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

Evolution is less viable than Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 579 times Debate No: 45762
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

ProfJacob

Pro

Presentation

1) The universe and solar system were created spontaneously. We can prove this by the 1st and 2nd law of thermo dynamics. The 1st law of thermo dynamics simply states that energy can change forms however energy cannot be created or destroyed[1]. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics states the energy is going from order to disorder[2]. This would show that the universe could not have created its self or lasted as long as what evolutionist claim, if it had lasted this long the solar system would have depleted itself of usable energy by now[3].

2) How could I argue creationism if I do not make the claim that Life appeared spontaneously? If you look at the fossil record you will notice that there are gaps and then all of a sudden complex life comes around[4][5][6]. How can you discredit an explanation as to why there are gaps in the fossil record?

3) According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics would make it impossible for DNA and RNA to form. As stated earlier the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter are headed to a state of chaos and disorder. How would a very well organized molecule such as DNA or RNA form knowing this law of thermodynamics?

4) Mutations are just about always harmful in living organisms in the wild. With mutations being so rare is It really logical to think that it is possible for at least 16 millions different species to evolve based on a mere chance[7]?


LogicandReasoning

Con

I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. I will be negating said resolution (That Creationism is more viable than Evolution).

Rebuttals

1. "The universe and solar system were created spontaneously. We can prove this by the 1st and 2nd law of thermo dynamics. The 1st law of thermo dynamics simply states that energy can change forms however energy cannot be created or destroyed[1]. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics states the energy is going from order to disorder[2]. This would show that the universe could not have created its self or lasted as long as what evolutionist claim, if it had lasted this long the solar system would have depleted itself of usable energy by now[3]."

Said premises don't validly follow the conclusion that the Universe came into existence simultaneously, without a cause; It simply exposes Evolution's defiance of scientific laws.

Indeed. According to the 1st law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be created, nor can it be destroyed. However, personally, I believed that there was an infinite (In size) Universe, which existed forever. This matter (Due to the coldness) fused. Condensed. All this matter was so compact. It was infinitestimally small, thus not violating THAT scientific law.

Also, indeed. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, everything tends toward disorder. There was a cataclysmic explosion. That matter, then, was distributed in all directions, thus becoming disorganized, thus not violating THAT scientific law either.

2. "How could I argue creationism if I do not make the claim that Life appeared spontaneously? If you look at the fossil record you will notice that there are gaps and then all of a sudden complex life comes around[4][5][6]. How can you discredit an explanation as to why there are gaps in the fossil record?"

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

3. "According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics would make it impossible for DNA and RNA to form. As stated earlier the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter are headed to a state of chaos and disorder. How would a very well organized molecule such as DNA or RNA form knowing this law of thermodynamics?"

How so? Because external forces caused matter to.

4. "Mutations are just about always harmful in living organisms in the wild. With mutations being so rare is It really logical to think that it is possible for at least 16 millions different species to evolve based on a mere chance[7]?"

Mutations are rarely OBSERVED! Scientists have observed (And some also recorded) animals evolving, along with its genes (As said in my presentations).

(If you meant other animals doing so, please comprehend and reply to following argument)

Unless, according to Evolution, there weren't 16 million different species, then the question is irrelevant. Otherwise:

If animals rarely mutate other animals (Thus, not removing any kind), then don't all 16 million different species remain?

Presentation

Observations

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

Fossil evidence

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

Similarities between humans and related living organisms

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

Noah's ark

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

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




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

2.



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

I await my opponent's set of arguments.


Sources

[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ProfJacob

Pro

Rebuttals

1) Conceded, thus skipped.

2) Conceded and skipped too.

3) Again, conceded.

4) "If animals rarely mutate other animals (Thus, not removing any kind), then don't all 16 million different species remain?"

Not really. Evolution doesn't state that there were 16 million species at all.

LogicandReasoning

Con

My opponent completely dropped my arguments (Which I derived from sources (Hence, definition)), negating the resolution that Evolution is less viable theory than Creationism. Just notifying my opponent not to do so. But otherwise, they remained uncontested.

Rebuttals

1, 2, and 3) Points (And I deliberately put in plural form, seeing as these are 3 I am replying to) conceded to by opponent.

4) ""
If animals rarely mutate other animals (Thus, not removing any kind), then don't all 16 million different species remain?"

Not really. Evolution doesn't state that there were 16 million species at all."

Yes, indeed; They (Developers of the theory of evolution) don't affirm said resolution; They don't deem said claim true. However, neither do they NEGATE it; We may have originated from a single-cellular life, growing/evolving overtime into what we are now, while there are 16 million different species in total.

Also, question isn't relevant.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.


Debate Round No. 2
ProfJacob

Pro

ProfJacob forfeited this round.
LogicandReasoning

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent forfeited the previous round.

Extend
Debate Round No. 3
ProfJacob

Pro

DICKNIGANIGANIGAIJOFAEFJOWIEJFWJFIWJFIOWJFUCKYALLNIGASKDWNIBWFHBEWHFRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabiehwfnefwnwefnwelowercasemomactualyuppercaseMOMbecausesheabigasspart
LogicandReasoning

Con

LogicandReasoning forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ProfJacob

Pro

ProfJacob forfeited this round.
LogicandReasoning

Con

LogicandReasoning forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by LogicandReasoning 3 years ago
LogicandReasoning
Ah, alright. I will instigate a debate regarding Evolution and its viability, relative to Creationism, issuing YOU (IceHawks) as opponent.
Posted by IceHawk2009 3 years ago
IceHawk2009
Nice to see that profjacob still can not think up an original argument. When will you be done copy and pasting my argument? It's really kind of sad.

http://www.debate.org...
No votes have been placed for this debate.