The Instigator
mm3icbm
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
yoshidino
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution is based on scientific facts, while Creationism is a common pseudoscience

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: 11/11/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 517 times Debate No: 64983
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

mm3icbm

Pro

The Bible's Genesis provides no scientific fact other than simply taking the word of an ancient book, where the religion's followers have picked and chose whatever beliefs they sought fit to their agenda of providing a moral standard. The scientific evidence provided is flawed in that the perquisites for any evolutionary process to occur is immediately denied, ie, the age of the earth.
Lets keep the first round short and sweet for a basic introduction of the topic at hand. There will be no insults or offensive comments towards another's beliefs. This should resemble a geometric proof, so for one statement to be true, the perquisite must be true with valid reason.
yoshidino

Con

I argue your statement, "Evolution is based on scientific facts." Give me one just three facts that fully support your evolution theory.
Pseudoscience: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
https://www.google.com...
I do not believe that creationism is based on scientific method because modern science is very new and the Scriptures predate it. Scientific method attempts to prove God non existing, but fail miserably.
Debate Round No. 1
mm3icbm

Pro

It is not necessary to disprove the existence of God, but scriptures that come from basically farmers and merchants who had no idea of biological processes cannot be credited. Priests over time have even acknowledged it, stating "I do not [see] that 'the accidental evolution of organic beings' is inconsistent with divine design " It is accidental to us, not to God." (http://inters.org...) Also, being a nuclear engineering student, it is important that I state the use of C-14 and its half-life, which is found in all organisms, that has a (1/2)^t of a bit more than 6000 years, which clearly proves that the biblical age of the earth is false, and the age of the initial formation of the earth would be billions of years before.Fossil records clearly show the change of past species, most of which are now extinct. And to observe in our modern times, evolution is easily done in labs, by simply using bacteria in a Petri dish, one could use the property of genetic variation to eradicate preexisting population that lacks said desired trait. If this can create a new species in about a year, by making small, consistent changes of environment, over millions of years, why wouldn't the same be true? Now it
yoshidino

Con

I don't care what any catholic or any other denomination "priest" says. Evolution directly contradicts the six day creation of the Scriptures.
Carbon dating does NOT work. Carbon dating is done by measuring the remaining C14 in a decaying fossil in which the animal possessed that ate plants that absorb C14 from the atmosphere. This C14 is very radioactive and decays quickly. Half of it decays every 5,750 years. You can measure rate of decay and how much is left, but without knowing exactly how much it had in the first place you can not know how long it has been decaying. This being said, I'll give a couple of examples of carbon dating failures: In 1949, the lower leg of a mammoth was carbon dated 15,380 RCY (radio carbon years) while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. In 1963, living mollusk's shells carbon dated as being 2,300 years old. 1971, a freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago. Shells from living snails were carbon dated 27,000 years old in 1984. Just a couple of examples. It is proven many times not to work.
You say that fossil records clearly show the change of past species. what records? give an example. Evolutionists always do this. give me an example or don't say it.
On to bacteria. has anybody ever seen bacteria evolve into non bacteria? Although I object to the term, I believe in micro evolution within a kind. I know that this is proven in the lab. But one kind never changes into another kind in the lab. The moment you go from evolution within a kind to evolution from kind to kind you leave science and enter lala land. Give me an example of one mutation that has been proven beneficial and positive. All we have is negative, including bacteria. Although some bacteria may become immune to a chemical, this is not caused by positive, but negative mutation. The bacteria become immune when they lose the part that the chemical would latch on to. Although the bacteria is spared of the chemical due to the missing part, it is still inferior to the other bacteria that still have the part. It's not gaining, It's losing. It's like if the cops showed up to a party and began handcuffing people, but there is one there with no hands. The one with no hands will not get cuffed, but he is still inferior to the other people as he is missing something beneficial that the others have. There is no way for genetic information to increase as it moves down the gene pool.
My turn to make an argument: Since the "big bang" pairs with "evolution" as the beginning of evolution, I will Start with that. Understand that when a spinning object breaks apart in a friction-less environment, all the particles will spin in the same direction. This is called the conservation of angular momentum. If the big bang theory is true, explain to me why Venus, Uranus, and possibly Pluto spin backwards? Also, 6 of the 63 moons spin backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. Why?
The theory says that compact energy caused the spec to explode... Where did the energy and the spec come from? Making matter smaller does not get rid of the "how did it come to be?" problem.
The rock layers shatter the evolution theory easy. The sediment layers could not have taken millions of years to form. Standing petrified trees are found all over within these rock layers, connecting them all. When a tree dies it falls around here. How long does a dead tree stand where you live? The rock layers show that all the sediment formed within the standing lifetime of all these trees. It is easily scientifically proven that all these layers would easily form under the conditions of a world wide flood in about 20 minutes. this is done just by placing the different sediment in a container of water and watching them sort themselves automatically. So if there was a big flood, it would make sense that the trees are still standing because the sediments would just quickly form around them. Also within these rock layers are found all over fossils of animals petrified frozen in the "scared" position. Animals don't just die in the "scared" position. What were they ALL afraid of when they died?? The flood explains it all. There was found a petrified closed clam shell (clams open when they die) at the top of Mount Everest. How did that get up there, and why did it die closed? It must have died VERY quickly.
everything is at constant decay, second law of thermodynamics. this contradicts the "evolution" process. Things are not getting better, they're getting worse. No scientist has been able, with all their technology to create life from non life. Fossil records show no sign of evolution. prove me wrong with example.

I have run out of characters. I will post more argument next round
Debate Round No. 2
mm3icbm

Pro

This will mainly be a rebuttal round to your previous claims. So it is clear that you have no regard for what a well known cardinal has to say, and it appears that you are not from the same sect or congregation, who has just as much merit as you. And to state that evolution contradicts the scriptures, you must first prove the scriptures true. which you have failed to do. , The entire spirit of the scientific community is rooted with inaccuracies and collaboration, which is why scientists always debate claims and thesis's. Which is also why it seems Christianity as a whole is the cause to much disagreement and violence. Carbon dating can never be truly 100% accurate, due to outside sources constantly affecting methods. For land and select sea life, that has a constant exposure to the atmosphere and plants until death without any interference from the environment, could be measure more accurately. You also seem to be using examples (most likely from a source riddled with inaccuracies) that are from 40+ years ago, which is when there was a weaker understanding of the science, given that radioisotope research only took off as a result of the Manhattan project, and 1/2 of your examples have a major flaw, the mollusk acquired much of its carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in. Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air. Limestone is the largest reserve of carbon on the planet. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes water based shelled animals seem older than they really are. You also lack sources of the studies. I never stated that bacteria evolves into non bacteria, I stated that through genetic variation, bacteria can change into new species of bacteria that has a changed genetic code. Genetic variation can be proven by simply looking at your genetic code, it would have differences compared to lets say, my own. If one was to breed 1000s of just me, and a female version of my genetic code, becoming homogenized, then after an unspecified amount of generations, due to inaccuracies dealing with protein and dna synthesis, The population of me would have very different genes. Also your statement- "Although some bacteria may become immune to a chemical, this is not caused by positive, but negative mutation. The bacteria become immune when they lose the part that the chemical would latch on to. Although the bacteria is spared of the chemical due to the missing part, it is still inferior to the other bacteria that still have the part." You seem to misinterpret genetic variation and Mendelian traits. An example of dominant and recessive traits can include the modern transformation of the peppered moth. And if genetic information cannot increase, then the Ophioglossum, which has the highest chromosome count of any known living organism, with 1,260 chromosomes, could not exist.(http://en.wikipedia.org...) It is the process of evolution and genetic variation, which in turn is the result from inaccuracies that can occur during dna synthesis, which then affects the primary structure of proteins, which can effect the secondary, Tertiary, and Quaternary structures of proteins, changing everything that is associated with said protein. But moving outside the evolutionary topic (for some reason), astronomy is apparently relevant. Beginning with the big bang, it appears that you are not familiar with (E)^2=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, where energy and matter are two sides of the same coin. The matter of the big bang, (this is where theoretical physics is required) where before the (technically not) big bang, there was no time, and no space, and therefore no laws of nature, it is impossible to assume anything because it is outside of the observable universe. the observable expansion of space provides evidence that all matter was once in one point of infinite density. I really could go on, but it would be off topic. Then to the planets. it is important to realize that Venus rotates backwards, due to an axel turn. and a larger interference with another celestial body with a strong gravitational pull. Also, it was found that the current positions of Uranus's moons could be explained if the planet was struck when it was still surrounded by a protoplanetary disk, which is the band of material from which the moons ultimately formed. The collision would have destroyed the disk, which would then have been able to reform around Uranus's tilted equator. (http://io9.com...) I will agree with your claim on Abiogenisis, where as no one knows how organic life started, Its even in the original cell theory, that is 100% correct (http://biology.about.com...) I haven't even the topic of sediments, but I shall in the next round. You must now refute the existing rebuttals
yoshidino

Con

Evolution contradicts the story depicted in the Scriptures (if the scriptures are true). This is my statement disagreeing with the priests that you mentioned. I am not in the Christian sect of religion."The entire spirit of the scientific community is rooted with inaccuracies and collaboration" Then why do you place so much trust in what they claim. "Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientist have excepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it." Said evolutionist H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin (1980), p. 138. Your scientists are are coming up with theories trying to support evolution, and are ready to lie about their observations to do it. But this is why there is so much trial and error within evolution science, because they are wrong all together and us Creationists who read the scriptures are 100% correct. This is why you can never bring up one piece of evidence that destroys our "theory."
"Carbon dating can never be truly 100% accurate" In 1996 up at Berkley University, they used two advanced and different dating methods, the bones of "Erectus" were found to be between 53,000 to 27,000 years old. That's a 96% error. And that's not 40 years old, that's only 18 years ago. It's not getting any better with time. You mention that 1/2 of my examples are flawed but only mention one. I'm sure you know that when carbon 14 mixes with oxygen most of it becomes carbon dioxide, which plants breath. An animal gets carbon 14 when it eats these plants, It has nothing to do with the exposure to the atmosphere. Another problem with carbon dating is the equilibrium factor. The earth's atmosphere makes carbon 14 when nitrogen gets blasted with fast moving neutrinos in the atmosphere, turning it into C14. As I mentioned earlier, it is also decaying at the same time (1/2 every 5,750 years assumed). At some point, increase and decay will reach equilibrium. Scientists wandered, back in 1950, how long it would take for the earth to reach equilibrium. The consensus was that it would probably take about 30,000 years for the earth to reach equilibrium. The problem is is that we know that radiocarbon is still forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying, which proves that the earth is less than 30,000 years old or else it would all be stabilized by now.I know about the variation in the genetic code. but the variation never changes from one kind of animal to another. You talk about creation having no lab proof, but your own "macro" evolution has no lab proof. When has a dog ever produced a non dog. Just an example, pick whatever you want. The peppered moths vary from light to dark color due to the variation in the genetics, just like we humans all vary in hair color. Because of the pollution cause by the Industrial Revolution, the trees were covered with soot, causing the lighter colored moths to be prayed on most. This left mostly moths with darker color in their genetics. But the lighter colors were still in the gene pool, just less dominant. Since then, the lighter colors in the gene pool have become more common again. But no new gene has ever been added to the peppered moth. Its stages that it goes through in its life time are included in its gene code.Of course the Ophioglossum could still exist with no increase in genetic information. God made them the way they are with 1,260 chromosomes. It has never had less chromosomes or less genetic information. I believe in "evolution" and genetic variation within a kind, but give me one proof from one kind to another. If it can't happen in a lab, how much less probable by itself in nature."before the big bang there was no time, and no space, and therefore no laws of nature." Are you unfamiliar with the part of the theory that says that before "it" blew up it was a swirling dot? This swirling dot theoretically included all energy and matter as we know it today. therefore the laws thereof that we know about today would be the same as when it was theoretically REALLY small. All the laws apply. "no time?" When did time start? What is time? Time is either ticking down or ticking up. (According to the second law of thermodynamics it seems to be ticking down like one day this will all be over, but debatable, not here or now.) If it is ticking down (or up, doesn't matter), when did the count start? how does evolution explain that? An honest question. "no space?" What did it "blow up" into? And before all this, when and how did all this matter and energy contained in this swirling dot COME TO BE? The When should be hard for you to answer because you just said that time didn't exist "before" the big bang. "Before," at the same time, being a reference to time, even though you said six words later that time didn't exist. What??The expansion of the universe proves what the bible says, "God stretches out the heavens." (Isaiah 40:22) About the planets: "could be explained" rebuttal doesn't count as it's a guess
Debate Round No. 3
mm3icbm

Pro

I think that it is necessary that I explain science and the scientific approach to opposing claims. When I say that "The entire spirit of the scientific community is rooted with inaccuracies and collaboration"I mean that the science that we believe changes, and gets better with time. Just like step proof, it is necessary to have perquisites that are a postulate or theorem. You constantly lack evidence and citations to almost all facts and reports, and these "Scriptures" are not a reliable source. You even neglect to explain what scriptures. Therefore, your perquisite cannot be determined, and therefore you cannot use them. "Your scientists are are coming up with theories trying to support evolution, and are ready to lie about their observations to do it." Wrong. A scientist would never lie in an observation unless they were looking to be fired. They would become outcast to the scientific community, discredited, and striped of all merits. How dare you accuse an entire community of lying. We may have our innacuracies, but at least we are honest about it. That is why a world wide community of scientist who should refrain from fabricated evidence strives to improve our understanding of the universe. You also give examples (without a source) of failures of carbon dating. It actually does have a relevance to the exposure to the surface and any other active source of carbon. But in most of these examples, it shows that these samples are at least much older than 6000 years.

"Modern radiocarbon dating assumes that the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio in living organisms is the same now as it was in ancient organisms before they died. In other words, the system of carbon- 14 production and decay is said to be in a state of balance or equilibrium."

The above statement is not accurate and is highly misleading. When the method was first developed in the late 1940s and for a few years afterward, the method did make the assumption mentioned. As a rough approximation, the assumption is valid. However, as an increasing number of carbon-14 dates were obtained, including many on objects of known age, it became clear that the assumption was not strictly true. This fact has been known to the scientific community for several decades and correction factors have been developed to adjust for the fact that the production rate of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has not been completely constant over the past few thousand years. In other words, modern radiocarbon dating uses a calibration method to correct for the problem that are viewed as a critical weakness of the method. (http://www.ntanet.net...)

Dr. Ken Dill provided the following comments on the claims of Thompson and Harrub. Dr. Dill is the coauthor of the book; "Molecular Driving Forces, Statistical Thermodynamics in Chemistry and Biology". He has also has more than 160 peer reviewed papers to his credit. He is Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry at the University of California at San Francisco. His comments are as follows:

In their item, Thompson and Harrub (T&H) state that "the second law of thermodynamics strictly prohibits organic evolution". I disagree. The Second Law does not prohibit evolution. The Second Law has very little bearing at all on evolution. The premises behind item of T&H are that: according to the Second Law, closed systems tend toward increased entropy, living systems are more "ordered" than nonliving systems, and entropy is a measure of "disorder". Therefore, according to T&H: living systems must have lower entropy than nonliving systems. T&H conclude that biological evolution toward increasing complexity would violate the Second Law. http://www.ntanet.net...)

I propose that due to mutual lack of time, we postpone/ continue this debate for the following week

yoshidino

Con

yoshidino forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
The scientific method only admits for universal negatives " in science, you can only falsify something completely, not confirm it completely. Something is judged to be true because it stands to the test of falsifiability extensively enough to be unassailable. But failing one single test disqualifies a specific principle from being accepted.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
I will not be able to get to my computer till probably Sunday night, so I'm not forfeiting, I just may not be able to get back in time. I will get back at it as soon as I can.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
Evolution has weak points all over. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's weak all the way through. If It has a strong point, I'd like to see it.
Posted by Elijahhill97 2 years ago
Elijahhill97
This is pathetic @yoshidino you attack weak points and make statements that are also pathetic. I would love to debate you on Evolution or the big bang which you seem to not believe is true.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
I apologize for the lack of spacing in my argument. I had much to cover with only 500 characters to work with. I had more to say about the planets but ran out of characters. But, saying something "could have happened" is not a fact, or evidence, and should not be used as a rebuttal, because you have no grounds for the guess.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Environmental effects on a living thing proves what?Nothing. If I were to overeat and eat wrong things, my body will change.Of course environment changes organisms. But there is NO PROOF it can cause it ti jump species. Or the weightier matter of life beginnings.Just because you find dead animal bones that are similar to ones still alive still proves nothing.

Pseudoscience is what makes up the evolution debate.You are trying to " prove" God does not exist. with it. That is dishonorable at best.
Posted by Kaynex 2 years ago
Kaynex
There is no consensus on abiogenesis. It seems likely, but there's no proof. One can deny it, and seem logical. Evolution, on the other hand, is an old and obvious science. People really shouldn't deny it.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Just giving an opinion,like you. Evolution is just a fringe topic. Get real. Discuss abiogenesis, is what you call creation of life.You won't because all that is just smoke and mirrors from reality.
Posted by mm3icbm 2 years ago
mm3icbm
So would you like to argue the perquisite, or are you just stopping by?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Another boring evolutionist.If he wants to really sink his teeth into real science, create life from non-living matter.Not just skirt around the fringes of science and make wild claims of some kind of evolving from lower forms.
No votes have been placed for this debate.