The Instigator
1029chris
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Typhlochactas
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Evolution is more realistic than Christianity, and has Evidence.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Typhlochactas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,419 times Debate No: 30086
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (6)

 

1029chris

Pro

Evolution, we know happened, and is still happening. This is not a debate on the Big Bang Theory, it is about evolution. This is also a respectful debate. Not a debate where we throw insults at people. Also, I want to say this is not a debate where all you do is disprove the other topic. You disprove, yet also have to provide EVIDENCE for your belief. One last thing, read the WHOLE debate before writing yours, and we do not judge on spelling mistakes or grammar. And here we go!

There is evidence (notice I did not say proof because we can never really know.)for evolution. The only evidence for Christianity is a book. There is nothing else I know of. Evolution has Genes, Skeletons, and Genetic Information (And Text Books!).

Now that we have the technology to look at DNA, we can see there is a about 5% difference from our DNA to a chimpanzee. Almost all out DNA is the same as a chimpanzee. We are around 20% the same DNA as yeast. We are also very similar to pigs. Here's an interesting story. They took a baby sheep Zygote and removed every single thing that made the eyes in the sheep. Then, they replaced those genes with the eye genes of a Fruit Fly. You would probably thing some sort of horrid mutation would come out of that, but it did not. The sheep grew perfect regular sheep eyes. The DNA of the fruit fly could evolve to become the sheep eye, or it already knew how to make a sheep eye.

Skeletons can easily show the evolution of man. You can see the shapes of the humans grow taller and become more human. You can also see the same process with dinosaurs. You can see in Dino skeletons, the skeleton shape slowly morphing into different shapes over time. Using different methods for dating skeletons we can see that they evolved, and all of those skeletons were not all there at the same time.

Chromosomes can show us that out chromosomes are almost the same as a chimpanzee's chromosomes. Chimps have 48 chromosomes, and humans have 46. How could this be? well, if we look closer at the chromosomes we can figure out that one of them is merged. We can see that they are two chimpanzee chromosomes merged into one, showing that we used to have chromosomes of a chimpanzee.

That is my argument, thanks for reading. To make sure that you read the entire debate, print the word "Tiger" at the bottom of your debate, and a new word for the next person to write down, to make sure they read your debate. Again, thanks for reading!
Typhlochactas

Con

Ave.

Stating the Premises

Pro's argument is more or less the following.

P1: If evolution is true, Christianity cannot be true.
P2: Evolution is true.
C: Christianity is not true.

Premise One
Pro argues that there is evidence for evolution, and no good evidence for Christianity. The problem here is that Christianity and evolution are not incompatible. In order for the resolution to be upheld, Pro must provide evidence for this unproven premise. Until then, the resolution cannot be upheld.

Christistianity and evolution are not incompatible
To be a Christian, one does not have to believe in young earth creationism. In fact, the present Pope believes in evolution, along with important people such as the Archbishop of Canterbury. Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project, is a devout Christian and scientist who believes in evolution. There are many important and educated Christians who do not deny evolution.

Consider this article from 2007:

'Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.''

Please remember that this is not a case of religion making concessions to modern day science. Saint Augustine pointed out that the book of genesis does not have to be taken literally and creation needn't be a few thousand years ago. This came 1500 years before Darwin.

[1]
[2] http://www.nbcnews.com...

Evolution as an argument for god
As Dr. Craig notes:

'Macroevolution is actually evidence of design. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by Barrow and Tipler lists ten steps in the evolution of our species, each of which is so improbable, that before it would have occured by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incenerated the earth. They estimate that the evolution of the human genome has an odd of four to the negative 180th power to the 110 thousandth power and four to the negative sixtieth power to the 110 thousandth power.'

Evolution actually gives us a good reason to believe in a god.

[1]

Concluding Statement
Pro gives us no reason to believe that Christianity and evolution are incompatible. The claim that Christianity's evidence is only a book cannot be justified at all. The facts about evolution gives Christians a good reason to believe in a god.

Premise 1 one of the argument is false, so the entire argument is invalid.

Vale.
Debate Round No. 1
1029chris

Pro

Well, I was hoping to go against someone who did not believe in evolution. If you agree that evolution is true then what is the point of this debate? I mean it like a debate where I say Microsoft is better and you agree, but say that Apple and Microsoft can coexist (Just an example). I was not trying to imply that Christianity is not true. I was simply saying that it does not have much evidence. Of course it is completely compatible with evolution. God could have created the big bang or created the tiny little bacteria in the oceans easily. We are not discussing that. Also you did not write "Tiger" or was Vale your new word? I know the title says Evolution is more realistic than Christianity, and what I meant by that is its more realistic than what it says in the bible, on how stuff was created. I think I need to start this debate again...
Typhlochactas

Con

Ave.

Premise One Objections
'Well, I was hoping to go against someone who did not believe in evolution. If you agree that evolution is true then what is the point of this debate?'

This debate is not exclusively about the validity of evolution. Rather, the resolution is whether evolution is more realistic than Christianity. You are taking the pro position, so you believe that this is the case. I've turned evolution around and made an argument for the existence of god, and by implication, a justification of Christian theism.

Pro has not provided any justfication for P1. My objections stand at this point in the debate.

Christianity and evolution are not incompatible
Pro agrees with this portion of my argument.

'Of course it is completely compatible with evolution. God could have created the big bang or created the tiny little bacteria in the oceans easily.'

There exists no conflict between evolution and Christianity. To speak about evolution being more realistic than Christianity is to assume that there is an intellectual conflict between the two.

Pro agrees with the second part of my argument, so it stands.

Evolution as an argument for god
In the last round of the debate, I provided an argument from Dr. Craig about how macroevolution proves the existence of god. Pro did not provide any response to this argument. There wasn't even an attempt to touch on this.

The third part of my argument stands.

Concluding Statement
Pro has not justified the vital first premise of his argument. Pro agrees with my second argument, and he does not address the third. All of the arguments I have presented in this debate stand, and I encourage the audience to vote Con.

Vale.


Debate Round No. 2
1029chris

Pro

You are good at this!

Sorry forgot about the third statement. You were saying that it is a very small chance that DNA and living cells could form and there is a very small chance in it. well yes there is a very very small chance in it happening. Thats why it took more than 500 million years to get the right combination. And even back then most organisms died off quickly because they were not "assembled" right. It took SO long for the organism to actually thrive. So yes its a slim chance, and thats why it took so long. Try reading the book "History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson". That explains it better than I can.
Typhlochactas

Con

Ave.

Premise One Objections
The first premise of the argument was not justified for the entire debate. The first part of my argument remains unrefuted, and should be considered a win for my case when voting.

Christianity and evolution are not incompatible
Pro agrees with this point, so I extend it. The second part of my argument remains unrefuted, and should be considered a win for my case when voting.

Evolution as an argument for god
Pro does not show us that time alone can eliminate such low odds as ' four to the negative 180th power to the 110 thousandth power and four to the negative sixtieth power to the 110 thousandth power'. He also does not answer the argument about the sun ceasing to be a main sequence star and incenerating the Earth.

Concluding Statement
Pro does not justify his first premise, he agrees with my second argument, and his objections to the third come in his last round. Vote for Con.

Vale.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Typhlochactas 4 years ago
Typhlochactas
I'm wondering which part of my comment claimed that the argument wasn't answered.

The fact that an argument is nonsensical is not a reason to ignore it in a debate. I've debated anti-atheist twice, and you can see how many times you would have to answer insane arguments. I bring them up, I refute them, and show why they're irrelevant. I don't wait until the last round of the debate and post a sentence or two.

You can think whatever you want about the argument. I don't think it's valid either, but I wanted to take a position I don't have to make things interesting. As a voter, you vote on the arguments, and how well both sides addressed the argument. You are not voting on whether you agreed with the arguments presented.

I don't remember claiming that Pro's last round argument makes my argument valid. This is another assumption on your part. What I meant by pointing this out is that Pro acted with poor conduct.

I'm finished speaking with you.

Vale.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
But Pro did answer it.

And regardless: the point is for more convincing arguments. Just because he ignored your nonsensical argument until the last round doesn't make it any better an argument. You, on the other hand, never actually addressed the motion, so if you're referring to the debate instead of the vote, your arrogance is even more unfounded.
Posted by Typhlochactas 4 years ago
Typhlochactas
I was referring to how well my arguments were brought up and answered, not the actual votes.

Perhaps *you* think the argument is invalid. Point is, Pro only answered it in his last round.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
And, for the record, of the voters, only Deadlykris is one that I actually believe is fully able to be objective, which is why I directed my comment at him.

Which is not to say anything necessarily negative about DevilsAdvocate, but Wolfman definitely has votebombed in the past.

So to say that the debate was "definitely settled in your favor" is simple arrogance.

You did not ever provide actual evidence for Christianity, nor for any argument that Christianity is more or equal in "realism" to Christianity. Pro certainly needs to polish his debating skills, but you completely failed to address the motion.

On a side note: your "probabilistic" argument wasn't just WRONG, it was disingenuous. Akin to arguing that someone must be using loaded dice for getting 6 6s in a row, because the odds of that are so small. Just because something unlikely to occur, has occurred, does not mean that that odds calculation is invalid. And you are smart enough to know that.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
That the odds of humanity evolving are small? That's a ridiculous argument akin to using the odds of any individual lottery winner winning to prove the existence of god.

You did prove that they were compatible, I have no beef with that; but that wasn't the proposition.

That evolution is an argument FOR Christian theism is an argument, however, you did not prove by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by Typhlochactas 4 years ago
Typhlochactas
To say that I provided no evidence for Christianity is to ignore the third argument I made. That's why your vote is the only one in favor of Pro. I proved his premises were unjustified, I proved that the two were compatible, and I proved that evolution is an argument for Christian theism. This debate was obviously settled in my favor.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Deadlykris:

That evolution precludes Christianity wasn't in the proposition; what was in the proposition was that evolution is more realistic Christianity, and that it has evidence. Con never presented any evidence for Christianity, or any reason to think that Christianity was as or more realistic than evolution.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Nice try, 1029chris. But you can't void the debate because your opponent took an unexpected, but valid, con position. You would have a valid objection if you defined the con position beforehand or if Con had an invalid position. Yes, he agreed that evolution was real; but he disagreed that it precludes Christianity. While I don't agree with his position, it is a logically valid con position for your Pro position. And, when it comes down to it, he argued it well and all you could do is whine about his position not being the expected one.
Posted by 1029chris 4 years ago
1029chris
This debate was pointless. He agreed with me that evolution is real and started arguing about a new topic that they could co-excist. What the hell? Why would you go on a debate that you agree with? Since this debate got messed please don't vote for it anyone.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
william lane craig doesnt want none of the Genie. Why? Because the Genie sees right thru his illogical statement.

He claims evolution is proof of a designer, yet he is christian.

So he claims the pansy written about in the bible is the designer. Which as you will see, is an illogical thing to to do.

There is a difference between an Intelligent designer and a lame being who monitors when you get naked, who you get naked with, and what you are doing naked :)

"Evolution is proof of a designer, therefore, its obvious that the designer is going to be a sex monitor"

"The human brain is more complex than any supercomputer, so its obvious the reason for everything is going to have 12 disciples, 13 would just be stupid :)

"The fact that we are the only creature that is as smart as we are obviously, and clearly shows that th reason for everything will be crucified and rise after 3 days, 4 days is just stupid :)

"The earth is so complex and diverse, it couldnt have just come from nothing, therefore, jesus is my savior, zeus would be stupid"

"If you have nothing, then you get nothing, so that automatically means that the reason for everything has a circumcision covenent with men, but no covenent of any kind with women"

"Humans are so complex, look at the eyeball, our veins, everything is just right, so it makes perfect sense that life was created by a being who can convict you of thought crimes such as lust"

"Proof of a creator is all around us, look at the irreducible complexity of everything, that clearly shows that the reason for everything must be loved, worshipped and obeyed or you are subject to an eternity of punishment while those who did get on their knees and watch you suffer"

Get it? william LAME craig is a clown, and he gets Punked :)

The preceeding message has been brought to you by our faithful sponsors, CHECK and MATE :)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Apeiron 4 years ago
Apeiron
1029chrisTyphlochactasTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded thus Con wins. Con also clearly had the better sources (he's the only one who sourced). The victory came in where Con put his opponents argument into logical form, where one can easily see the claims and evaluate them as such. Con did this for us with precision and fairness. Con further showed that it's meaningless to talk about evolution being "more realistic" than Christianity if they're compatible with one another. Bladerunner's vote is bunk and if I could counter it I would.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
1029chrisTyphlochactasTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to give credit for Con, for his take on the premise. However, it was a bit disingenuous; he never actually addressed that there is no evidence for Christianity, rather, he tried to say that evolution was not incompatible with Christianity. Conceptual points for that, but no real points, because it didn't address the motion on the table sufficiently; Conduct for the same, as I feel he purposefully ignored that side of the proposition. He does get S&G, though. I gave sourcing a tie.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
1029chrisTyphlochactasTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dominated, & pro rightfully conceded.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
1029chrisTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to prove or convince anyone why evolution is more realistic then Christianity. He also did not explain how evolution and Christianity can't co exist. And pretty much conceded.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
1029chrisTyphlochactasTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro can't debate.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
1029chrisTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Pro conceded most of his arguments Sources: Con used one surce, pro used none