneficial mutations then how did we become complex organisms from simple organisms today? The idea I am attacking is the macro evolution of molecules to man evolution. Micro evolution isn't disputed.
[6] Let's define micro evolution and macro evolution. Micro Evolution is small changes without a species that don't result in new species and Macro Evolution is molecules to modern day man. [7]

I've already sited the missing links that we haven't seen any archeological evidence for.[8]

That's a little off topic but it needs to be addressed. What do you mean by evolution? I am talking about macro evolution being false. I'd like to hear what your origins of life is or what you were talk in school. What I was taught only at secular schools was that the Big Bang happened and life sprang up and evolved over millions and billions of years into the complex life forms that we have today.

[1]http://creation.com...
[2]creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_3/j19_3_54-59.pdf
[3]http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
[4]http://www.creationstudies.org...
[5]http://creation.com...
[6]http://www.evolutionfairytale.com...
[7]http://atheism.about.com...
[8]http://www.calvarychapel.com...
Microsuck

Con

I would like to thank my friend for his very swift reply. It should be noted that my opponent dropped several arguments in the last round and has almost completely ignored my arguments. I would first like to expand on my opening argument and add new arguments. After that, I will defend my rebuttals to his argument.

Evidence for Evolution

Premise 1: If evolution is true, then we should see evidence of recent and modern evolution.
Premise 2: We see abundant evidence of recent evolution.
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is probably true.

My opponent ignored the evidence for evolution via the CMAH pseudogene. I would, however, like to expand on that argument.

Malaria is one of the most horrific human diseases. However, at one point in our evolutionary history, humans enjoyed immunity to malaria. What happened for humans to gain and lose resistance to malaria?

Malaria is caused by a microorganism known as Plasmodium falciparum. It cannot be transmitted from person to person but must be carried via mosquitoes and acquired and transmitted when a mosquito bites a person.

Chimpanzees suffer from a less severe form of malaria caused by a microorganism called Plasmodium reichenowi. What happened is the following: The human parasite evolved from the chimp parasite by jumping hosts from humans to chimpanzees.

Plasmodium reichenowi recognizes a substance on a gene called CMAH. Our genome carries this gene and we have it in the same strand of DNA as chimpanzees do. However, the only difference is it is disabled – a pseudogene if you will. No-one has the original non-mutated version.

The mutation that disabled the CMAH gene had a distinct advantage of those that did not – they became resistant to malaria.[1]

So, what happened? Why did we lose our resistance to malaria? The answer lies in the evolution of malaria itself. Mutations in a gene called EBA-175 allowed those parasites that carried the same mutation to recognize another substance which is abundant on human red blood cells about five to ten thousand years ago. The results: Plasmodium falciparum evolved as a new species. We are highly susceptible to this new form of malaria and the new version of malaria is much worse than the old one.[2]

That is an expansion on the CMAH pseudogene argument, which was dropped. I would now like to defend my other arguments for evolution.

Definition – Vestigial Structure: A rudimentary or degenerate, usually nonfunctioning [not always nonfunctional] structure that is the remnant of an organ or part that was fully developed or functioning in a preceding generation or an earlier stage of development.[3]
Premise 1: If evolution is true, such organs and structures should exist.
Premise 2: There are numerous such cases of rudimentary or degenerate structures.
Conclusion: Therefore, evolution is given added support.

For this, I cited the dandelion. Whilst it is true that some plants do exhibit both asexual and sexual reproduction (especially true in microorganisms), the article my opponent cited did not mention the dandelion. However, I did added research and this is what I found[4]:

Dandelions can exhibit both sexual and asexual reproduction: Nothing is as simple as it seems. Dandelion reproduction can be sexual or asexual depending on the population of individuals under consideration. Understanding the details requires a definition of sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction involves two events, not necessarily in close order. One is reduction division or meiosis to bring a diploid (or higher ploidy) nucleus (and cell) to a haploid state. The second event is the fusion of two haploid nuclei (and cells) to form a diploid nucleus (and cell) which is the zygote. Asexual reproduction involves the formation of new nuclei and cells by mitosis, maintaining whatever ploidy level the parent had, i.e., haploid, diploid, triploid, etc.

The female reproductive parts of most dandelions are asexual in that the nucleus and cell destined to undergo meiosis fails to undergo a reduction of the chromosome number (a process called restitution) and emerges from the process as a triploid egg cell This triploid egg develops directly into a zygote at the same ploidy level as the parent plant. A general name for this process isparthenogenesis. It parallels in every way except reduction division the sexual process of egg formation and zygote development.

Conclusion: My opponent’s arguments are an attempt at a straw man. My opponent ignores my argument from the CMAH pseudogene and ignores the fact that vestigial structure ≠ functionless.

Defending my Rebuttals

I do not have much room, so please forgive me if my arguments are not perfect and I will probably need to expand on the argument in the next round.

My opponent completely dropped my rebuttal to the design argument that he attempted to use.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

My opponent once again confuses the concepts of entropy and disorder.

The second law of thermodynamics simply says that the entropy of a closed system will tend to increase with time. "Entropy" is a technical term with a precise physical definition, but for most purposes it is okay to think of it as equivalent to "disorder". Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics basically says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.[5]

Sunlight gives the Earth an open system as I explained in the last round, because it not only gives heat to the earth, but it also gives energy to the earth – a key player in Thermodynamics.

The earth is an open system. The sun continually transfers energy into the earth’s system, and the amount of energy varies with the time of year. On a smaller scale, the earth’s oceans are open systems. They continually receive new water and chemicals from rivers, and lose water to evaporation. Lakes and ponds are also open systems. Closed systems are very rare.[6]

Conclusion: My opponent fails to respond to the fact that the Earth is an open system because the sun gives energy to the earth.

Fossils

My opponent failed to respond to the argument against “living fossils” – i.e., modern creatures that look like ancient creatures. I consider this a dropped argument.

As far as the missing links is concerned, I apologize as I misread your argument. Evolution does not predict that every single species that lived will produce a fossil. No one expects to find every species that represents a fossil.

WriterDave notes in his debate[7]:

[Consider passenger] pigeons, once numbering in the billions, only went extinct 200 years ago; but you won't find their fossils anywhere. Fossilization only happens in habitats where preservation happens very quickly, such as tar pits and river deltas, and it requires the animal to be durable enough to preserve. Moreover, fossils are routinely destroyed by geological processes -- heat, pressure, erosion, etc. -- before they are ever discovered. Thus, if we did find "billions" of transitional fossils, geological science would be turned on its head!

Out of room.



[1] Interesting sidebar note, Neanderthals apparently had this same CMAH pseudogene meaning that the disabling mutation occurred before the splitting of the two lineages.

[2]Fairbanks, Daniel J. Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2012. Print.

[3] The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Quoted http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Maryland_Kid

Pro

The reason I dropped some of those arguments was because I already addressed them.

Evolution on a small scale or micro evolution, such as the four cited, doesn't prove molecules to man evolution to the degree of macro evolution.[1]

Entropy refers to any energy exchange, so genes and order can be some. The idea that if you leave a system alone without someone working to bring more genes or order will destroy it. The example of a watch spring driven watch is presented. It will eventually run out of energy and decay unless someone else reapplies new energy.[3]

Missing links are still absent in some areas where we can find a few in others that can be debated. We should be able to find more missing links of what we have.[4]

[1]http://www.answersingenesis.org...
[2]http://www.ucg.org...
[3]http://www.emc.maricopa.edu...
[4]http://www.genesispark.org...
Microsuck

Con

Thank you, Maryland_Kid, for your swift reply. My opponent is continuing to grasp at straw man arguments.

My opponent's "molecules to man" analogy fails for at least three reasons:

1) Evolution is about the development of life as opposed to the actual origin. The study of the origin of life is called abiogenesis - which the origin of life is admittedly still unknown. [1]





2) The "molecules - man" argument fails to recognize that evolution is NOT a ladder of progress. Rather, it is a branching pattern -a "tree" of life, if you will. [2]




This concept is seen clearly when we consider the Phylogenetic Tree of Life. Here is a standard picture of it [3]:

A basic Phylogenetic tree.
(Note that "hypothetical" doesn't mean "we guess that it exists," but rather "we infer its existence).

3) It fails to take into account the fact that evolution via heritable changes in a population and speciation has been observed. Remember how we defined "evolution":

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations

So, my arguments that CMAH Pseudogene and various other traits beenig observed to evolve still stands.

I already responded to the "missing links" arguments. Here is a good summary [4]:

The fact that some transitional fossils are not preserved does not disprove evolution. Evolutionary biologists do not expect that all transitional forms will be found and realize that many species leave no fossils at all. Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record. Also, scientists have found many transitional fossils. For example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their theropod dinosaur ancestors, and between whales and their terrestrial mammal ancestors.

I already responded in full to the entropy argument. To reiterate




The degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR chapter states flatly that entropy can never decrease; this is in direct conflict with the most fundamental law of thermodynamics that entropy equals heat flow divided by absolute temperature. [5]

Here is a great diagram of how an closed system works:




Closed systems are self-contained and do not interact with their surroundings. Energy, Matter, and Information are exchanged and altered only within the system (oval), nothing enters, nothing leaves. Energy, matter, and information can be placed into and taken out of storage, but nothing can leave the "oval" system. An example would be the earth itself in terms of matter. There are lots of interactions taking place within the earth system, but very little matter leaves or enters. [6]

And here is a diagram from an open system:



Open systems exchange energy, matter, and information with the surrounding world. Energy, matter, and information can enter or leave the "oval" system. While inside the system, they can change form, interact with each other, or go into and out of storage. The earth can be considered as such a system. For example: energy enters the system, interacts with matter on the earth, can be stored as plant tissue, and can leave as the earth radiates heat back out to space. [ibid]

The earth is an open system because it works in that exact way as seen here:




Please respond to my arguments in the next round or I will consider your arguments as conceded.

References
1. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...;
2. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...;
3. http://www.talkorigins.org...;
4. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...;
5. http://www.talkorigins.org...;
6. http://www.indiana.edu...;
Debate Round No. 3
Maryland_Kid

Pro

I can't debate this round because my internet is down at my house. I am using my local community college library computer.
Microsuck

Con

That is fine. Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
Maryland_Kid

Pro

It appears that I am going to repeat myself. The idea behind the law of thermodynamics is that things tend to decay rather than get better. Energy is being lost in the universe. The Sun can sometimes help the process of creating new life but sometimes it destroys the ability to make new life like a plant when already dead.[1] The Earth is a closed system. Energy enters and leaves but material doesn't. [2]

The evolution mentioned includes DNA mutation which destroys genes. In vitro or man-made evolution doesn't account for all the negative effects of evolution in nature which would be its undoing.[3] Mutations are only beneficial in certain environments.[4] Just because people, who are intelligent, are able to induce beneficial mutations in plant doesn't mean nature is just as successful.[5]

The coach roaches fossils sited earlier are very specialized for their environment.[6]

In more evidence that Dinosaurs lived alongside man, we found footprints of Dinosaurs with Humans.[7]

I'd also like to note that there wasn't any information of the CMAH Pseudogene in any of the websites I use.

[1]http://www.christiananswers.net...
[2] http://www.google.com...
[3]http://creation.com...
[4] http://www.answersingenesis.org...
[5]http://creation.com...
[6]http://creation.com...
[7]http://www.bible.ca...
Microsuck

Con

Thank you for this debate. I will not respond in full because this is the final round. I'd simply be repeating myself anyway. I would like to summarize the arguments and argue why the voters should vote for me.

Conduct - Tie. My opponent has shown decent conduct and has had a legitiment issue that caused him to fail to respond in round 4.

Spelling/Grammar - Con. My opponent has had several instances of mispelling and grammar. For instance, in round 2:

As for the dinosaur fossils being found with modern day organisms, he doesn't site anything that refutes it so I am going to say that's an Argument by Dismissal. There are fossils of Dinosaur bones that have fresh blood, soft and flexible tissue, on them. I will cite two sources on this. One creationist and one that's not.

Site should be "cite."

I've already sited the missing links that we haven't seen any archeological evidence for.

Once more, the correct spelling is "cited" and not "sited."

Moreover, his arguments and structure was very difficult to read and to define his arguments throughout several times of this debate. I often had to re-read the argument several times to figure out what my opponent was trying to prove.

Arguments - I feel that I repeated myself way too many times throughout this debate. I sufficiently shown that evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and gave picture representation to show why. My opponent failed numerous times to respond to the argument and insisted that shouting "X" proves "X" when I disproved "X." My opponent never responded to my evidence for evoloution.

My opponent insists that all mutations are harmful and therefore disproves evolution. I responded to that by showing examples of beneficial mutations that help species and show that the most common form of mutations are neutral - i.e., they neither harm nor help the organism.

Finally, on numerous occasions, my opponent has misrepresented the Theory of Evolution (i.e., evolution implies the Big Bang and atheism and abiogenesis disproves evolution).

Sources - Con. Citing evolutionfairytale.com, bible.ca, and answersingenesis.com is enough to give me the source point. The sources my opponent shown has used has been disproved time and time again and, if you take a good look through the arguments, straw man and misrepresent the Theory of Evolution.

I believe that the resolution that "evolution is flawed" is strongly negated.
Debate Round No. 5
88 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
You cant see sub atomic particles, but they are right in front of your face until the day you pass on.

Beliefs, your inspiration, what makes you feel good, what makes you happy, or what makes you sleep at night, is not the concern of the rotation of the earth, whether it rains or not, the evolution of our species, or the creation of something from nothing.

These processes will always happen, even if we believe the earth is flat, it will still be a sphere.

The dispicable part is when that naive ignorance takes such a stronghold on society, that our freedoms are compromised in the name of religious tales, that we believe to make us feel better.

Even if there is this "god", who was responsible for evolution and the extrordianarily beautiful and complex world of sub atomic particles, even if there were a god who created or started these processes, and made gravity, what makes you so arrogant that you also believe this source or reason for everything is somehow concerned with your daily life on such a personal level that he created a son to be tortured and killed to save you and he monitors your sex life while watching who is naughty or nice?

Science has shown how something comes from nothing, we havent shown that the reason for everything is really a petty sexist motherphucker like the holy binky proclaims :)

Its absurd to think the source of such a brilliant creation of the sub atomic world and evolution could also be so involved in your sex life and if youre naughty or nice.

The brainwashing and manipulation of human emotions such as hope, love and faith, have been the target of relgions for centuries.

Whats it gonna take for mankind to let go off the tit, or crutch, of religious tales to fill the gaps of whatever science cannot prove?

WorkOut 7:2--By allowing your intuition, intellect and instinct to stretch their legs, is the most corrosive thing you can ever do to religious views :)
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
The reason scientists say nothing is really something, is because when we remove everything from an area of space, including the radiation and all particles, protons, etc etc, even gravity is removed from that space, everything is taken out. There is still an unindentifiable weight in that so called "nothing". The "nothing" is what scientists call unstable :)

Check out Lawrence Krauss Something from Nothing

Now the nothing left, is just that, nothingness. However, we JUST add back the gravity, nothing else. It creates a positive charge and a negative charge and two particles form, a positive and a negative. If the gravitational pull is strong enough, it pulls those two particles together, hence something out of nothing.

Experiments like this have been done countless times to get these conclusions. Science is done by brilliant minded scientists, not idiots or members of a conspiracy.

The earth was estimated to be here for approx 2 million years before there was even simple bacteria that came about. Then about another 2 billion years there was nothing, then the single celled organism of the simplest form came about and the rest is history.

There are many species of monkey and ape. Todays living Monkeys are simply our ancestors, we are not direct decendants of todays monkey, we are decendants of another type of creature in the monkey category. Get it?The Monkeys of today are simply like cousins to the monkey type we evolved from.

We can trace the evolutiontionary trail extremely clearly, all the way back to the begininng in the water.

This is 2012, and we are in fact that smart. There is no conspiracy, there is no cover up and there is no need for speculation.

The geniuses of this planet have solved the riddle of evolution unequivically and believing that or not will not change the fact of evolution anymore than a non belief in the rotation of the earth will change its validity!
Posted by Maryland_Kid 3 years ago
Maryland_Kid
Evidence for God is in the design of the world. Natural Selection and DNA mutation can't bring a world from simple organisms created by abiogenesis (not debating that here) to what we have today. The likely hood of that occurring is zero. Believing everything that most scientists think is an Appeal to Belief and an Argument from Authority. What about when Galileo found out that the sun was the center of the solar system and the Catholic Church put him under house arrest? Don't believe everything everyone tells you because everyone has their own bias.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
marylandkid, who cares if one out of 100 scientists believe the reason for everything is admittingly jealous :)

DevientGenie 11:56--Lets look at some basic differences. Cristian Leaders Institute-- "We use the term home discipleship to accent the point that when the home is strong and supported in walking with god, the church prospers". Science-- We use the term empirical to accent the point that when evidence is strong, and supported by years of testing, mankind prospers :)

Delusional 9:16--44% of Americans believe god literally gave the land of israel to the jews. Awwww, he's also a real estate broker how cute :)

Split hairs until you are blue in the face. Someone is delusional, either the non believers, or the ones who believe the reason for everything can convict you of thought crime :)

Probability tells intuition, intellect and instinct the correct answer. If you feel its more probable that the reason for everything is concerned with what days you hold holy, you may be delusional :)

Humans are victim to religious dogma and slave to a petty bully in its writings :)

BigKids 12:24--Simply dismissing the probability of a god by saying "I dont believe anything I cant see", is as inadequete and lazy of a response as the ever popular "god did it", simply because you cant see sub atomic particles, they are right in front of your face until the day you pass on. Science cannot prove or disprove the reason for everything is a slave supporting sexist who rested on the 7th day, or flying horses called unicorns and leprechauns with a pot of gold at the end of rainbows, these are what science call statistical improbabilities :)

CaptainObvious 1:4--The planet earth is covered with 70% water. Of the remaining 30%, you have desert and mountains and other non livable areas, so about 15% of earths surface is actually livable. Why? Poor design or poor designer? Birth defects have been around since the beginning of time, but why, poor design or poor designer? :)
Posted by Maryland_Kid 3 years ago
Maryland_Kid
@Deviant, no that's a "No True Scotmans" fallacy. http://www.logicalfallacies.info.... I don't have to repeat myself that they have scientists that have Ph. D's.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
marylandkid, stop whining like a baby. Crying wont change the fact that no serious scientist is a creationist.

Creationist scientists are slightly deluded. Thats how powerful the hardwiring of a god is, it takes a stronger man to admit he doesnt know something, then to claim a god did it :)'

Whew 3:13--Thou man is more aware than any animal, the Genie is more aware than common everyday man. Thankfully the Genie's awareness doesnt include ritualistic drama but rather a path of unlimited possibilities :)

TRICKS 6:19--Read and wholeheartedly believe in the teachings from a really old book that has been translated thousands of times, indoctrinate children with that belief that the reason for life, and all the stars and galaxies will send bad kids to hell and thinks its a good idea to stone someone who picks up sticks in Numbers 15:32-36, hammer that disgusting, vile, wicked and immoral rubbish, from a "holy binky" into your children because we cant be moral without our binky to suckle, were just "widdle kids" and we need our binky to suckle when things are going bad, its our binky to suck when we get scared, when we're unsure we pull knowledge from the holy binky, cuz it "feels good", becasue its a "metaphysical thing" that is the nutritional equivalent to feeding your child a plate of what you scraped from underneath a dumpster at a McDonalds parking lot. All that "gunk-n-stuff" into your childs brain and presto, you figured out how to abuse your childs youth without yelling or hitting them. Way to go :)

WARNINGS 3:2--Do NOT assume a religious person has limits to how wicked, or ignorant they will be, NEVER put anything ridiculous past the delusional mind of a religious person, because if a human can convince themselves the reason for everything is admittingly jealous, they can convince themselves of anything :)
Posted by Maryland_Kid 3 years ago
Maryland_Kid
You're totally ignoring my statements on the comments and the debates. I don't appreciate the ad hominem (poisoning the well) arguments against my sources. Just because they are Conservative Creationist Christian doesn't mean they aren't scientists. It a "No True Scotsman" fallacy when you say no true scientists is a creationist. Some have PD's in the field of science. Also, I don't like your argument Microsuck on ridicule (The "Appealing to Ridicule" fallacy) by saying that Ron_Paul will clean my clock and this is "face palm territory."
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
Slow, special, gifted or the politically incorrect, retarded, are great synonyms for those who think the theory of relativity, the theory of gravity, or the theory of evolution are somehow wrong.

All three of those theories have undergone test after test and they keep on passing with flying colors.

Just because someone is ignorant that water is two parts huydrogen and one part oxygen, wonrt change the make up of water.

The same goes for those three theories. You can whine and gripe and twist truths and rant and rave like a big baby and pout till your blue in the face.

The word theory is science DOES NOT mean the same as the word theory in everyday use, like hunch, guess, hypothesis.

Theories are tested by the most intelligent people on the planet. Only a religious loser thinks they are smarter than scientists on these issues.

There is no gray area here. Religious people are delusional, and the proof of that is anytime they deny any of those three SCIENTIFIC THEORIES :)

True scripture has a lot of answers...Look :)

BigKids 6:3--Imagine a child as a blank canvas of possibilities. We can paint the beautiful and inspirational truths about the magic of nature, or we can pollute that canvas with outdated unsubstantiated, contradictory, immoral and ridiculous religious doctrine that has been translated and changed thousands of times. Its religions diluted nonsensical jibberish thats divisive and leads to violence VS Sciences inspirational, beautiful and magical truths about nature that lead to hope, and love for the universe.....hmmmmm, which is better for our future? :)

WAKEUP 16:4--Never fear learning and education, such fear is contagious and harmful to children :)

TRIVIA 9:2--Science or religion, one of them is a fraud or at least a mistake :)
Posted by Muted 3 years ago
Muted
GTR disproven? No.
Posted by Maryland_Kid 3 years ago
Maryland_Kid
I don't know enough about it so I won't but I heard its been dis proven. Microsuck still fails to address the myriad of missing links that he thinks weren't fossilized.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Bodhivaka 3 years ago
Bodhivaka
Maryland_KidMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con effectively refuted Pro's arguments. Pro seemed to simply repeat his arguments throughout the debate, despite the fact that they had all been addressed and debunked.
Vote Placed by Muted 3 years ago
Muted
Maryland_KidMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: con's arguments were slightly better, the reaaon for the argument points is solely because as con showed, the second law of THERMODYNAMICS cannot apply to evolution. Thus, from this debate alone it must be concludwd that evolurion is not flawed. I do like and use the genetics argument though, but the way it is presented in this debate does it no credit. that beong said, a very good first debate by pro, may hia arguments get ever stronger. I will give pro the sources because of quantity. the reliability of sources were about par here.
Vote Placed by bergeneric63 3 years ago
bergeneric63
Maryland_KidMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to vote for but two reasons. One being I don't care if you say I vote bomb or whatever because I do not and two I do think maryland did a much better job at carrying his argement. In the beggining he had a very strong arguement that was able to carry him through till the end of the arguement. Microsuck did have somepoints but his points were not valid and when you put the whole picture together it does not add up. Good job marlyand on your first few debates...
Vote Placed by Heineken 3 years ago
Heineken
Maryland_KidMicrosuckTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 3 years ago
Ron-Paul
Maryland_KidMicrosuckTied
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: Sources: Pro provided more sources than con, but one, they were a lot more biased than con's, and two, links aren't arguments. He presented few quotes, while con properly sourced and quoted his arguments. Arguments: The resolution to this debate was flawed to begin with. It was just nonsensical. Getting to the actual debate material, pro dropped several of con's arguments while con's arguments still stood at the end of this debate. Pro seemed to misconstrue science and con attacks him on that. Con didn't even seem to realize what the consequences of his arguments would be. A very impressive performance by con and his arguments were really great. EDIT: GTFO badbob.
Vote Placed by badbob 3 years ago
badbob
Maryland_KidMicrosuckTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Refuting magic8000
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
Maryland_KidMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
Maryland_KidMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: An impressive performance by Con was not needed, but the presentation made by Microsuck here was very close to brilliant. It should be noted that the premise itself was very poorly stated: "Evolution is flawed" is almost nonsensical, and displays the sort of misunderstandings of science that permeated Pro's performance. (Possible restatement: "some evolutionary ideas are flawed," or perhaps "The application of much of evolutionary theory as it pertains to biology is flawed.") Sourcing must also go to Con, as many of Pro's sources are bizarre: (anti-atheist websites?) I saw no conduct issues that could result in scoring potentials. S&G, also to Con for his expert use of tables, illustrations, headings and overall clarity.
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 3 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
Maryland_KidMicrosuckTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: con far out argues pro. sources and conduct: hyperlinks alone are not arguments, a quote should be put sourced instead. Your argument is what is in the debate, not another webpage.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Maryland_KidMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: If the law of thermodynamics worked as Pro supposes then humans couldn't create order either. The Law is the law. Con had all the science on his side and he resented it accurately during the debate.