The Instigator
KanzulHuda786
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DeFool
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution is a Delusion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 9/26/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 848 times Debate No: 25838
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

KanzulHuda786

Pro

First round for acceptance
DeFool

Con

I shall accept your challenge, and defend evolutionary theory against the charge that it is a "delusion."


A necessary but tedious task is required first. We must agree to certain guidelines. First, I must insist that plagiarism should result in a full seven point penalty to be levied against the offender. Second, we should establish definitions:


"Evolution:" The assertion that heritable changes can occur. (This may relate to biology, where children are born with traits from parents, most likely, to the exclusion of all else throughout this debate. However, this should not be considered the only rendering of evolution to be found in nature.)


"Delusion:" Google Online Dictionary:
Noun:
  1. An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality,...
  2. The action of deluding someone or the state of being deluded: "what a capacity television has for delusion".


Appeals to authority should be ignored unless the argument being made by that authority is included for evaluation.


If these terms are acceptable, I will allow my opponent to assume the Burden of Proof, and present his case in the next round. If these terms are not acceptable, let us negotiate them in the comments section, in order that we may save space here. I shall honor any agreements made there.
Debate Round No. 1
KanzulHuda786

Pro

The definition of evolution that Con has given: the assertion that heritable changes occur is not the type of evoluition I am a against but i am going to be arguing over the broader definition of the theory of evolution which claims that unconscious, unreasoning, inanimate atoms such as phosphorus and carbon assembled themselves together by chance. As a result of such natural phenomena as lightning, volcanic eruptions, ultraviolet rays and radiation, these atoms organized themselves in such a flawless way as to give rise to proteins, cells" "and thereafter, fish, rabbits, lions, birds, human beings and all manner of life forms.
That is the basic claim made by the theory of evolution by natural selection, which regards chance as a creative deity. However, belief in any such claim is a violation of reason, logic and science.

First Argument

The theory of evolution maintains that those living organisms that best adapt to their environment have more opportunities to survive and multiply, and therefore, they can pass on their advantageous characteristics to subsequent generations, and species evolve by way of this mechanism. But the fact is that the mechanism in question"known as natural selection""cannot cause living things to evolve, nor endow them with any new features. It can only reinforce existing characteristics belonging to a particular species. In any given region, for example, those rabbits able to run fastest will survive, while others die. After a few generations, all the rabbits in this region will consist of fast-running individuals. However, these rabbits can never evolve into another species "greyhounds or foxes, for instance.

There is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Gould, refers to this deadlock of natural selection as follows;

The essence of Darwism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.
Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as a conscious designer. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living beings. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that have the feature of "irreducible complexity". These systems and organs are composed of the co-operation of a great number of parts and they are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, human eye does not function unless it exists with all its details). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to figure the future in advance and aim directly for the benefit that is to be acquired at the last stage. Since natural mechanism has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact which also demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Natural selection only selects out the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species. It cannot produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs. That is, it cannot make anything evolve. Darwin accepted this reality by saying: "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur"
DeFool

Con

I cannot debate my opponent this round.

Unfortunately, I must refer our readers to the First Round, wherein I ask that plagiarism be specifically prohibited from this debate. My reasons for specifying such an inclusion (I am normally quite tolerant) can be discussed elsewhere.


This argument was almost entirely copied from this website: http://harunyahya.com...

I shall present the two narratives, side by side:

Debate Argument presented by my opponent:

“The theory of evolution maintains that those living organisms that best adapt to their environment have more opportunities to survive and multiply, and therefore, they can pass on their advantageous characteristics to subsequent generations, and species evolve by way of this mechanism. But the fact is that the mechanism in question"known as natural selection""cannot cause living things to evolve, nor endow them with any new features. It can only reinforce existing characteristics belonging to a particular species. In any given region, for example, those rabbits able to run fastest will survive, while others die. After a few generations, all the rabbits in this region will consist of fast-running individuals. However, these rabbits can never evolve into another species "greyhounds or foxes, for instance.”

Content From Website:

“The theory of evolution maintains that those living organisms that best adapt to their environment have more opportunities to survive and multiply, and therefore, they can pass on their advantageous characteristics to subsequent generations, and species evolve by way of this “mechanism.”

But the fact is that the mechanism in question—known as natural selection—cannot cause living things to evolve, nor endow them with any new features. It can only reinforce existing characteristics belonging to a particular species.

In any given region, for example, those rabbits able to run fastest will survive, while others die. After a few generations, all the rabbits in this region will consist of fast-running individuals. However, these rabbits can never evolve into another species—greyhounds or foxes, for instance.”



I will not directly address my opponents efforts further.

However, many readers will be disappointed that I do not answer the argument itself, however poor the form with which it was presented. Therefore:

This argument is a basic one, very often used by creationists. It argues that evolution cannot possibly answer for all the variations that are to be found in nature. This is accomplished by way of completely misleading readers as to the qualities of heritable change – and the profound effect that these otherwise very minor changes can have over vast periods of time.

Essentially, although the bookmarks on my opponents’ computer are lavishly illustrated, they do not present a comprehensive understanding of basic biology. I shall skip the rick-a-rack of the “evidence” presented and get straight to the point that this tract is attempting to prove. I shall present the argument, I would have broken it down:

If evolution is found to be flawed, then something else must have created the universe.

The universe is too amazing to have created itself, and developed into its current form

Therefore, the universe must have been created by an outside agency.

This outside agency is most likely one of the gods worshiped in ancient Mesopotamia

We can discard the final proposition, since it does not follow that an “outside agency” necessarily must have been that particular god.

This leaves us with an argument that sounds like this:

The universe is too amazing to have come into existence unaided

The universe must have been created by an outside agency

This argument begs the question: Wouldn't’t an entity able to create the amazing universe have to be even more amazing than
the universe? This requires that the argument read:

The universe is too amazing to have created itself, and must have had a creator

The creator of the universe is too amazing to have created itself, and must have had a creator

The creator of the creator of the universe is too amazing to have created itself, and must have had a creator

The creator of the creator of the creator of the universe is too amazing to have created itself, and must have had a creator

The creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the universe is too amazing to have created itself, and must have had a creator


And so forth…


Since the word, "creator" begins to sound a bit peculiar when it is said too many times without sufficient spaces between its usage I shall stop for now, and allow my opponent to present his first argument.

Debate Round No. 2
KanzulHuda786

Pro

KanzulHuda786 forfeited this round.
DeFool

Con

My opponent seems to have fled, at least for the moment. I anticipate the speedy reclamation of his courage and confidence, and his subsequent return.
Debate Round No. 3
KanzulHuda786

Pro

KanzulHuda786 forfeited this round.
DeFool

Con

I am formally extending my arguments, and anticipating a speedy conclusion.
Debate Round No. 4
KanzulHuda786

Pro

KanzulHuda786 forfeited this round.
DeFool

Con

I want to thank any readers for following the debate to this point, and to apologize for the anticlimactic end. I also want to ask that, despite this, any readers will still trouble themselves to vote.

I would be mortified if this contest should end in a draw.

I shall fill out my character count with the lyrics to the Village People hit classic, "YMCA."

Young man, there's no need to feel down
I said young man, pick yourself off the ground
I said young man, 'cause your in a new town
There's no need to be unhappy

Young man, there's a place you can go
I said young man, when you're short on your dough
You can stay there and I'm sure you will find
Many ways to have a good time

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A
They have everything for young men to enjoy
You can hang out with all the boys

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
You can get yourself clean you can have a good meal
You can do whatever you feel

Young man, are you listening to me
I said young man, what do you wanna be
I said young man, you can make real your dreams
But you've got to know this one thing

No man does it all by himself
I said young man, put your pride on the shelf
[ From: http://www.elyrics.net...]
And just go there to the Y.M.C.A.
I'm sure they can help you today

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
They have everything for young men to enjoy
You can hang out with all the boys

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
You can get yourself clean you can have a good meal
You can do whatever you feel

Young Man, I was once in your shoes
I said I was, down and out with the blues
I felt no man cared if I were alive
I felt the whole world was so jive

That's when someone came up to me
And said young man take a walk up the street
There's a place there called the Y.M.C.A.
They can start you back on your way

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
Young man, young man there's no need to feel down
Young man, young man pick yourself off the ground

Y.M.C.A. and just go to the Y.M.C.A.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
Do you agree, or disagree with the assertion that "evolution is a delusion?"
No votes have been placed for this debate.