The Instigator
milesofchange
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Wallstreetatheist
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Evolution is an unjustified axiom of faith

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
Wallstreetatheist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,081 times Debate No: 25093
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (6)

 

milesofchange

Pro

Guidelines:
1) Laws of logic must apply
2) Open mindedness to new ideas is a virtue :)

Definition:
Faith- belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Evolution- the process by which organism transition from a less complex organism to another more complex organism. (The primary axiom of science in the modern day).
Axiom- a starting point of reasoning.

1) Genetics
There is no genetic mechanism by which evolution can occur. If this is true then the remaining areas of research should be questioned as well. Evolutionists are no longer asking whether evolution is true, but instead are just trying to make it work. There has been no new DNA formed as controlled observation. Furthermore, everything that we know about DNA has led to numerical problems and strong accusations such as Kimura's Quandary against evolution. See reference.

2) Fossil Record
Although this would also support the evolutionary model, it doesn't. If this is true, then Evolution quickly becomes a matter of personal opinion that all of these quandaries will be discovered in the future. There are minimal and still hotly debated in-between types giving rise the biggest question against evolution: If the genome requires evolution, then why do we not see gradualism in the fossil record? There have been postulations that small populations allowed these sudden genetic drifts to reform and evolve the organism to avoid such missing links and genetic mishaps, but postulations have not been fully justified.

These are my first two arguments and would be glad to take any questions if there are any.

Logic:
1) Evolution is unjustified and shouldn't be an axiom. See above-
2) All beliefs that are unjustified, are of faith.
3) Society accepts evolution as a starting point of reasoning.

Therefore, Evolution is an axiom of faith.

References:
Genetic Entropy: & the Mystery of the Genome 2005 Dr. J.C. Sanford
Kimura, M. 1968. Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217:624-626
Wallstreetatheist

Con

I thank acvavra for accepting this debate, and I wish him luck in the next round!

Rationality & Strong Evidence vs Weak Evidence

Before we delve into the science of evolutionary biology, it is important first to examine the broader processes that subsume science, naturalism, and logic. They are themselves rooted in the tradition of rationalism that had its traceable origins to the Milesian philosophers of Ancient Greece. There is an identification that must be made between the beginnings of rational thought and the beginnings of science; thus, science must be seen as part of a wider, progressive story about the development of human intellect and understanding. A major principle under rationality is the differentiation between strong and weak evidence. Strong evidence offers compelling grounds for rational belief includes hard evidence, direct and indirect observations, the ability to be independently verified, falsifiable, etc. Weak evidence includes anecdotal evidence, faith, dreams, hearsay, ad populum fallacy, etc. [1]

Strong evidence is what we have to prove in this debate concerning probability, given that the duly accepted definition is "supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof." Whoever provides more strong evidence and argument will increase the probability his side is correct. [2]

Science

One of the basic assumptions of science is that of assuming natural causality. This means that in this debate, there is a battle between science that assumes naturale causality and creation theology which not only assumes supernatural causality, but asserts it as absolutely true. [3]

Evolution is a scientific theory. In this context, theory does not me a guess. It is a body of propositions related to a particular field, such as the germ theory of disease. Stephen Jay Gould defined a scientific fact as a theory that has been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." [4]

A scientific theory must be both testable and falsifiable. That is that, based on a theory, we must be able to make predictions about what is likely or unlikely to be true if the theory is correct and we must remain open to the possibility that the theory is wrong. When conflicting strong evidence is discovered, a scientific theory must be adjusted or abandoned. These make science the most reliable basis for empirical reality ever devised.

This is how the scientific method operates:

1) Make observations.
2) Formulate hypotheses based on observations.
3) Form predictions based on hypothesis.
4) Test the predictions in testable and empirical conditions.
5) Draw conclusions that confirm or deny the predictions.
6) Report falsifiable results in a peer review journal that opens scrutiny of the conclusions

Evidence for Evolution

In contrast to the lack of strong verifiable evidence for creationism's unfalsifiable, supernatural claims; evolution has a wealth of strong evidence from the collective work in the fields of chemistry, biology, biochemisty, molecular biology, developmental biology, population biology, mammalogy, ornithology, botany, zoology, herpetology, ecology, genetics, ethology, biogeography, epidemiology, psychology, and population genetics.

a) Increasing diversity and complexity

Mark I. Vuletic writes, One of the crucial predictions of evolutionary theory is that one should find a general progression of increasingly diverse and complex life forms when one traces the fossil record through progressively higher strata of sedimentary rock. This is not to say that major extinctions cannot occur, or that simpler life forms cannot persist alongside more complex ones, but merely that the more complex ones should not appear before the less complex ones have appeared. The appearance of organisms in the fossil record should reflect the branching, treelike structure of evolution.

Thus, had God wished to supply humanity with decisive evidence refuting evolution, He could have done so easily by depositing, preserving, and later exposing to paleontologists numerous mammalian fossils in the oldest rock strata (no difficult feat for the omnipotent creator of the universe).

Yet, when we examine the fossil record, we find a distribution that matches the predictions of evolution, not one of the countless distributions that would not. Creationist spokesmen are forced to seize upon any ad hoc explanation they can think of to explain this; for instance, that Noah's Flood somehow sorted the fossils into exactly the pattern expected by evolution, or that God, for some strange reason, decided to create life over the course of aeons in a sequence matching the predictions of evolution (in either case, God presumably did not care that the resultant fossil patterns would cause us to be deceived). Surely it is more sensible simply to conclude that evolution has occurred. [5]

b) Transitional Forms

Mark continues, A second prediction of evolution is that the fossil record should yield transitional forms. Evolution does not require the fossil record to yield transitional forms as plentiful as the stars, since the conditions of fossilization are severe, and some organisms fossilize less easily than others, but one would reasonably become suspicious if, after more than a century of work, paleontologists had not discovered any transitional forms at all. A complete absence of transitional forms, in fact, is precisely what creationists should expect. Paleontology, however, has yielded plentiful transitional forms, of which a mere handful is listed here:

From fish to amphibian: The fish Eusthenopteron and the early amphibian Icthyostega share so many characteristics as to constitute a virtual bridge between fishes and amphibians.

From amphibian to reptile: Seymouria, according to Alfred Romer, "exhibits such a combination of amphibian and reptilian characters that its proper position in the classification of vertebrates has been much disputed" (Romer 1966:94). [5]

c) Patterns in Genetic Material

Mark continues, Had God created life through means other than evolution, He could have used the faintest whisper of His boundless power to endow each kind of creature with a different form of genetic material, or a completely different genetic code. But all life forms on Earth use DNA and RNA as genetic material, with a code that admits of only very rare and insignificant alterations, which is what one would expect had all life evolved from a common ancestor.

There is, furthermore, a high degree of correspondence between molecular phylogenies and evolutionary expectations, even for nonfunctional changes in DNA. Especially puzzling for creationism is the question of why these evolutionary expectations are borne out in the case of similar species living in similar climates on different continents: creationists should expect the DNA of such creatures to closely match, if DNA was designed for functionality. However, we find instead that these species often have DNA more closely resembling that of different species in adjacent environments than that of the similar species in distant locales. The appearance of the similar species is the result of convergent evolution: the species have managed to adapt in similar ways to their environments, but they remain genetically closer to the different species near them, with whom they share a more recent common ancestor. The manner in which such genetic correlations match evolutionary expectations is independent confirmation of evolution that would serve absolutely no purpose but deception in a world in which all life was created directly by God. [5]

All of the aforementioned reasons demonstrate the high probability of naturalistic evolution. Thank you.

[1] Julian Baggini, Atheism: a Very Short Introduction, pages 13-23
[2] http://philosophynow.org......
[3] http://undsci.berkeley.edu......
[4] Steven Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, 1981
[5] Mark I. Vuletic, In Defense of Evolution, 2003
Debate Round No. 1
milesofchange

Pro

Thank you WallStreet, my name is Miles

Rationality and Assumptions:

Right off the bat my opponent both makes it a point to say that of assuming natural causality, and that in that framework we are to interpret the evidence as such making the arguments circular.

That is, he has typically junxtapositioned natural causation alongside supernatural causation saying, "Let the best evidence win." Inherently he has set the audience up to determine evolution based on a widely accepted philosophy (natural causation) in hopes to win the debate on those grounds. He sets out to prove the natural on purely naturalistic assumptions..

Creationists must have an origin to their supernatural beliefs such as scripture to derive their supernaturalistic and short-term naturalistic assumptions for the pure fact that creationists cannot prove the supernatural with naturalistic assumptions, but can only go as far as to play along with the naturalists and watch the logic fall away from any conclusion.

I want to make it clear in this round that both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence, but simply interpret them much different. I contend this is a debate on whose interpretation of the evidence is more justifiable-even if it is a little more justifiable. I know that my opponent will not be able to justify the long-term natural causation assumption by any speck of evidence, so I will kindly compare it to the supernaturalistic causation assumption.

a)Increasing diversity and (complexity?).

"Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear." [6]

The fossil record is a great demonstration of handy-work, however the naturalist's paradigm was strong rooted much before the interpretation of the fossil record. What does the fossil record show us?

1.Distinct species, virtually no gradualism
2.Trees and polystrate fossils sticking straight up through several layers like at the cliffs of Jogins, Nova Scotia and at Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone National Park just a few of the abundant examples of this phenomena.
3.Many distinct areas of massive fossil graveyards around the globe like the most popular Dinosaur National Monument. These can be found along mountain basins or in one huge group fifty feet below the surface. These large-scale deaths had been contributed to a quick oxygen deprived burial or else scavengers and bacteria would quickly decompose the organisms rendering them invisible to the fossil record.
4.Thousands of species that are still alive today which supposedly lived hundreds of thousands of years ago like the coelacanth, wasps, dragonflies, stromatolites, ginkgoes, clams, and Wollemi pine to name a few. The species either stays the same or rapidly changes into another species over millions of years.
5.The presents of fossils form marine and terrestrial organisms in graveyards around the world. For example, the green River Formation, a fossil-rich formation in Wyoming includes birds, fish, insects, and many plant species all buried together. Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyons another example of the many sites around the world like this.

Each of these presents a point of detriment to the Evolutionary world-view. [1]

In a lot of ways, when the fossil record was first starting to be interpreted, the fossil recorded guided the complexity distinctions-not the other way around. For example, birds were above dinosaurs and dinosaurs above reptiles. We do not even see species
above species with gradualism in the fossil record, we see kingdoms above kingdoms. [1]

Several researchers have tried looking at the fossils of spiral-shelled creatures called ammonoids, to see if apparently related types get more complex as one goes higher in the layers. Another evolutionist, Dan McShea of the University of Michigan, approached the same question using detailed measurements on the backbones of many creatures which evolutionists believe represent ancestor-descendant pairs. His aim was to see if the ‘descendant' was more complex than the ‘ancestor' on the average for each case. [2]

Through creationist's world-view, the two fossil creatures believed to be an ancestor-descendant pair and would most likely be of the same created kind, laid down at different times.

And this is precisely what was reported in these studies by evolutionists—no trend at all.

b)Transitions?

My opponent gave me three distinct species in order to support a genetically gradual process. This is the ultimate example of clinging for straws to avoid the philosophically unappealing God whom creationists would interpret it as the One whom made homologous structures. There is no mathematic appeal to punctuated equilibrium.

c)Genetic Material

For God could be an infinite God with only one best way of doing things. The important distinction that needs to be made here is that these "similarities" arise from similar structures found in the organism. You need practically the same information to code for a certain protein and if that protein is important than you will find it over and over again. [4]

The best way of interpreting this data is to notice the vivid and astonishing similarities, but to not forget that there is no mechanism to get there with naturalistic assumptions. [5] [4] This is by far the best "lack of evidence" supporting a creator. My opponent has yet to give a way to increase in complexity, without that-rational must lead us to a supernatural creator and allow us to interpret the fossil record and distinct species transitions as such.

Conclusion:

The burden of proof to establish the foundation of not only long-term naturalism and then evolution in that order falls on the Con because he was the one to agree to the title.

The lack of a logical interpretation for a naturalistic conclusion is the support needed for a supernatural design so for the Con to win, it must be established that not only is naturalism the best way to interpret the evidence, but also that when interpreting with naturalism one can come to a sound conclusion.

As of so far, the naturalist' interpretation AND the interpretation of evidence with evolution are way behind in this debate and need to be deftly handled on my opponent's next speech.

References:

1) Roger Patterson, 2008; Evolution Exposed: Earth Science 145-164

2) L. Oliwenstein, ‘Onward and Upward?', Discover magazine, June 1993, p. 22

3) Yet Another 'Missing Link' Fails to Qualify by Andrew A. SnellingJune 1, 1993

4) Genetic Entropy: & the Mystery of the Genome 2005 Dr. J.C. Sanford

5) Kimura, M. 1968. Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217:624-626

6) Shreeve, J., 1990. Argument over a woman. Discover, vol. 11(8), p. 58
Wallstreetatheist

Con

Wallstreetatheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
milesofchange

Pro

milesofchange forfeited this round.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

Analysis:
My opponent seems confused in a post-facto view of evolutionary biology. He sees this body of evidence and makes the claim that it is just an assumption or an unfalsifiable hypothesis (act of faith). However, when the science of evolution subsumes the massive, collective work in the fields of chemistry, biology, biochemisty, molecular biology, developmental biology, population biology, mammalogy, ornithology, botany, zoology, herpetology, ecology, genetics, ethology, biogeography, epidemiology, psychology, and population genetics without evidence to the contrary, while making and confirming predictions we can be lead to believe that evolution is a highly accurate scientific theory.

Furthermore, Science is a falsifiable endeavor. If a body of evidence emerges that demonstrates evolution to be false or inaccurate, the truth-power of evolution will be diminished and evolution as a science may see its end. However, the argument, evidence, and reason all point to evolution being a highly successful and accurate scientific theory. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Science relies on a set of assumptions, but that does not, therefore, mean that its findings are assumed. The rigorous research, testing, and peer review process makes sure that data and evidence are of the highest quality. [http://web.utk.edu...]


RE: a)Increasing diversity and (complexity?)

Let's take for instance the evolution of the eye. 96% of animal species have eyes. The first animal eyes did little but detect light—they helped to establish day/night cycles and coordinate behavior—but more-complex eyes soon evolved. A predator who can see its prey from a distance, or a prey animal that can see the shadow of a predator approaching, has a clear survival advantage over those who can't. Even a slight improvement in image quality provides a significant survival advantage, allowing for the step-by-step evolution of increasingly complex eyes.

Eyes most likely evolved from simple to complex through a gradual series of tiny steps. Piecing together the sequence of eye evolution is challenging, and we don't know the sequence of steps that led to every modern eye. But we do know that modern animal eyes come in many varieties, spanning a continuum from the simplest to the most complex. This demonstrates that all types of eyes are useful, and that eyes of intermediate complexity could also have formed as steps in the evolution of complex eyes.

Researchers at Lund University wanted to find out how long it might take for a complex eye to evolve. Starting with a flat, light-sensitive patch, they gradually made over 1,800 tiny improvements—forming a cup, constricting the opening, adding a lens—until they had a complex, image-forming eye. It is important to note that every tiny change these researchers made measurably improved image quality. The researchers concluded that these steps could have taken place in about 360,000 generations, or just a few hundred thousand years. 550 million years have passed since the formation of the oldest fossil eyes, enough time for complex eyes to have evolved more than 1,500 times. [http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...]

b)Transitions?
Tragopogon

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.



Genetic material was already addressed.

Evolution has predictive power

Example: Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005)
Debate Round No. 3
milesofchange

Pro

milesofchange forfeited this round.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

My opponent forfeited a second time; how unfortunate :(
I ask that I receive the conduct point for his two consecutive forfeits.



Analysis:
My opponent seems confused in a post-facto view of evolutionary biology. He sees this body of evidence and makes the claim that it is just an assumption or an unfalsifiable hypothesis (act of faith). However, when the science of evolution subsumes the massive, collective work in the fields of chemistry, biology, biochemisty, molecular biology, developmental biology, population biology, mammalogy, ornithology, botany, zoology, herpetology, ecology, genetics, ethology, biogeography, epidemiology, psychology, and population genetics without evidence to the contrary, while making and confirming predictions we can be lead to believe that evolution is a highly accurate scientific theory.

Furthermore, Science is a falsifiable endeavor. If a body of evidence emerges that demonstrates evolution to be false or inaccurate, the truth-power of evolution will be diminished and evolution as a science may see its end. However, the argument, evidence, and reason all point to evolution being a highly successful and accurate scientific theory. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Science relies on a set of assumptions, but that does not, therefore, mean that its findings are assumed. The rigorous research, testing, and peer review process makes sure that data and evidence are of the highest quality. [http://web.utk.edu...]

Conclusion
Since evolution is a branch of science, and science is a falsifiable endeavor, which grants truth value to theories in proportion to evidence, evolution is not an unjustified axiom of faith, but rather a justified branch of science based on evidence and reason.

Thank you for reading and debating.
Debate Round No. 4
milesofchange

Pro

OVERVIEW:
What is going on in the "debate"?

In the "debate" by partner has surpassed the standard of forgiveness to benefit himself. WallstreetAthiest forfeited round 2 without any follow up whatsoever. I graciously contacted him asking him if he would like to continue the debate. He said that he was recovering from surgery and wanted to wait a few days.

He shouldn't have accepted the debate if he was going to get surgery in a week, but I allowed him to post in the following round. WallstreetAthiest completely misrepresented the situation by suggesting the round 3 "forfeit" was an accident or a conduct issue on my part. I had contacted him DURING the time I was allowed to post so he knew I was online and ready to go but was unable to post anything new. All it does is put more attention to the fact that I couldn't post anything new because my opponent had previously forfeited.

The round 4 forfeit was a complete accident because I simply ran out of time while posting it. I didn't use any extra time or space, but continued to post it in the comments knowing coincidentally that it was nearing the end of the debate. I asked for the comments to be substituted and WallstreetAthiest denied my request EVEN THOUGH I HAD JUST HELPED HIM OUT WITH THE SAME FAVOR. This is why I added an extra round-in case an incident like this comes up. This is every reason to deny my opponent of the conduct points.

I really didn't want to turn this into a debate "debate" but my opponent showed poor conduct by not allowing the science of the debate to continue.

Now it is only fair for the audience to forgive me on the previous round just as the audience and I forgave WallStreeAthiest on the second round, so I will refer you to my arguments posted for round four in the comments. If you aren't comfortable with referencing my fair arguments in the comments, then dismiss one of my opponent's speeches as well to keep the debate fair.

Evolution

My opponent has also gone to great lengths in the debate by not representing valid evidence for evolution. Whether you believe in evolution or not-my opponent has maintained very weak support.

My opponent has correctly established the Evolutionary Theory as widely accepted (not universally), but has continually missed the argument I have made throughout the WHOLE debate that the underlying assumption that the "masses" make are unjustifiable. I have said this in EVERY round: If my opponent cannot justifiably establish the long-term naturalistic assumption, then Evolution quickly falls away from any justifiable conclusion. Historical science is predicated on the assumption that the natural order has always been and that there is no need to question the God-like natural order.

Without this assumption justified, in all seriousness, Evolution cannot be justified axiom-but only one of faith (on the God-like natural order that is, thus Evolution). However, the evidence still directs us away from a God-like natural order and more towards a God that created uncomprehendably complex and distinct species.
Increasing diversity and (complexity?)

Every single one of my opponent's examples (except for one) can only justify micro-evolution (adaptation, natural selection, inversion, recombination, viral substitution, and hybridization.) This, however, DOES NOT justify macro evolution because macro evolution requires transition from less complexity to ones of more complexity (not just fitness changes).
Many fitness transitions have been observed to occur without NEW DNA because micro-evolution process can only shift DNA around. The DNA spawning all on its own is a completely different story. Again, these are just reiterations of what has been previously stated. For arguments to specific examples, please refer to the fair-game speech in the comments.
There is an example my opponent brought up in the debate that could justify macro-evolution, but doesn't. I will further discuss this. He gives an example of an eye, however:
•Seas Squirts
•Lampreys
•Types of Flies
•Some Beetles

Have all lost their sight under human observation (there are many other examples) and yet there are no examples of any species ever gaining complexity under human observation. [9] In a few generations, a species can lose hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary progression, yet we still believe that the good mutations spawn more than the degenerative ones. [10]

"Eyes most likely evolved from simple to complex through a gradual series of tiny steps."-WallStreetAthiest
Of course this is true if both your presupposition and theory is justified, but it isn't, in fact we have seen that it is going in the wrong direction. My opponent must give AT LEAST ONE example of more complex transition-that is yet to be reconciled a single bit. It absolutely makes no sense to make these statements without even an example. I have given several that counter (go in the opposite direction of) evolution in the debate.

CONCLUSION
My opponent has set a double standard in the debate that is excessively hard to complete with considering my arguments do not correspond with the primary axiom and I am newer to debate. So I had to bring up the fact that I allowed my opponent to continue his arguments after his forfeit, when I made the same mistake he denied my request, and then even so far as to misrepresent my first forfeit even though I clearly couldn't make any new arguments because he forfeited. Quite possibly my opponent felt pressured after reading my rebuttal, but now he has more to worry about because his arguments are still weak.

All but one of his arguments supports micro-evolution as supposed to macro-evolution because they fall under inversion, recombination, hybridization, or viral substitution which does not allow a species genetically to transition from a less complex species to a more complex one. It only randomly SHIFTS the previously assumed DNA around to allow fitness
My opponent has yet to give an example of a species that has transitioned into a more complex one under observation. I'm not talking about micro evolutionary processes, or theories on how the eye has evolved assuming evolution is true to intelligently make improvements to the eye! What only matters to your justification is the transition between a single species to one that is slightly more complex. It shouldn't be that hard at all for WallStreetAthiest to do because evolution is "firmly documented". Don't let my opponent get away without responding to this argument that has been made throughout the debate.

Even if my opponent gives a slightly accepted answer to this, he still cannot JUSTIFY evolution's presupposition on LONG-TERM NATURALISM. Indeed this has been a hindrance for my opponent all along and he has yet to establish one. He has faith in something that inherently requires the supernatural because without the supernatural-why is there a beginning to the 20 constants that are precisely tuned to allow life to exist? The Second Law of Thermodynamics not only gives us insight that there is a beginning (as do many others), but also makes sense when we look at evolution in context. Evolution has no tangible support for it and as my evolutionist physics professor stated, "Everything in the Universe follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics except living organism." Oh ok, I will believe it when I have the proper evidence and interpretation for that evidence.

9. Stanley Caveney, 1986; The phylogenetic significance of ommatidium structure in the compound eyes of polyphagan beetles
10. Dr. Patterson, 2011; Evolution Exposed: Biology
Wallstreetatheist

Con

Wallstreetatheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by milesofchange 4 years ago
milesofchange
Something is Trolling. 2 points lost to someone who countered mouthwash, yet mouthwash changed his/her vote to tie. I lost points because of surgery? Con shouldn't have taken on the debate and was very well ready to debate after (at the very most a week). There were several arguments my opponent didn't answer, but w.e..
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
Yep, you could vote on arguments...by the way. =)
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
RFD: An interesting debate that's somewhat hard to judge. Con's arguments are relatively indirect, and appear to challenge the supposed presupposition that underlie the evolutionary position, by presenting empirical evidence and establishing the scientific framework. Pro focuses not only on the supposed weaknesses of the evidence but the needed confirmation of the naturalistic assumption. In retrospect, Pro's attempts to demonstrate the supposed ignorance of a broader theoretical approach (applying to the view of a "philosophically-unappealing god"), in contrast to the strictly empirical realms Con operates in. The result is a bit of a lack of direct offense on both sides, and it asks the voter to consider which approach, overall, is superior: my verdict is that Pro's insistence on justifying the naturalistic approach does not fit with a literal interpretation of the resolution, where proof (derived from the definition of faith) can be derived on an axiom (the two parts of the resolution). Con repeatedly tries to place the axiom as the naturalistic assumption even through the framework offered is derived from rationalism and empiricism (weighed on weak and strong evidence) and reaffirms this repeatedly, thereby assigning an improper burden to his opponent.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Sorry, you'll have to learn from this experience like I did as a n00b. Post your rounds well ahead of time, so that this doesn't happen to you.

Also, the last round of debate is reserved for analysis and conclusions. No new arguments or evidence is permitted in the last round.
Posted by milesofchange 4 years ago
milesofchange
PLEASE SUBSTITUTE FOR ROUND 4 FORFEIT

Analysis:
Very predictably, my opponent resorts to the "massive, collective work", but applies the double standard to Christianity. For example, I could say that one of most well educated countries in the mid 1900's was America and was overwhelmingly Christian, but education has declined in America and many other things have fallen out of place and atheism is starting its roots in America. Therefore Christianity is truer than Atheism.. Using generalization of the "masses" is not the way to approach a scientific debate, although it may be my opponent's only way out. It is a not only a hasty generalization to say "It's true because the masses believe it" but is also a bandwagon fallacy. Unfortunately I'm going to have to call my opponent out on lying when he said "without evidence to the contrary." As I have shown (and will show), the world is chalk full of unexplained data through the evolutionary world view.
He again misses the depth of the situation when he says, "If a body of evidence emerges that demonstrates evolution to be false or inaccurate, the truth-power of evolution will be diminished and evolution as a science may see its end."
Posted by milesofchange 4 years ago
milesofchange
As an overview, I want to make it clear to my audience that we are looking for substantial evidence of transitions into more complex species, not just change. Change happens all of the time, that doesn't by any means tell us that species are heading in the more complex direction. In fact, change in this Universe usually means the opposite according to the Law of Thermodynamics, but we will take a closer look into the situation. [4]
Again, this is a debate about the interpretation of the evidence. If a scientist is deeply rooted in the naturalistic ideology, then he or she must resort to an evolutionary interpretation because it is the only alternative that can make sense out of the evidence without the supernatural, however a Creationists PHD will look at the evidence and interpret it according to a slightly more supernatural quality-and this my friend is what I contend is the correct world view.[10]
Posted by milesofchange 4 years ago
milesofchange
1.The naturalistic world view has super naturalistic presuppositions anyway. Naturalists take for granite the very useful and precisely tuned laws of nature staying the same or changing in a pattern. However, what justifies stretching this presupposition far out into the future? My opponent must justify this to date rocks and fossils to have any cohesive argument for the fossil record. [1]
2.A supernatural world view is highly probable. We live in a theistic Universe and therefore miracles are possible.
a.There are well over 20 Universal constants that must be within a very narrow range for any type of existence to take place and so the probability that our Universe came into existence all on its own is a mere 1 to 10^10^123. [7]
b.If there is a Moral Law, then there is a Moral Law Giver. My opponent will either apologize for lying or explain how he didn't lie. Why?, because he knows lying is morally incorrect. Why would anyone justify themselves if they didn't inherently know of an objective morality? More on this later.
c.There still is no explanation for an initial state of existence. The naturalistic qualities we take for granted didn't use naturalistic mean to get to where they are-that is an unjustified system of belief and has supernatural qualities of its own. (Believing that someday some scientists will figure out how it happened has a god called the future and "anything is possible in the future") [7]
We have every reason to believe this is a theistic Universe and for my opponent to say otherwise requires an alternative explanation and theory to explain the present day evidence [7]. In context, the supernatural presupposition is beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore long term naturalistic presuppositions are highly unlikely and take faith. This is a priori to interpreting the evidence. [1] [10]
Posted by milesofchange 4 years ago
milesofchange
Increasing diversity and (complexity?)
My opponent gives an example of an eye:
•Seas Squirts
•Lampreys
•Types of Flies
•Some Beetles
Have all lost their sight under human observation (there are many other examples) and yet there are no examples of any species ever gaining complexity under human observation. [9] In a few generations, a species can lose hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary progression, yet we still believe that the good mutations spawn more than the degenerative ones. [10]
"Eyes most likely evolved from simple to complex through a gradual series of tiny steps."
Of course this is true if both your presupposition and theory is justified, but it isn't, in fact we have seen that it is going in the wrong direction. My opponent must give AT LEAST ONE example of more complex transition-that is yet to be reconciled a bit. It absolutely makes no sense to make these statements without even an example. I have given several that counter (go in the opposite direction of) evolution.
Posted by milesofchange 4 years ago
milesofchange
I know want to thank my opponent for giving the audience an example of intelligent design creating an eye. The discover sight announced, "Starting with a flat, light-sensitive patch, they gradually made over 1,800 tiny improvements." This is pure divine inspiration at its finest because humans are the ones to determine "improvements" and has nothing to do with the natural world that can't. The article only gives estimates on how long it would take assuming the unjustified evolutionary axiom.
b) Transitions?
Tragopogon
These are perfect examples of introduced DNA, and hybridization, but each example demonstrates that a previously made DNA was hybridized or introduced into another population, NOT CREATED. Unless my opponent has mis-represented his evidence, this CANNOT be used to demonstrate increasing complexity in a species, but only change and the mixing up of current DNA.
Evolution has predictive power
This, again, is a perfect example of change and adaptation. The general trend I have been seeing over and over again is that opponent loves to use micro-evolution (adaptation) through means of hybridization, inversion, recombination, and natural selection as examples like these are found in abundance in nature; however, it DOES NOT LINK to the macro evolution and the increase in at least complexity (he should be able to confirm it genetically as well, but I know he can't) that must be confirmed in this round. YES, I GET IT-species adapt all the time with their current DNA, but that begs the question of where the original DNA came from in the first place..
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
milesofchangeWallstreetatheistTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: so...CVB...nvm now:P
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
milesofchangeWallstreetatheistTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Was going to give conduct to con, but then con FF'd the last round.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
milesofchangeWallstreetatheistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
milesofchangeWallstreetatheistTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both did a nice job. Con hurt himdelf by discussing it had to be testable which is difficult in evolution. Pro did a nice job of discussing the fossil record.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
milesofchangeWallstreetatheistTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I guess forfeits are a complicated issue...
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
milesofchangeWallstreetatheistTied
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: Forfeits are equal. As for who actually won the debate and used sources, it is very very clear. 5 points to con for arguments and an extra two to counter Mouthwash.