The Instigator
400spartans
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
gryephon
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution is more true 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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/15/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 638 times Debate No: 67101
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

400spartans

Pro

I think that Evolution is more true than Creationism. This means that Evolution has a (much) higher chance of being correct than Creationism. Those who oppose may accept and present their reason why. Burden of Proof is shared.
gryephon

Con

Ok, I'll debate as i'm interested in what mechanic Pro has determining what is more true in the dichotomy he\she has proposed.

From what I know of "truth", theres only two sides of the coin, truth and false. It's either evolution and\or creationism is true, or it is false.
Debate Round No. 1
400spartans

Pro

First of all, evolution is backed up by many discoveries and scientific papers. Here are two discoveries backing evolution:

1. Fossil Record

The fossil record includes numerous fossils showing evolution. From tiktaalik to Australopithecus garhi, it is clear that evolution is a fact.

2. Pseudogenes

Pseudogenes are like normal DNA code except that they are deactivated from a mutation. It is much like a spelling error in a book or a misplaced island on a map. If two species have the same pseudogene, it is very strong evidence for common descent, one of the key factors for evolution.

Here is one more link that will basically sum up evolution's vast collection of evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
gryephon

Con

Well the evidence for creationism is pretty much common knowledge. One can look at the human body (e.g. the eyes, ears, etc) and be impressed by its amazing functional complexity. Something that is consistent with the idea of a designer.



"First of all, evolution is backed up by many discoveries and scientific papers. Here are two discoveries backing evolution:" –Pro

Just cause someone can find papers by scientist on say cold fusion or global warming, doesn’t make either two anymore true. But I’ll go ahead and refute the two discoveries you brought up.

1. Fossil Record

Comparing Apples with oranges

I have my doubts about the fossil record to proving evolution entirely. You’re basically comparing apples with oranges and saying they were plucked by the same tree. Just because some species share a likeness with each other, doesn’t mean they evolved from Darwin’s tree of life. Some computers share a likeness with each other, doesn’t mean they evolved naturally, even if you find a few in third world countries.

It was complex back in the day.

A problem with evolution, it’s basic prediction is that the species went from simple to complex. In reality this really isn’t so, for example Trilobites had apposition like eyes in the Cambrian. I kinda compare this to like saying the cavemen had an xbox 360 back in the day.

http://www.nature.com...

Even in the fossil record one can look and find nothing simple enough that shows any transitional forms from non-life to life. Even the Precambrian fossil are too complex.

Evolution doesn’t seem to happen presently

One cannot observe evolution taking place. Some people are like, “Dude, that’s because it takes millions of years for it to happen.” Well this might be true when talking about the human race, but not necessarily true with other organism. For example fruit flies reproduce like every 20 minutes, why don’t we see the big evolution that the Darwinist insist on that takes place?

2. Pseudogenes

It’s possible that there aren’t any “Pseudogenes”

I’m somewhat skeptic with the Pseudogene argument. Can one know for certain that there is any junk DNA when scientist today are uncovering the fact that some Pseudogenes they initially thought was useless is really functional? I’ll bring up the account of beta-globin.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;

Debate Round No. 2
400spartans

Pro

Well the evidence for creationism is pretty much common knowledge. One can look at the human body (e.g. the eyes, ears, etc) and be impressed by its amazing functional complexity. Something that is consistent with the idea of a designer." - Con

Well, there is the "Who created God" argument, the "SO MANY GODS" argument, and so-on.

1. Fossil Record

Comparing Apples With Oranges

"Just because some species share a likeness with each other..."

The fossil record isn't only used to find species with similar characteristics. The fossil record also finds ancestors of species. It's like comparing a person to his sibling, and then finding the parent. Not apples to oranges.

It was complex back in the day

So what? Evolution is not concerned with complexity. Complexity is only a temporary by-product of evolution.

"I kinda compare this to like saying the cavemen had an xbox 360 back in the day."

If the cavemen had an Xbox360, how does it benefit their life? Evolution is only concerned with whether you live or not. If you live to reproduce, your "sub-species" lives on. If not, your "sub-species" dies out. If you have an Xbox360, it almost certainly doesn't change your evolutionary path. However, Xbox360's are by-products of (human) evolution. Same with complexity.

Evolution doesn't seem to happen presently

"One cannot observe evolution taking place."

Did you know that a couple hundred thousand years ago, all humans were lactose intolerant? And one mutation that allowed one person to consume lactose spread, and now 2/3 of the people in the world aren't lactose intolerant? This is evolution.

"For example fruit flies reproduce like every 20 minutes, why don"t we see the big evolution that the Darwinist insist on that takes place?"

There are some links that want to meet you, Con.

http://sploid.gizmodo.com...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.wired.com...
http://www.futurity.org...

You can even press Z or R twice (do a barrel roll) for evolution!
http://www.independent.co.uk...

2. Pseudogenes

It's possible that there aren't any "Pseudogenes"

"Can one know for certain that there is any junk DNA when scientist today are uncovering the fact that some Pseudogenes they initially thought was useless is really functional?"

Yes.

If a pseudogene is found to be intended to do a task that we make up for, we can be almost completely certain that it's a psuedogene. Also, you might have not read the title: "Evolution is more true than Creationism". This doesn't mean that I am proving that Evolution is 100% true.

Here is are three questions that show that Creationism is probably not true:

1. Who created God?
2. What about the other gods?
3. Why doesn't prayer work?
gryephon

Con








Also, you might have not read the title: "Evolution is more true than Creationism".
This doesn't mean that I am proving that Evolution is 100% true.

What? if evolution is not 100% true, it’s not true at all. It’s either true or it’s not true.
Are you basically saying that your position is not falsifiable? If I prove any of your points
wrong, you’ll simply say… “Oh, I don’t have to be right. So your point is irrelevant.” What’s
the point in debating with you any further?

Debate Round No. 3
400spartans

Pro

It's simple. I am saying Evolution is more true than Creationism. We can't know for sure that Evolution or Creationism are definitely true or false. What I'm saying is that Evolution has a higher chance of being true than Creationism.

Here's a quote from your Round 1 acceptance statement.

"From what I know of "truth", theres only two sides of the coin, truth and false."

Wrong.

1. There are not "two sides of the coin" when the coin was flipped in the distant past. You don't know for sure. But you can use evidence to find which way it landed.

"If I prove any of your points wrong..."

I would say that I was wrong if you did that! But, you haven't. I have disproved all of your points, and you didn't use your time in the end of Round 3 to provide rebuttals. Instead you are dancing around my comment, misinterpreting it to the highest degree.

I don't have to prove Evolution to be 100% true. I just have to prove it having a higher likelihood of being true.

Your turn Con.
gryephon

Con

I apoligize, but I'm to sick to debate this any further. If you wish to continue, we can do an extension of this debate in a few days when I feel better. I have to forfeit this round, i'm sorry.
Debate Round No. 4
400spartans

Pro

Sure thing. We can continue when you want to.

DO NOT VOTE. DO NOT VOTE.
gryephon

Con

gryephon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
A lot of evolutionists disagree now whether Evolution was a mutation or a changing gene.
(something like that). Hahen13 says that evolution is not a mutation, While many others say it is.
Which is it?
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
"Did you know that a couple hundred thousand years ago, all humans were lactose intolerant? And one mutation that allowed one person to consume lactose spread, and now 2/3 of the people in the world aren't lactose intolerant? This is evolution."
Yes, but that would be Micro-Evolution. A small change within a species, rather than a large change resulting in a different species. Which were you debating about? Micro Evolution or Macro Evolution?
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
I think what you meant by "more true" is "more likely to happen", "most logical outcome", "most reasonable outcome." etc.
Posted by gryephon 2 years ago
gryephon
my psedogene link seems to be broken???

try http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Posted by samwight 2 years ago
samwight
To prove evolution will be a mighty task. Evolution is widely accepted but may not have as much evidence as Creationism. Good luck Pro.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
To prove creation will be a mighty task.
Good luck!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
400spartansgryephon
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: I can vote if I want to.