The Instigator
emospongebob527
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Smithereens
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Evolution is More Probable Than Creationism.

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 6 votes the winner is...
Smithereens
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,306 times Debate No: 26389
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (37)
Votes (6)

 

emospongebob527

Pro

Rules:

1. No semantics
2. No trolling
3. No profanity
4. No vulgarity


Structure:

1. Acceptance/Definitions
2. Opening Statement
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals to Rebuttals
5. Closing Arguments/Conclusion


Definitions:

Creationism- a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.

Evolution- a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

Probable- supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof.

If anyone violates the rules, they will lose the debate.



Smithereens

Con

Greetings affirmative.
BoP is on you to convince us of why you think your right. Merely defending evolution won't get you anywhere in this debate, you're going to have to attack creationism, so good luck. You'll need it.

Challenges
_________________________________________________________
I wish to challenge rule 5: "Closing Arguments/Conclusion" to read: Closing defense/Conclusion. I'm going to take a guess and say that you were not planning on making new arguments in the last round, which would mean you would break your own rules. It would be a shame to see you fall on your own sword.

I also wish to challenge the definition of creationism to mean the base belief of creationism and not something as specific as the christian religion. This will mean that we will not debate the book of Genesis in the Bible but instead, creationism itself.



Without any further ado, I hope this will be a beneficial, intellectual debate, and I look forward to see what Pro has to say for himself.

State your case.
Debate Round No. 1
emospongebob527

Pro

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Smithereens

Con

Seeing as this debate has some rounds yet to go, I will not post my case as yet. However, in light of Pro's forfeit, I urge a conduct deduction from him.

Awaiting Pro...
Debate Round No. 2
emospongebob527

Pro

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Smithereens

Con

If the emo turns up to this debate I will be advancing these claims:

1) Creationism is more probable than evolution If God exists, God exists, therefore creationism is more probable.
1.1 Cosmological argument for God
1.2 Ontological argument for God
1.3 Defense of Anselms ontological argument

2) Evolution is highly flawed and therefore less likely than creationism
2.1 Mathematical errors in population according to evolution
2.2 Impossibilities of a big bang
2.3 Other evidence against evolution

3) Creationism is equally as likely as creationism if creationistic evolution occurred
(The gist of this argument seeks to assert that God made the big bang, if so, the resolution: "Evolution is More Probable Than Creationism." Is negated due to them being equally likely)
3.1 Evidence for a supernatural big bang.

I will present the Cosmological argument and the Ontological argument next round.
Debate Round No. 3
emospongebob527

Pro

Unfortunately since I have forfeited the last couple of rounds, I must concede, my burden of proof wouldn't be meeted correctly without my losing a significant amount of votes.

I have conceded because:

1. Moving cities has cause my schedule to change.

2. My schedule changing has cause change in my sleep time.

3. My lack of sleep has made me very tired and missing out on numerous hours of debate.

4. Missing out has cause forfeits.

5. Numerous forfeits has put me in doghouse.

Other reasons:

1. I have been carelessly making and accepting numerous debates when I have enough arguments due anyway.

2. The numerous amount of arguments due has lead to me forfeiting certain debates.

3. I forfeit this debate.

4. I am in doghouse.

Therefore I apologize to:

King Smithereens

Teh Voters

Teh Viewers

Teh Popolatione of World: 7,048,260,525


When Voting:

Conduct: Me.

Why? Pro belive in god and is conservative, he think gay is bad and god is good, he think animal went on arc and man made from duct, i better.

Spelling and Grammar: Me.

con belive in god, and god is bibiille: well bible say gammar is bad and speling is god, con follow this h e sepl bad, ik better.


Arguments: Me

con belive gay is bad, if he belive this he lose all argument caus thos so wong.

Sources:

con use no source and belive gay is bag and god is god and a dog so i won.

Smithereens

Con

I accept Pro's forfeit, but not his plea for votes. He believes that I should be penalised for not believing in the legalisation of gay marriage. Completely irrelevant to this debate. I urge voters to vote for what happens in this debate and not outside of it. Nevertheless, I feel that later on, we will have an opportunity to redo this debate. Thanks Pro for issuing it.
Debate Round No. 4
emospongebob527

Pro

My opponent is wrong.

Why?

1. Creationism is Bible.

2. Bible is God.

3. God is dog.

4. Dog exhibit homosexual behavior.

5. Therefore Creationism is related to gay.
Smithereens

Con

creationism is in no way related to gay behaviour. Its irrelevant to this debate.

Since there is not much else for me to do, I will refute my opponents chain of logic.

1. Creationism is Bible.

2. Bible is God.

3. God is dog.

4. Dog exhibit homosexual behavior.

5. Therefore Creationism is related to gay.

Premise 1 is flawed because creationism is not the bible, an account of creation is however, found in the bible.
Premise 2 is wrong, no need to explain why.
Premise 3 is wrong, God is God, not a dog.
Premise 4 is correct, but does not help my opponent
The coclusion is wrong because 3/4 of the premises were wrong.

I would like to redo this debate at a later time, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
@Paul
You are quoting me, and I never said those things, those were the main ideas that you attribute to my case. Its wrong to put quotation marks there and make everyone think I said that. The reason why I want to debate creationism in general i because this debate WILL NOT WORK if we debate anything else. You cannot pit genesis creation against biological evolution.
Posted by Several_Ingredients 4 years ago
Several_Ingredients
Pro, it may come off as immature, but I think your closing statements were a big gamble. They did make for good light entertainment, though. So thanks.

The comments section had the real debate. ;D
In that spirit, I'd like to tick off the wrong things Ben says.

"I want to rebate Intelligent Design and not Genesis creationism"
- Says the person who believes the bible is the most accurate book in the world.

"...big bang..."
Haha, not even close to evolution or the creation vs. evolution debate.

"Genesis account can literally mean evolution"
I would like to point out Smithereens ignorance on what evolution actually IS, and IS NOT. It's not personal, its a trait many creationists use. They use the same tired old debunked arguments, again and again. They just repeat them. They do that because unlike evolution, and all of science, creationism stands still. There's nothing new here. Bronze age primitives did not come up with the theory of evolution. They LITERALLY say that god made all life on earth, and spoke everything into existence. Of course, it's just an untestable, unfalsifiable "god did it".

To end this on a happy note, I'd like to compliment Smithereens on using the word "evidence" correctly, without using a plural "evidences". For example, there's a creationist document called "101 evidences for a young earth".http://rationalwiki.org...
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
@ microsuck, Ik, but that is how I must debate since I can literally argue that The Genesis account talks about evolution.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
LOL evolution =/=Big bang!
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
I believe 2 FF would equal 7 points
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Yup
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
I believe Pro will be forfeiting within the bi-hour.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Paul, quit graffiting my debate please. Pm Muted if you must, just get out of here please
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
http://www.evolutionnews.org...
ID has made predictions, hence it is falsifiable.
http://creation.com...
The nerve most definitely has a purpose. For evidence regarding evolution, see my debate with microsuck
Posted by Several_Ingredients 4 years ago
Several_Ingredients
I agree, courts should not have to decide what is science. This was a policy issue as to what should be taught as science.

The main arguments raised in the court proceedings, however, exist independently of the case. Regardless of how you feel the case went, the evidence for evolution by natural selection remains as strong as ever. This case is just an excellent example of this evidence being presented.

Intelligent Design, if you want to say it's purely philosophical, is the same as deism, is it not? Deism, being unfalsifiable, and untestable, is not science.

One thing I would like to ask, is this. Why would an "Intelligent Designer" be so inept in creating all life, and why would they make it appear as though evolution did the job instead? Why do we, and other animals, have the recurrent laryngeal nerve? Evolution explains this easily, that we share a common ancestor with fish and that the nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart as our neckes evolved. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
emospongebob527SmithereensTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: An easy win for Pro, unfortunately unclaimed.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
emospongebob527SmithereensTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons are mostly obvious. I give a tie in sources because none are given.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
emospongebob527SmithereensTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro took it upon himself to personally ensure that there was absolutely no reason to give him any points whatsoever.
Vote Placed by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
emospongebob527SmithereensTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has a habit of playing the knave, and makes no exception here. He forfeited two rounds, then made an entirely irrelevant case for why the Con was inferior for him, and he should get the easy win he had planned in the first place. Reliable sources go to no one, because no one placed any sources. Conduct is difficult for me to assign, since both had obvious breaches of conduct. Ultimately, the Pro's forfeiture prompts me to give it to Con, despite the 'Vote Con' statement at the end.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
emospongebob527SmithereensTied
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: What Nur-Ab-Sal said
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
emospongebob527SmithereensTied
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 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: Wow, nice way to be a d!ck in the last few rounds, Pro.