The Instigator
Renzzy
Pro (for)
Losing
125 Points
The Contender
Descartes
Con (against)
Winning
141 Points

Evolution is incorrect

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Started: 1/2/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,999 times Debate No: 1289
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (45)
Votes (70)

 

Renzzy

Pro

I am against evolution, and I would like to know why whoever accepts this believes it is correct. I would like to concentrate more on the the issue of the age of the earth (I don't even know exactly how old you say it is, but I don't agree.:-P), but if you would like to bring other topics in, that's fine by me.
Descartes

Con

First, let me say that I am not going to "prove" that evolution is correct. Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to explain a part of our universe (life). It could be wrong, but having said that, there is no competing scientific theory of life. It has never been proven wrong (over 100+ years) (and while it is impossible to prove things right, it's all to easy to prove incorrect things wrong***). Finnaly, it follows in the strong tradition of science based in experimentation, mathematics and logic. Perhaps becase I'm a Physics major, I see how incredibly accurate, powerfull, and ultamly rewarding modern science is. That is why I belive in evolution.

As to the age of the Earth, all scientific theory and experimentation, points to it being about 4.5 billion years old. This is supported by isocron dating (simmilar to carbon dating^^) in addition to several other scientific verifications (http://www.talkorigins.org...).

Look, unless you can prove this stuff wrong, or at the very least come up with a theory that explains the age of the Earth/life (that cannot be proven wrong) then you pretty much have to accept evolution/atomic dating as being incredibly likly. Unless of course you decide to stick your head in the sand and just choose an age arbitarly, which is apparently what you have done.

***There are many ways to do this, but two obvious ways is by showing theory and reality (via experimentation) not in agreement or by finding an internal contradiction

^^carbon dating is based on the fact that unstable atoms decay at predictable results and I have personally seen simmilar phenomenom.
Debate Round No. 1
Renzzy

Pro

Fitst off, I would like to point out that the methods you are relying on for dating is flawed (i know you didn't use carbon dating directly, but i will adress it anyway).

Isochron dating is a method of dating that relies on two assumtions. These two assumtions are:

"The amount of daughter isotope at the time of formation of the sample is zero (or known independently and can be compensated for)",

and

"No parent isotope or daughter isotope has entered or left the sample since its time of formation." (http://www.talkorigins.org...)

These two assumtions are the downfall of this dating method, simply because "If one of these assumptions has been violated, the simple computation above yields an incorrect age.". (ibid) Now, consider the second assumtion, and then consider the supposed age of what your dating; 4.5 billion years would be an awfully long time for the parent/daughter isotope to vary and therefore produce a flawed age, don't you think?

You also mentioned carbon dating, which, like you said, is similar to isochron dating. However, it is also unreliable for dating objects said to be "5 million years old" or so. Scientists, both creationists and evolutionists, agree that carbon dating in unreliable for dating objects any older than 50,000 years. In addition, carbon dating is intended for dating materials such as wood, cloth, and paper, not fossils and rocks.

Now lets look at something else, namely the strata of the earth.

Evolutionists say that strata (like the strata revieled in the grand canyon for instance) could have only been layed down over millions of years, however we have all seen what volcanos and flood waters can do in days, and even HOURS. Take for instance Mt. Saint Helens and it's last eruption. In a matter of hours, 9 to be precise, it layed down 600 feet of sediment at it's base. Well, that would be a good possible explanation for the strata around volcanos, but what about the strata all over the rest of the world? They're so dense they must have taken billions of years, right? Well, what about flood waters? Yes, i AM suggesting the possibility of a world-wide flood.

In small scale floods, dirt, sand, and rocks are picked up and carried all over by the water, but when the water stops moving and begins to receed, all of the sedement begins to sink to the bottom. When this happens, if the sedement layer are allowed to dry, one would find that they are quite densly packed after only a few days. This is an example of a flood that lasts only a few days, but what about a flood that lasted almost a year?

The Bible, the Quran, and many other cultures all over the world have at least a vague account of a world wide flood, but the Bible and the Quran are espesially specific. In the Bible, Genesis 7 give an account of what is obviously a world wide-flood, spacifically verses 18 and 19 which state:

"The waters rose and increased greatly on th earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered."

The Quran states:

"At length, behold! There came Our Command, and the fountains of the EARTH gushed forth! We said: `Embark therein, of each two, male and female, and your family- except those against whom the Word has already gone forth,- and the believers.' But only a few believed with him." S. 11:40

Also muslim historians believe in a flood that covered the world.

According to Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Ibn Isahq- al-Hassan b. Dinar- Ali b. Zayd- Yusuf b. Mihran- Ibn Abbas: I [Yusuf b. Mihran] heard him [Ibn Abbas] say: ... The water increased wildly, and, as is assumed by the people of the Torah, rose fifteen cubits over the mountain tops. ALL CREATURES ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH, EVERY INSPIRITED BEING OR TREE, DISSAPEARED. NO CREATURE REMAINED EXCEPT NOAH AND THOSE WITH HIM IN THE BOAT, as well as Og b. Anak, as is assumed by the people of the Book. The time between God's sending the Flood and the receding of the water in six months and ten nights. (History of al-Tabari [State University of New York Press; Albany, NY 1989], pp. 360-361)

(http://www.answering-islam.de...)

Now think about it; the Bible says that the flood covered all of the mountains, and muslim historians say that it killed everything and everyone except Noah, the animals on the ark, and a few who were with Noah. This was a BIG flood. Both account agree that it lasted anywhere between 110 and 180 days, so there would be plenty of time for the sediment to settle.

A flood of this size would easily explain how the strata said to be millions of years old could form in a matter of months, and if the dating methods that evolutionists use are flawed, then it would be impossible to prove that the objects buried in the strata are millions of years old.

Creation scientists have dated the earth to be around 6000 years old, and if in fact the accounts of the Quran and the Bible are correct and there was a world-wide flood, it be a very credible excplanation for the laying down of so many strata in so little time.
Descartes

Con

First, I'm glad that in your second post you at least attempt to support your argument instead of just saying I belive the Earth is much younger then what science says. It's a good start, but you have a long way to go.

Now, on the the meat of the issue:

"I would like to point out that the methods you are relying on for dating is flawed (i know you didn't use carbon dating directly, but i will adress it anyway"

My methods for dating are flawed? Because "4.5 billion years would be an awfully long time for the parent/daughter isotope to vary and therefore produce a flawed age, don't you think?" No I don't think that. Do you understand how this type of dating works? Apparently not, since things that decay, do so FOREVER. Mathemically, a decay curve never zeros out. Now having said that, the more half lifes you have to go back, the more inaccurate your prediction is. Therefore, when measuring years in billions you must use something that has an extreamly long half life. Fortunally, isocron dating has an extreamly long half life, which means we know the 4.5 billion year figure to within 1% (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Next, you say that Carbon dating can not be used to dertermine the age of the Earth and you are absolutly correct about this! However, I never said to use Carbon dating, I said to use Isocron dating! The 2 are not the same!

When you mentioned carbon dating, you made a serious mistake.

"However, it is also unreliable for dating objects said to be "5 million years old" or so." This implies you agree with me that carbon dating can be accuratly used to predict ages much smaller then 5 million years. Since you accept the science behind carbon dating and the very same science guides isocron dating then you MUST accept isocron dating as valid science.

Also, as you said, carbon dating can accuratly predict fossils and such 50,000 years old. But then you claim the Earth is only 6,000 years old?!?! That doesn't make a whole lot of sence!

As for your strata argument I am not a geologist and therefore I don't really know enought to scientifically counter it. All I can say is that you yourself admit to only "the possibility of a world-wide flood." Even if there was a world wide flood it has absolutly nothing to do with the age of the Earth. As you yourself stated, geolgists (not evolutionists.....) have a valid scientific reson for starta that fits perfectly with the established age of the Earth. Just becase you can imagine a different theory doesn't make it correct.

Look, your whole argument pretty much comes down to what the Bible and the Quran say about the age of the Earth. Who ever even said that these books were meant to be taken literaly?

Anyway, if you want to belive the Earth is 6,000 years old, that's fine. You are also entiled to belive that the sun revolves around the Earth or that the world is flat. These were all once the accepted beliefs of the church. Now, they are not even accepted by most religious people. Infact, Pope John Paul said that evolution is possible and that it does not contradict Catholic teachings!

Pull your head out of the sand and view the world as it is!
Debate Round No. 2
Renzzy

Pro

Descartes,

"My methods for dating are flawed? No I don't think that. Do you understand how this type of dating works? Apparently not, since things that decay, do so FOREVER."

Well, maybe your right. Maybe I don't understand all about isochron dating, but after reading up on people who do, I do understand some. I undestand that isochron dating is a method of radiometric dating, and i understand that radiometric dating is flawed. The wikipedia artical that you quoted stated that
the age of the supposed universe is based in part on the results of radiometricly dating meteorite materials and lunar samples. Read this artical, and it might give you something to think about.

(http://www.creationism.org...)

This says that radiometric dating was used to date the lava rock in the lava dome of mount saint helens, which at the time wasonly 20 years old, to be anywhere between 0.35 and 2.8 million years old. Thats a bit off.

"Next, you say that Carbon dating can not be used to dertermine the age of the Earth and you are absolutly correct about this! However, I never said to use Carbon dating, I said to use Isocron dating! The 2 are not the same!
When you mentioned carbon dating, you made a serious mistake."

You never said to use carbon dating, true, but you did say that they were similar, thus inviting my argument. Plus, in the quote below, you say that they are guided by the same science. I don't believe I made a mistake at all.

"This implies you agree with me that carbon dating can be accuratly used to predict ages much smaller then 5 million years. Since you accept the science behind carbon dating and the very same science guides isocron dating then you MUST accept isocron dating as valid science."

Your exactly right, I do agree with the science behind carbon dating, and it is similar to that of isochron dating. I never said that I didn't agree with the science behind isochron dating, i said that the science used was flawed. The technique used in isochron dating is a reputabe way of dating, but as the artical above shows plainly, it can be used incorretly. Evolutionists tend to use it incorrecly.

"Also, as you said, carbon dating can accuratly predict fossils and such 50,000 years old. But then you claim the Earth is only 6,000 years old?!?! That doesn't make a whole lot of sence!"

Sure it does, i'm simply trying to keep an open mind to your arguments, a courtesy that you don't seem to be affording me. I believe firmly that the earth is at least not much older than 6000 years, but one must always keep the "if-in-fact" aspect to their aruments. I am simply saying that if in fact the earth is billions of years old, then carbon dating is not a dating method that should be used in trying to prove this date.

"As for your strata argument I am not a geologist and therefore I don't really know enought to scientifically counter it. All I can say is that you yourself admit to only 'the possibility of a world-wide flood.'"

Of course I said 'the possibility of a world-wide flood.', I am again simply trying to keep an open mind. Once again, I firmly believe that there was a world-wide flood, but I understand that you don't necessarily. I also gave evidance for a flood, so it was not just a shot in the dark.

"Even if there was a world wide flood it has absolutly nothing to do with the age of the Earth."

It has EVERYTHING to do with proving the age of the earth! This, as I said in my previous post, would explain how all of the strata in the world were layed down in a matter of months! I understand that not all of the layers are even and perfectly placed, but so what? The Bible give accounts of the water gushing up from the earth like a giant spring, and this would not leave everything level and uniform. Second, how can you expect all of the layers to be uniform and even if the earths surface isn't even?! This all filled in, (and I could go on) it would refute entirely one of evolutionists most powerful argument on the age of the earth.

"As you yourself stated, geolgists (not evolutionists.....) have a valid scientific reson for starta that fits perfectly with the established age of the Earth."

You will have to cleaify, because I dont remember stating this...

"Just becase you can imagine a different theory doesn't make it correct."

I never said this is correct, however I strongly believe it is. I have also give a lot of evidance to support my beliefes, so once again, its not just a shot in the dark. Also, I am not forcing this on you, and you are not required to believe it is correct.

"Look, your whole argument pretty much comes down to what the Bible and the Quran say about the age of the Earth. Who ever even said that these books were meant to be taken literaly?"

Not really, although that is part of it. The Bible and Quran simply support my argument for a world-wide flood, and the Bible at least supports my argument for a young earth. If you ask muslims, the Quran is to be taken literally. If you ask christians, the Bible is to taken literally. Once again, it comes down to having an open mind.

"Anyway, if you want to belive the Earth is 6,000 years old, that's fine. You are also entiled to belive that the sun revolves around the Earth or that the world is flat. These were all once the accepted beliefs of the church. Now, they are not even accepted by most religious people. Infact, Pope John Paul said that evolution is possible and that it does not contradict Catholic teachings!"

Your right, I am entitled to what I believe, as are you.
Descartes

Con

I'm thinking that it was a mistake for me to enter this debate. As you/I said "I am entitled to what I believe." Yes, you certainly are, but in a debate you must support your beliefs with logic and evidence. The only support you offer is this theory about a world wide flood and it's affects on strata. You gave the scientific theory for strata formation yourself:

"Evolutionists say that strata (like the strata revieled in the grand canyon for instance) could have only been layed down over millions of years."

You attempt to prove this false by saying:

"however we have all seen what volcanos and flood waters can do in days, and even HOURS. Take for instance Mt. Saint Helens and it's last eruption. In a matter of hours, 9 to be precise, it layed down 600 feet of sediment at it's base. Well, that would be a good possible explanation for the strata around volcanos, but what about the strata all over the rest of the world? They're so dense they must have taken billions of years, right? Well, what about flood waters? Yes, i AM suggesting the possibility of a world-wide flood."

But, that proves nothing. It is a second explanation at best, one that unfortunately is rejected by modern science. Let me give you an example, if I said that the sky is blue because of the reflection off the world's oceans, this seams to be a sensible theory. However, it's just not true. The real reason the sky is blue has to do with the wavelength of light, scattering and diffraction (http://math.ucr.edu...) My false, but logical, alternate explanation in no ways comprises the true theory.

Next, your continued criticism about radiometric dating is the result of your admitted lack of understanding. Of course this sort of dating cannot accurately predict the age of a 20 year old rock! I said that it could predict the age of the Earth (~4.5 Billion Years) to within 1%. This means I'm admitting that it can be off by about 45 million years! While this makes little difference compared to the age of the Earth, it makes the technique totally useless for measuring much smaller times. As you yourself said that "I never said that I didn't agree with the science behind isohron dating" but that it can be incorrectly applied (I think I paraphrased accurately). And you are absolutely right, trying to apply it to a 20 year old rock is very incorrect. Using it as geologists do (since they determine the age of the Earth, NOT evolutionists), do is perfectly acceptable.

I stand by my comments that it is not logical to "believe in the science behind carbon dating," which predicts fossils well in excess of 50,000 years (as you agreed), and also believe the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old. I guess your right when you say that "I'm closed minded." It is true that I will only consider theory and logic that is internally consistent. I will not consider whether or not 2+2=5.

As for your literalness of the Bible stuff, I cannot speak for Muslims, but I can tell you that there are plenty of Catholics (and other Christians), including myself, who do not think the Bible should be read literally. God's splendor is undiminished whether or not it took him 7 days or billions of years. I do not believe that the Bible was intended to be a history text. It's wisdom and power is true regardless of the petty details of the context in which it was written.
Debate Round No. 3
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Barcs 4 years ago
Barcs
I voted for Descartes, mainly because most of what Renzzy posted was from biased sources like answersingenesis and is not actually scientific. He had good demeanor and grammar, but Descartes cited better sources and overall used more facts to support his position. It was pretty close, however.
Posted by Renzzy 5 years ago
Renzzy
Thank you for the suggestion! I will look into it! You are right, it is wise to get both sides of the argument, but don't count on me changing my beliefs ;)

Thanks!

Renzzy
Posted by Zerosmelt 5 years ago
Zerosmelt
renzzy you seem like the kind of chap who is interested in knowing the truth... as in knowing what is actually going on outside of your own mind, eh? a good way to understand the truth is to get info from both sides. as im sure you know. i strongly suggest, in all sincerity, that you read some of richard dawkins books... if you still disagree with him in the end at least youll know that your all the stronger and your beliefs are even more substantiated, no?
Posted by Ref2thecore 6 years ago
Ref2thecore
Lucretius:
I agree entirely with what you said about not being able to counter a scientific theory with somthing that came out of my head. However, here is where we run into our insurmountable differance. I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, thus being a reliable source whne it comes to history. You on the other hand do not. This draws a line that I think neither of us are willing to cross, thus putting an end to this argument. This was a very interesting argument though, and I want to thank you for listening to my arguments and not ripping me to shreds as some people seem prone to do on this site. Thanks for the good discussion!
Posted by SolaGratia 6 years ago
SolaGratia
Lucretius: I admit I'm not fully versed in the Academic scriptures, but frankly many people turn evolution, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang theory into one huge belief system. While you may be above that error yourself, you can't deny that it happens.

If you'll look closely, you'll notice I DIDN'T say we should deny evolution, ludicrously, until we find evidence against it. My point was that Evolution should be taken with salt. It may have the overwhelming evidence right now, but since it is only an infinitesimal fraction of all the evidence there is to know, it should not be regarded as fact, no more than MY hypothesis about the slime of the spectral snail.

Because Heliocentrism has existed for a long while and because it was "logically simpler" than geocentricism does not disprove my point that someone did, in the far distant past, "make it up."
Posted by Lucretius 6 years ago
Lucretius
And evolutionary theory does not talk about the origin of life. That's abiogenesis.

The Big Bang Theory, Abiogenesis, and Evolutionary Theory are three entirely different theories that tackle entirely different questions. Just because they come in chronological order does not mean one hinges on the others in any way.
Posted by Lucretius 6 years ago
Lucretius
Heliocentrism existed alongside geocentrism for as long as the two have been around. In fact, heliocentrism was logically simpler the entire time, and thus was a scientific theory (the better one) for the entire time.

Yes, there is more evidence, but that is no reason to deny the fact that there are evidences that already verify evolution. We don't doubt theories because we may "one day find evidence against it". Otherwise we would deny all scientific theories based on "possible future evidence". We can't make an exception for scientific theories people don't like.

Can't pick and choose here.
Posted by SolaGratia 6 years ago
SolaGratia
I meant to say Evolutionary theory for the origins of life, and the Big Bang theory for the origins of the universe. Sorry.
Posted by SolaGratia 6 years ago
SolaGratia
Lucretius: not to but in on what is obviously a thoughtful conversation, but it seems to me that a scientific hypothesis is an idea that is not come to from the evidence, or all of it, but what from the originator has seen; e.g., it is "made up." Of course, when the hypothesis is tested WITH the pertinent facts, it becomes a theory. But my point is that a geocentric universe was once "scientific theory," before someone "made up" a heliocentric hypothesis.

Evolutionists often call upon detractors to "accept the overwhelming evidence." While it may be true that there IS more evidence for evolution than for, say, that the universe was created from the slime of the spectral snail, but the truth is that for a theory that tries to explain how life began and, using Big Bang theory, there is a mind-bogglingly huge amount of evidence out there. What we as humans have uncovered in our six thousand years of sentience/existence is merely scratching the surface, in my opinion. But of course we can't "know the unknowable."
Posted by Lucretius 6 years ago
Lucretius
Don't you think that, without any way to test your claim, that a reasonable person would find your statement ridiculous because it's entirely arbitrary?

You don't counter a scientific theory by making things up.
70 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Vote Placed by Kane-W 4 years ago
Kane-W
RenzzyDescartesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Barcs 4 years ago
Barcs
RenzzyDescartesTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by SemperFi2MyGuy 4 years ago
SemperFi2MyGuy
RenzzyDescartesTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by cbass28 4 years ago
cbass28
RenzzyDescartesTied
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 
Vote Placed by A51 4 years ago
A51
RenzzyDescartesTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by LB628 5 years ago
LB628
RenzzyDescartesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by charles15 5 years ago
charles15
RenzzyDescartesTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by PrvnMthws 5 years ago
PrvnMthws
RenzzyDescartesTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Supernova 5 years ago
Supernova
RenzzyDescartesTied
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 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 5 years ago
Renzzy
RenzzyDescartesTied
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:70