The Instigator
LogicandReasoning
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
IceHawk2009
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution is a more viable theory regarding our status (Existence) than Creationism

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: 2/12/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 679 times Debate No: 45775
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

LogicandReasoning

Pro

Rules

If either Con or I fail to comply with the following rules, 7 points will automatically be deducted from that person, regardless of its reservation.

1. No plagiarism. Plagiarism is the act of copying someone else's work and claiming it as your own.

(Before the debate, I would like to remind you: You might realize that it can be both; We may have originated from a single-cell creatures, evolving overtime, while God initiated the evolution. However, I refer to our "coming into be" (Hence status). Don't be depicted; If we just popped into existed (That's how I'm reffering to Creationism right now as), nice and clear, then Creationism would be yours)

Presentation


Observations

Scientists have actually observed (And some recorded and said documentaries were published) animals evolving into human (Thus that human originating as said animal).

Fossil evidence

In the fossil record: There are snapshots from the past in which, if arranged from oldest to earliest, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change overtime. The snapshots may be scattered in places and have bits missing, but that which we are left with clearly supports the claim that we originated from different animals, evolving overtime.

Similarities between humans and related living organisms

During and since Darwin was born, people have been studying animals. Scientists, lately, have been discovering that we humans share DNA with others as our former selves (Or at least some)(Monkeys)[1].

Noah's ark

Wood is very brittle. And having established that fact, how did the animals and Noah survive?

1. According to the Bible, there were many animals on the ark.




So, from how much the ark had to carry, it should have crashed, regardless of grip (Which makes the middle of the wood more susceptible/vulnerable (Synonyms) to breakage).

2.



So, those drops, flood striking, etc. should have annahilated the ark (Hence, wood).

I await my opponent's set of arguments.


Sources

[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
IceHawk2009

Con

I wish to take this moment and thank my opponent for the challenge. I would also like to apologize for my tardiness in posting my argument. Now In the interest of full disclosure I would like to mention that I am an evolutionist and I am simply playing devil’s advocate. With that said I feel that it is possible to argue for creationism logically and without relying on the bible.

Presentation

1) The second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. The second law of thermodynamics states that states that energy and matter tends to go from order to chaos[1]. Thus how could it be possible for life to exist if energy and matter go from order to disorder? Life requires order to flourish and evolution shows that life goes from simple to more and more complex.

2) Life appeared spontaneously. If you look at the fossil record complex life forms appear spontaneously where as the theory of evolutions suggests there were gradual changes to lead up to this complex life[2][3][4].

3) All current plants and animals have not evolved since creation, outside of extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created species of plants and animals has only occurred within narrow limits[5].

4) Mutations and Natural selection would not be enough to divide species into completely different Kingdoms of animals[6]. What I am trying to say is, is it feasible to think that there are enough random genetic mutations that would have changed an organism from a tree into a human?

Rebuttals

1) Where has a scientist observe a man evolve from an ape? Scientists have hypothesized such but it was never, at least to my knowledge, observed.

2) As addressed above there are many holes where there should not be. Along with that the fossil record goes against the second law of thermodynamics.

3) Grant you that we share a lot of DNA with apes. However we share 51% of our DNA with a fruit fly and we have nothing in common[7]

4) You are correct on all points regarding Noah’s Ark. Not going to argue that. The reason why I am not arguing this point is that Noah’s Ark has nothing to do with my argument. I completely argree with you that Noah’s Ark probably did not happen but at the same time Noah is not needed for Creation.

Debate Round No. 1
LogicandReasoning

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Also, I accept your apology for your tardiness regarding argumentation.

Rebuttals

1) "The second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. The second law of thermodynamics states that states that energy and matter tends to go from order to chaos[1]. Thus how could it be possible for life to exist if energy and matter go from order to disorder? Life requires order to flourish and evolution shows that life goes from simple to more and more complex. "


Seeing as evolution involves science (Physical science)(We originated from single-cellular organisms, overtime evolving, along with our genes), if it's proven to violate even a single scientific law, it is then, falsified.

Indeed. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics[1], everything tends toward disorder. However, say, there's a barrel between balls. I have a wooden plank. Having established the fact that wood is vulnerable to fire, I ignite it. I throw it to the barrel. The barrel explodes. The balls are no longer where they were. However, I can grab them and return them to their previous locations.

2) "Life appeared spontaneously. If you look at the fossil record complex life forms appear spontaneously where as the theory of evolutions suggests there were gradual changes to lead up to this complex life[2][3][4]. "

Fossil records of 1 amongst many varieties of species are exceedingly rare, and only occur under specific conditions, and that the earliest multi-cellular life forms were all soft-bodied (And invertebrates) and thus left little to no trace as fossils for us to observe due to not having a bone that doesn't rot[2], unlike the body.

3) " All current plants and animals have not evolved since creation, outside of extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created species of plants and animals has only occurred within narrow limits[5]."

YOU DON'T KNOW THAT! You have not discovered animals and plants evolving, neither have others notified you. However, my "Observation" contention debunks this.

4) "Mutations and Natural selection would not be enough to divide species into completely different Kingdoms of animals[6]."

However: Before a kind of species evolve, they can produce one amongst the same kind of species, and the same cycles. A kind of species probably were permanently removed. However, the "16 million different species" included those.

"What I am trying to say is, is it feasible to think that there are enough random genetic mutations that would have changed an organism from a tree into a human? "

1. Question is irrelevant.

2. "Observation" contention debunks this.

Observation

"Where has a scientist observe a man evolve from an ape? Scientists have hypothesized such but it was never, at least to my knowledge, observed. "

You may drop this argument without affection of votes; I don't have adequate evidence; My friend simply showed be the documentary of a scientist (Who discovered and recorded) discovering an ape evolving.

Fossil Evidence

"As addressed above there are many holes where there should not be. Along with that the fossil record goes against the second law of thermodynamics. "

Debunked arguments.

Relation between humans and related living organisms

"Grant you that we share a lot of DNA with apes. However we share 51% of our DNA with a fruit fly and we have nothing in common[7]"

Here's the thing: We originated from single-cellular cells. They overtime, can evolve into a monkey. However, the next stage of a monkey is human being. So, their DNAs, obviously, will be related.

Noah's ark

Unless you advocate Biblical Creationism (Which is what contention is against), you may drop this argument WITHOUT affection of votes.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.

Sources

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
IceHawk2009

Con

Rebuttals of your rebuttals for my argument.

1) Are you implying evolution is falsified or the laws of thermodynamics? Also I am not sure what your argument about an exploding barrel proves. Could you elaborate? From what I could see you are impaling that a person or thing put the balls into a specific order which would be an argument for intelligent design, or creationism.

2) The fact of the matter is there is still a lot of missing evidence. Also not all soft body things decay. There are plenty of fossils of plants out there[1].

3) Actually we do. Not one animal has been observed evolving into a new species. If there is one that we watched please point it out.

4) The fact that I am trying to illiterate is that how many generations of off springs is it going to take for that one cell to mutate into the 16 million+ different species that are currently known to exist. That question I asked just re illustrates this point. How many different mutations will it take for the original cell to get to the point of a tree or a human? Is it feasible to think there has been enough time to pass?

Rebutting your rebuttals to my rebuttals for your argument.

1) Whatever you want as long as you acknowledge this is a false fact.

2) Please see the argument above regarding the time it would take based solely on random mutations.

3) I am not arguing biblical creationism. There is no way to prove that.

Debate Round No. 2
LogicandReasoning

Pro

Rebuttals

1) "Are you implying evolution is falsified or the laws of thermodynamics?"

No; I am implying that IF evolution violates scientific laws (Although I believe it doesn't)(Seeing as it involves science; Originating from single-cellular organisms, evolving overtime, along with genes), it is then proven false.

"Also I am not sure what your argument about an exploding barrel proves. Could you elaborate?"

Alright.

Say, there is a barrel. Alright? Around it are balls (Definitely not mine). So, it explodes. The balls then are no longer in their locations. However, I can grab the balls and return them to their original locations.

"From what I could see you are impaling that a person or thing put the balls into a specific order which would be an argument for intelligent design, or creationism."

We can debate this on another topic. Why instead? This is a debate about whether or not evolution is a more viable theory than creationism REGARDING HOW WE CAME TO BE.

2) "Also not all soft body things decay. There are plenty of fossils of plants out there[1]."

Yes. There, indeed, are plenty of fossils of plants. But, you know why? Because, there were no decomposers there yet. Unless it contains something, overtime, it can rot; Deteriorate, from the lack of resources for survival.

3) "Actually we do. Not one animal has been observed evolving into a new species. If there is one that we watched please point it out."

Nope.

There IS NO evidence; The lack of evidence for a side (This premise applies to SOME cases, like this one) doesn't imply its opposite. Like said, my friend showed me a documentary of a scientist Who both discovered and afterwards, recorded an ape evolving, along with its genes.

4) "The fact that I am trying to illiterate is that how many generations of off springs is it going to take for that one cell to mutate into the 16 million+ different species that are currently known to exist. That question I asked just re illustrates this point. How many different mutations will it take for the original cell to get to the point of a tree or a human?"

It probably was a very long period of evolution, arising from a single-cellular organism. However, AS AN EVOLUTIONIST, I believe that there was enough time for the evolution (According to the fossil record). And then afterwards, through sexual intercourse, their sperms joined together, and produced more, thus the population grows.

Observation

"Whatever you want as long as you acknowledge this is a false fact."

...

I won't acknowledge WHAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED false; That's quite absurd.

Fossil evidence

"Please see the argument above regarding the time it would take based solely on random mutations."

Alright.

In the fossil record: There are snapshots from the past in which, if arranged from oldest to earliest, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change overtime. The snapshots may be scattered in places and have bits missing, but that which we are left with clearly supports the claim that we originated from different animals, evolving overtime. So, according to that, we can conclude that the period of times of mutation are actually not TOO long.

Noah's ark

"
I am not arguing biblical creationism."

Alright. Argument dropped.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.

IceHawk2009

Con

I have been busy so I feel that I did not do a good job at presenting my argument the first time, so I will try again. All of the same sources as above but plus a few more.

Presentation

1) The second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. The second law of thermodynamics states that states that energy and matter tends to go from order to chaos. Thus how could it be possible for life to exist if energy and matter go from order to disorder? Life requires order to flourish and evolution shows that life goes from simple to more and more complex. Would you not agree that the human anatomy and philology is a very well ordered and complex system? So saying that we evolved from a simple single cell and evolved into an incredibly complex and well ordered organism violates this law. You replied once “Seeing as evolution involves science (Physical science)(We originated from single-cellular organisms, overtime evolving, along with our genes), if it's proven to violate even a single scientific law, it is then, falsified.” In response let me ask you which is falsified thermodynamics or evolution. Latter on you use the analogy of a barrel full of balls that explode and balls go everywhere, and you go on to talk about how you can go back and re organize the balls to how you want them. This helps my argument. This explains how life could come about against the laws of thermodynamics. You are saying that someone somehow put those balls in to the specific order that is needed. Please tell me how this is evolution and not creationism.

2) Life appeared spontaneously. If you look at the fossil record complex life forms appear spontaneously where as the theory of evolutions suggests there were gradual changes to lead up to this complex life. Bacteria can leave fossils, plants can leave fossils, where are the fossils showing single cells leading up to complex plants and animals[1][2][3]?

3) All current plants and animals have not evolved since creation, outside of extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created species of plants and animals has only occurred within narrow limits.

4) Mutations and Natural selection would not be enough to divide species into completely different Kingdoms of animals. A lot of mutations are harmful rather than helpful[4][5]. Not to mention genetic mutations are extremely rare, estimates show that the rate of mutations that occur are at about 2.5x10^-8 mutations per nucleotide[6]. This number includes helpful and harmful mutations. Knowing this rate is it possible to think that mutations alone could have accounted for the diverse life forms that live on this planet? As newgeology.us puts it “Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature[7].

6) Single cells reproduce asexually, which means they make clones of themselves in order to reproduce[8]. This means that each cell is an exact coppy of the parent cell. How could life have evolved from a single cell if asexual reproduction produce an exact copy[9]?

Rebuttals

1) You stated “scientists have actually observed (And some recorded and said documentaries were published) animals evolving into human (Thus that human originating as said animal).” Where? I have not heard of one animal that was observed to evolve into a human. This is a false fact unless you can provide information for it. Many scientist have hypothesized that man has evolved from apes but it has not been observed.

2) As addressed above there are many holes where there should not be. Along with that the fossil record goes against the second law of thermodynamics.

3) Grant you that we share a lot of DNA with apes. However we share 51% of our DNA with a fruit fly and we have nothing in common.

4) You are correct on all points regarding Noah’s Ark. Not going to argue that. The reason why I am not arguing this point is that Noah’s Ark has nothing to do with my argument. I completely agree with you that Noah’s Ark probably did not happen but at the same time Noah is not needed for Creation.

Debate Round No. 3
LogicandReasoning

Pro

Rebuttals

1) "The second Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. The second law of thermodynamics states that states that energy and matter tends to go from order to chaos. Thus how could it be possible for life to exist if energy and matter go from order to disorder? Life requires order to flourish and evolution shows that life goes from simple to more and more complex."

I have already replied to this; Indeed. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics[1], everything tends toward disorder. However, say, there's a barrel between balls. I have a wooden plank. Having established the fact that wood is vulnerable to fire, I ignite it. I throw it to the barrel. The barrel explodes. The balls are no longer where they were. However, I can grab them and return them to their previous locations. In other words, the matter fused into DNA because of an external cause.

"Would you not agree that the human anatomy and philology is a very well ordered and complex system?"

Yep; The digestive system is organized; When food is digested, it goes through the esophagus. During THAT particular process, the liver produces bile (Fluid that helps decompose fats and get rid of wastes in the body) and drops it at the food (Which was originally stored in the Gallbladder). It then is stored in the stomach. There's acid there which has an assigned job for the body to receive protein (Torning food). After receiving them, the water and sodium from stool is absorbed by the large intestine. The small intestine, on the other hand, is the organ where most digestion occurs. Both paths lead to the anus. Without complexion, our bodies probably wouldn't have functioned properly; Disorganization. However, it's like that mere chance of throwing a ring, having it drop ON a pole.

"So saying that we evolved from a simple single cell and evolved into an incredibly complex and well ordered organism violates this law. You replied once “Seeing as evolution involves science (Physical science)(We originated from single-cellular organisms, overtime evolving, along with our genes), if it's proven to violate even a single scientific law, it is then, falsified.” In response let me ask you which is falsified thermodynamics or evolution."

Neither; You didn't really address this. Like said, seeing as evolution involves science (Physical science)(We originated from single-cellular organisms, overtime evolving, along with our genes), if it's proven to violate even a single scientific law, it is then, falsified. However, the 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't defied by evolution (Debunking your argument).

"Latter on you use the analogy of a barrel full of balls that explode and balls go everywhere, and you go on to talk about how you can go back and re organize the balls to how you want them. This helps my argument. This explains how life could come about against the laws of thermodynamics. You are saying that someone somehow put those balls in to the specific order that is needed. Please tell me how this is evolution and not creationism."

Like said, we can debate this on another topic. Why instead? This is a debate about whether or not evolution is a more viable theory than creationism REGARDING HOW WE CAME TO BE; Read ALL my responses.

2) "Life appeared spontaneously. If you look at the fossil record complex life forms appear spontaneously where as the theory of evolutions suggests there were gradual changes to lead up to this complex life. Bacteria can leave fossils, plants can leave fossils, where are the fossils showing single cells leading up to complex plants and animals[1][2][3]?"

Like said, fossil records of 1 amongst many varieties of species are exceedingly rare, and only occur under specific conditions, and that the earliest multi-cellular life forms were all soft-bodied (And invertebrates) and thus left little to no trace as fossils for us to observe due to not having a bone that doesn't rot[2], unlike the body. Yes. There, indeed, are plenty of fossils of plants. But, you know why? Because, there were no decomposers there yet. Unless it contains something, overtime, it can rot; Deteriorate, from the lack of resources for survival. Actually read all my responses, like said.

3) "All current plants and animals have not evolved since creation, outside of extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created species of plants and animals has only occurred within narrow limits."

Like said, "Observation" argument debunks this. Also, like said, we RARELY can encounter mutations (If evolution is a true theory).

4) "Mutations and Natural selection would not be enough to divide species into completely different Kingdoms of animals."

Yes, it is! If mutations occur more than once, then there are different kinds of species (Although one may already be removed), divided into different kingdoms of species!

"Not to mention genetic mutations are extremely rare, estimates show that the rate of mutations that occur are at about 2.5x10^-8 mutations per nucleotide[6]. "

No rate of mutation published by human is accurate, seeing as, like said, they are RARELY encountered. Not only that, but they don't occur in a certain pattern.

6) (Before actual rebuttal, I'd like to remind you that you skipped number 5)

"Single cells reproduce asexually, which means they make clones of themselves in order to reproduce[8]. This means that each cell is an exact coppy of the parent cell. How could life have evolved from a single cell if asexual reproduction produce an exact copy[9]?"

Alright. Animals produce a specie (One amongst their kind) asexually. However, they EVOLVE to the next stage not by sex. However, I wonder why those 2 defy each other. Please elaborate.

Observation

"You stated “scientists have actually observed (And some recorded and said documentaries were published) animals evolving into human (Thus that human originating as said animal).” Where? I have not heard of one animal that was observed to evolve into a human. This is a false fact unless you can provide information for it. Many scientist have hypothesized that man has evolved from apes but it has not been observed."

Like said, the lack of evidence for one side (In cases like this) DOESN'T IMPLY THE TRUTH OF THE OPPOSITION! I can't show the documentary of a scientists discovering and recording evolution of an ape. That's why you can drop this argument WITHOUT AFFECTION OF VOTES!

Fossil Record, Relation between humans and related living organisms, and Noah's ark

I HAVE ALREADY REPLIED TO THESE! Revert to the previous arguments!

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.

















IceHawk2009

Con


1) Biology still must follow the laws of physics. How does evolution follow the laws of thermodynamics.


2) The theory of evolution states that all life evolved from a single cell. Most decomposers are single cells. How can your claim “[B]ecause, there were no decomposers there yet” be accurate?


3) Like I said show me observations I have not seen one.


4) Where did you get the idea that its not accurate? I am assuming your not a genetic scientist, why should we take your word for it?


5) I had an argument here that I deleted. I didn’t notice my mistake with numbering.


6) Asexual reproduction results in EXACT copies. How were there mutations? In sexual reproduction you get half of you DNA from your mother and half from your father. In Asexual reproduction you look just like your parent genetically. How did evolution come about if cells reproduce asexually and the first life according to evolution was a cell?


7) I am not arguing what it implys I am arguing that this point is false. I don’t care about points or who wins or loses I think its fun to debate.


8) You did not debunk my argument you have not addressed them appropriately.

Debate Round No. 4
LogicandReasoning

Pro

Rebuttals

1) "Biology still must follow the laws of physics. How does evolution follow the laws of thermodynamics."

Alright.

According to the 1st law of thermodynamics (Also known as the conservation of matter[1]) matter AND energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed. So, we originally were single-cellular organisms. When we evolve, there is what we call matter duplication; matter is seperated into half, and the other half of both halves grow.

According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics[2], matter tends toward disorder. Like said:
Say, there's a barrel between balls. I have a wooden plank. Having established the fact that wood is vulnerable to fire, I ignite it. I throw it to the barrel. The barrel explodes. The balls are no longer where they were. However, I can grab them and return them to their previous locations. In other words, the matter fused into DNA because of an external cause.

2) "
The theory of evolution states that all life evolved from a single cell. Most decomposers are single cells. How can your claim “[B]ecause, there were no decomposers there yet” be accurate? "

No; By that, I meant that no decomposers have yet migrated to decompose said flowers.

3) "
Like I said show me observations I have not seen one."

For the hundredth time, I can't; My friend simply showed me a documentary of a scientist discovering and recording an ape evolving. However, I can't upload it here. That's why you can drop this.

4) "
Where did you get the idea that its not accurate? I am assuming your not a genetic scientist, why should we take your word for it? "

I don't have to be a genetic scientist to be able to say so; Our estimates of animal mutation are based upon those we have ENCOUNTERED! Like said, mutations don't occur in a specific pattern.

5) "
I had an argument here that I deleted. I didn’t notice my mistake with numbering. "

WOW! So, I guess you should've presented your supposed 5th argument here. TURR TURRURR

6) "
Asexual reproduction results in EXACT copies. How were there mutations? In sexual reproduction you get half of you DNA from your mother and half from your father. In Asexual reproduction you look just like your parent genetically. How did evolution come about if cells reproduce asexually and the first life according to evolution was a cell?"

How can they not? Please elaborate; I STILL don't understand.

Observation

"

I am not arguing what it implys I am arguing that this point is false. I don’t care about points or who wins or loses I think its fun to debate. "

Both sides (Other than me, seeing as I have experienced this) lack conclusive evidence. So, having established what you accept, both lack, but then that implies the opposite. However, the opposite lacks conclusive evidence too. So, aren't you 1 amongst us (The last) to be lecturing about who's correct?

Fossil evidence, Relation between humans and related living organisms, and Noah's ark

"

You did not debunk my argument you have not addressed them appropriately."

Then let me give you a clue: If my rebuttal doesn't debunk your arguments, I guess you should have rebutted them for me to encounter my own errors, shouldn't have you?

I now leave it up to the voters.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
IceHawk2009

Con

IceHawk2009 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by IceHawk2009 3 years ago
IceHawk2009
I will do what I can lol. The last time I debated this my opponent only had three arguments. I will do what I can and post my argument tomorrow.
Posted by IceHawk2009 3 years ago
IceHawk2009
I will do what I can lol. The last time I debated this my opponent only had three arguments. I will do what I can and post my argument tomorrow.
No votes have been placed for this debate.