The Instigator
NaturalFlavors
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
RyddianDynia
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Evolution is a religion, not a science

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 4 votes the winner is...
RyddianDynia
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,069 times Debate No: 63639
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (4)

 

NaturalFlavors

Pro

I believe that even though Evolution is presented as a science, and taught in public schools today as that, it is actually a religion. Starting at the beginning of Evolution this is list of reasons that I believe supports my case, and my opponent will be arguing against.

1. "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."-Evolution- Paul Shestople

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."-Christianity, Widely accepted religion- Genesis 1:1-2

2. "Far away and long ago, chemicals which had been sitting on earth's crust for amillion years or so, reacted in such a way as to create life."- Evolution

"And God said, ""Let the land produce living creaturs according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move alaong the groound, and wild animals, each according to it's kind."" And it was so."-Christianity,Widely accepted religion - Genisis 1:24

3."Apes evolved to humans."-Evolution

How come wedon't see these things happening today?Where is your proof that it did happen? (Why are there still apes?)
RyddianDynia

Con

First off I need to clarify something. The argument that apes would not exist is simply false in every conceivable way. You grandmother gave birth to your mother, why does your grandmother still exist?

Now I will move on to your other "arguments".

On your '2.' argument you simplified evolution to a very basic state to make it sound unprofessional. This is a logical fallacy. Please attempt not to make void arguments in the future.

Evolution is NOT a religion, for it does not require faith. Look at dog breeding for example. Were it not for evolution, how would there we so many different types of dogs nowadays? The entire process would be impossible without both micro and macro evolution.

NOWHERE does evolution state that apes evolved to humans. Evolution only states that apes and humans share a common ancestor. That is NOT the same thing as saying that humans directly evolved from apes!

Lastly, you do agree that belief in biblical creationism requires faith, correct? If not than please explain to me concrete evidence that biblical creationism is true. I can tell you why evolution has been one of the most respected scientific theories since it's foundation, but can you tell me why biblical creationism is kept separate from professional science. (Same as all other religions...)

I look forward to seeing your response.
Debate Round No. 1
NaturalFlavors

Pro

My reasoning for the last "Apes" question is that apes evolved to humans because of survival of the fittest. If apes where to at all evolve into something different so that they could survive-survival of the fittest- there would no longer be "apes" there would be a stronger, smarter, creature. Not necessarily a human.

argument #2 states that something happened a long time ago that created life.
"Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago " perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets " to create biology."
It has not happened since for us to see or study. Numerous scientists have tried to re-create the beginning but- "The technology simply does not yet exist to manipulate molecules with the precision required to create all of the inner workings of a cell, built one atom at a time."

What you discussed next is micro-evolution, small changes within species. I understand this subject very well, due to the fact that I raise a breed of rabbit that has an exceptional mutation. It's called rex fur. I also own a French Lop, it's about 11lbs and has floppy ears. I also own a Netherland Dwarf, it's about 2lbs and has tiny erect ears. If I wanted to I could breed them, due to the fact that they are both rabbits.
And yes, the whole theory of Evolution is impossible without macro-evolution. We see micro-evolution today but not macro-evolution, requiring us to believe in macro-evolution.

Your right, I didn't find anything stating that we evolved from apes, but I did find one that says we evolved from fish! "Tetrapods [us] evolved from a finned organism that lived in the water. However, this ancestor was not like most of the fish we are familiar with today. Most animals we call fishes today are ray-finned fishes, the group nearest the root of this evogram. Ray-finned fishes comprise some 25,000 living species, far more than all the other vertebrates combined. They have fin rays " that is, a system of often branching bony rays (called lepidotrichia) that emanate from the base of the fin"-Carl Zimmer

Lastly, I do believe that biblical creationism requires faith, that is not the argument- it is that Evolution is also a faith-based belief.
RyddianDynia

Con

How many times must I explain this? Apes and humans shared a COMMON ANCESTOR. HUMANS did not EVOLVE into APES. You are not arguing with the scientifically respected theory of evolution, you are arguing with a made-up version of evolution that suits your arguments better...

(If you are going to quote something please source it. You may just have made it up for all I know.)

Also, I think you lack the knowledge of what the word 'theory' means in science. In science, theory means "a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena." - www.livescience.com

Also I love how to say "to create biology". This is yet another example of you over-simplifying things to make them seem less professional than they really are. This is one of the main reasons you need to source your quotes. I may be a layman but I at least attempt to use proper terminology. Also, you treat this event as if one second cells were nonexistent and then *BAM* there they are as we know them today. That is not how it works in the slightest. These events occur over time spans of millions or billions of years.

Also, believing in Micro-Evolution and not Macro-Evolution is like saying a car can go x feet in one minute but not x miles in one hour. Does that make ANY sense?

Also, you brought to my attention that humans apparently evolved from a finned organism, but with the proper time and a little help from macro-evolution, how again is this impossible.

I will give in on this last one. I went off topic. I formally apologize on that ground.

I look forward to seeing how you respond.
Debate Round No. 2
NaturalFlavors

Pro


"Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change."-www.livescience.com

FACT: The earth is here
FACT: We see Micro-Evolution today
FACT: We do not see Macro-Evolution today, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats
THEORY: "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born." Paul Shestople- Big Bang Cosmology Primer
THEORY: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."-Genisis 1:1-2

Evolutionists believe that from nothing there was a singularity, the size of a dime, that created our universe.
Creationists believe that from nothing there was God, the size of which cannot be measured, that created our universe.

This debate was not to prove or disprove evolution but to determine weather or not you have to have faith to beleive that billions of years ago the Big Bang happened.
We still have not seen a galaxy create itself, stars be born, life spontaneousely begin, or a dog produce a non-dog (dog is just an example). If you are to beleive in evolution you must have a certin amount of faith that billions of years ago a galaxy created itself, stars were made, life began- however long it took, billions of years or trillions of years, and speices evolved from one to another, (flightless animals to birds). It is theoreticaly possible that it happened. But you still need to beleive that it did.
noun: faith
  1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
    "this restores one's faith in politicians"
    synonyms: trust · belief · confidence · conviction · optimism · hopefulness ·

believe

[ biG2;lēv ] vascript:void(0)">
verb
verb: believe · third person present: believes · past tense: believed · past participle: b
  1. accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of:
    "the superintendent believed Lancaster's story"
    synonyms: regard as true · accept · be convinced by · give credence to ·

Religion

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe.

RyddianDynia

Con

Upon reading your previous argument I see yet ANOTHER misconception. You can believe in evolution and not the big bang theory and vice-versa.

I agree with fact #1
I agree with fact #2
I disagree with fact #3 on the grounds that if the same 'kind' of species (ex. dogs) changes into another breed that IS an example of evolution. There weren't hundreds of dog breeds at the beginning, Evolution caused these changes.

Saying that Genesis 1:1-2 is a scientific theory is a slander to the word. Do not compare a scientifically recognized theory to a story in an ancient book.

Also it seems to me that you are under the impression that if we do not see something w/ our own eyes we cannot prove it is true. You don't need to 'have faith' to believe anything that you don't see w/ your own eyes. For example, I knew the American Revolution happened because there are thousands of texts from the time confirming it is true. The difference with other kinds of faith (ex. the bible) is that is makes supernatural claims that we have absolutely no reason to believe are possible.

Even if you don't think that evolution and the big bang theory meet your par for evidence, they are still the best theories we have at the moment. While I think that we should keep looking for answers, I do think we are on to something as of now.

Thank you for providing me with a semi-professional intelligent debate on the topic. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. And to those of you who are reading this, I am not trying to persuade you to drop your religion, and to become an atheist, I am simply saying that by our modern scientific standards evolution and the big bang match the par, while no religion has done so.

May the people judge us fairly and without bias.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AdvancedAtom 2 years ago
AdvancedAtom
Evolution is a religion... like how gravity is a religion.
Posted by RyddianDynia 2 years ago
RyddianDynia
No, Conspiricyrisk, it is still evolution. Evolution isn't only applicable species-to-species...
Posted by Conspiracyrisk 2 years ago
Conspiracyrisk
You are wrong about different breeds of the same species meaning evolution. They are still the same species.
Posted by RyddianDynia 2 years ago
RyddianDynia
Mcivor, I used the fact that pro didn't no the difference between micro/macro evolution in the first place. In science there is no micro/macro evolution it was made up by creationists so they could say micro is true and macro is not.
Posted by VelCrow 2 years ago
VelCrow
Sorry all. In my RFD i mixed up Pro and Con. But the vote awarded was indeed correct.
Posted by McIvor 2 years ago
McIvor
Well, Con know nothing of the difference of Evolution (Macro Evolution) and Speciation (Micro Evolution). Due to this one point, he should completely and totally lose this debate.
Posted by Bumbletea 2 years ago
Bumbletea
Hey, I would vote but I'm new and don't have the credentials. Just came here to say that this is a silly debate. The "evidence" used in the debate from NaturalFlavors is entirely based off of logical fallacies and false equivalencies. First off, you are arguing the creation of the universe with evolution, when it is not the same thing. The big bang is not evolution, please know exactly what you are debating before you make these ridiculous claims. Second off, evolution is not as simple as you make it sound. We did not evolve from apes, we evolved from a common primitive ancestor (the fact that you have to ask why apes are still around proves that you have no idea what you are talking about). NaturalFlavors is also completely ignoring homologous, heterozygous, homozygous, dominant, and submissive genetic factors that play into evolution and natural selection. Science is not a religion in the least. That is why a scientist can still choose to label themselves a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, etc. Scientific practice is that which reflects evidence for happenings in the natural world (not supernatural). Evolution is a scientific concept observed through our natural world, thus it cannot be taught without faith in anything BUT the natural world. This is a poorly constructed debate, Pro. I highly encourage you to seek further education if you wish to debate something as complex as evolution.
Posted by RyddianDynia 2 years ago
RyddianDynia
Darwin's theory was around before Marx and Engals even finalized the ideals of communism, so I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

Also, I genuinely think you are a troll at this point...
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
Evolution was invented by the Communists, I reckon.

Show me a gibbon mixed with a capuchin (a gabbuchin), and I'll believe in evolution.

Show me a lemur mixed with a squirrel (a lemuirrel), and I'll consider that my great-great-great, etc. grandfather might've been a babbon.

Show me where a koi fish ever turned into a komodo dragon, and maybe I'll change my views.

Until then, it's Bible all the way, baby.
Posted by Man_Of_Few_Words 2 years ago
Man_Of_Few_Words
mightbenihilism you are actually so dumb by saying that some animals can not evolve...
ALL ANIMALS CAN AND DO EVOLVE BY YOUR DEFINITION.
Look at the 7 characteristics of life here http://infohost.nmt.edu...
the 7th is "7. Living Things Adapt To Their Environment:
Adaptations are traits giving an organism an advantage in a certain environment.
Variation of individuals is important for a healthy species."
This is what you were talking about with dogs however it happens with all animals BECAUSE IT IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF LIFE, so to be alive a species has to evolve. If you look at the facts RyddianDynia is the clear winner of this debate and you my friend should not talk about things that you have no idea about.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
NaturalFlavorsRyddianDyniaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I give the debate to pro. I thought pro made overly simplistic arguments but points that were nonetheless accurate. Both sides need to work on grammar. Pro's worst point was the argument that if humans evolved from monkeys there shouldn't be monkeys today. Not an argument that should be used, as some could evolve without all having to. Best argument was that microevolution is not observed today, indeed even Richard Dawkins has conceded that it "hasn't been observed while it's happening." Pro also made a good point that the species in the fossil record are noticeably similar to those we see today. Con seemed to veer off on a tangent about evidence for creationism which while applicable wasn't part of the immediate debate.
Vote Placed by BombDebaterLeeroyTheBird 2 years ago
BombDebaterLeeroyTheBird
NaturalFlavorsRyddianDyniaTied
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: NaturalFlavors is just a retard. It's a science that weirdos like you turn into your "personal religion"
Vote Placed by VelCrow 2 years ago
VelCrow
NaturalFlavorsRyddianDyniaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con lost points for stating quotes without links to source. Con also had the same misconception of most anti-evolutionist, which is, evolution is an instantaneous/near instantaneous process. Con failed to realised (which was addressed by Pro) that evolution is a process which takes a much longer time to occur. Please pm me if any one requires further explanation or would like to dispute my vote.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
NaturalFlavorsRyddianDyniaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: This debate goes very clearly to Con. I found fault with Pro's conduct, as he defined religion (using Wikipedia I might add) only in his final round. Most other actual online dictionaries include a supernatural being in the definition, and it would have been natural to assume that Pro was operating under that definition. Pro's language was difficult to discern (e.g. "whether" not "weather") so S&G to Con. Pro also misunderstood the theory of evolution, and so made many flawed arguments. Con's rebuttals were strong and precise. Con did not use sources, but I find that seeing as Pro was the one making the claims, his lack of sources, even after requests by Con, was egregious. I am awarding sources points to Con.