The Instigator
S.Roche
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
baus
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Evolution is more 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 3 votes the winner is...
baus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 628 times Debate No: 55500
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

S.Roche

Pro

Creationism, alone, has no viable evidence that it is true other than the Bible,
whilst evolution has many supporting factors in this topic. Such as the study of the relations between apes and Humans. It provides an explanation for species development and origination.
Creationism, to my believe, has no evidence to support its claim other than the bible. The bible cannot be a viable source in anyway possible.

Thank you in advance to my opponent
baus

Con

I am not obligated to debate in the first round and thus I shall simply accept the debate and wait for my opponent to make a full case for me to rebut.
Debate Round No. 1
S.Roche

Pro

Thank you for replying

To begin my argument, I will be talking on the topic of similarities between organisms, in the multicellular scale
I will use horses, zebras deer, moose and donkeys as an example. The build of those three animals are very similar in their physical build because they both descended from the common ancestor. They are of the same build because when organisms adapt and evolve to fit their environment, they keep the same build. You can see in zebra stripes, they adapted to fit their environment but kept the same build as the common ancestor.
But you may ask why moose and deer have antlers, but zebras and horses don't. You see, zebras and horses live in large herds, whilst moose and deer do not. When living in large herds you have protection against enemies and predators, whilst living in small packs, such as the deer, there is no protection with numbers, so the deer evolved antlers to protect themselves.
Insects can be used as another example, they all have six legs, an abdomen, thorax and (some) wings. They all have these same things because they descended from a common ancestor. I can obviously go on about everything, birds, reptiles, mammals etc.

From what I know (correct me if I am wrong), creationist believe that the Earth was created 4000-6000 years ago, and in the beginning, all of the animals of the world were created. Then a big flood happened and all of the animals, except two of every species of animals that would sail on an arc. I would like to bring up the fact that scientists estimate that 99% of the animals that have existed are now extinct, and that other 1% is somewhat 5 million species. So if 2 of every animals were saved, that means 10 million animals were out on the boat. I simply do not understand how 10 million animals could fit on a boat this size (http://tinyurl.com...). In the image, it is compared to many ships throughout the generations. The largest ship, the queen marry II, could not fit a million humans, let alone 10 million animals.

AGE OF THE EARTH

When creationists say the earth is 6000 years old, it can be easily contradicted by radioactive carbon dating, measuring the ice layers in the ice caps and log rings in trees that are 9000 years old. Radioactive carbon dating dates works with comparing three isotopes of carbon within the atmosphere (I'll keep it brief, I won't go into a chemistry lesson). All isotopes of an element have a half life, which is the amount of time it takes for an element to decay by half. there are 3 different isotopes of carbon, all with extra neutrons to protons increasing or decreasing the mass.
C-12 and C-13 are both stable isotopes of Carbon, whilst C-14 is the most radioactive due to being the heaviest isotope. Long story short, chemists can measure the half life of C-14, the half-life measured measures around to 10000 years, surpassing the 6000 year rules creationists have.
Ice layers are determined by the winter-summer cycle, with snow and ice building up every season (it has been observed!) This means there are more than 10000 layers of the summer-winter cycle, which means 10000 or more years. So if creationists are correct, there would of needed to be 160 winter-summer cycles in one year... not possible.

Trees create rings over certain periods of time, using this information, we can determine the age of the tree. The oldest tree to date is somewhere in California, dating back to 9000-10000 years. So how come the tree is that old if it wasn't even created!

I await my opponents answer, and ask him to give me scientific evidence of creationism, not from the bible. And to contradict my points of measuring the age of the earth.
baus

Con

Before I proceed with my rebuttal, I think it's important to define 'viable' in order to determine what we must judge viability by.

Viable: Capable of working successfully; feasible.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

This means that even if evolution works, my opponent has to prove that Creationism itself is not as capable of working successfully as evolution. My opponent cannot simply prove that evolution is feasible but must directly show how Creationism is less feasible to win this debate.

I shall now commence my rebuttals in a (c)ontention and (r)ebuttal style of debate.

C: I will use horses, zebras deer, moose and donkeys as an example. The build of those three animals are very similar in their physical build because they both descended from the common ancestor. They are of the same build because when organisms adapt and evolve to fit their environment, they keep the same build.
R: This only proves that evolution is feasible, it has absolutely no relation to the feasibility of Creationism.

C: You can see in zebra stripes, they adapted to fit their environment but kept the same build as the common ancestor.
R: No you cannot. All you see is that it's similar to another animal that was supposedly created, or supposedly existed. This is not seen int he 'stripes' at all. Why on Earth would the stripes of a Zebra, who do not live in a black and white world, be a sign of evolution? It only makes them easier to see for predators.

C: You may ask why moose and deer have antlers, but zebras and horses don't. You see, zebras and horses live in large herds, whilst moose and deer do not. When living in large herds you have protection against enemies and predators, whilst living in small packs, such as the deer, there is no protection with numbers, so the deer evolved antlers to protect themselves.
R: First of all, according to evolutionists, moose are simply members of the deer family "Cervidae".[http://bit.ly...] While the moose is a solitary animal, the reindeer, caribou and elk are all severely herd-prone animals. The antlers are actually used to fight each other, rather than any other 'predator'. In actual fact,horses are far more solitary animals, it's why they like to sleep in stables on their own.

C: Insects can be used as another example, they all have six legs, an abdomen, thorax and (some) wings. They all have these same things because they descended from a common ancestor.
R: Then why did they kill the ancestor off? Surely, the young would grow to protect their family from being hurt by the freaky mutants that were evolving into a new species.

C: From what I know (correct me if I am wrong), creationist believe that the Earth was created 4000-6000 years ago, and in the beginning, all of the animals of the world were created.
R: You are, indeed, wrong. Creationists have a cult, within them, named "Young Earth Creationists". These are the ones who believe that the Earth is only 10,000 years old (still not as young as you make it out to be). Creationists make no such claim. The time-frame of the bible isn't clear and this is likely due to misinterpretation of the wording of time in Hebrew to English. [http://www.godandscience.org...]. The Bible didn't ever say how old the Earth was, this is a misinterpretation of some translators.

C: Then a big flood happened and all of the animals, except two of every species of animals that would sail on an arc. I would like to bring up the fact that scientists estimate that 99% of the animals that have existed are now extinct, and that other 1% is somewhat 5 million species. So if 2 of every animals were saved, that means 10 million animals were out on the boat. I simply do not understand how 10 million animals could fit on a boat this size.
R: You don't understand that god was protecting the Ark. The Ark was being supernaturally protected and expanded on the inside by God. No laws of science apply because God was the one who formed the laws of science in the first place, according to religion. He is welcome to rewrite them for the Ark as he wished. The Ark has no physical bounds and there is no reason to think that God couldn't have also shrunk the animals as they entered the Ark, as opposed to expanding the Ark itself. There is nothing about the physical size of everything in relation to the animals on the Ark and there is no reason to assume that God would be unable to rewrite the laws of physics and biology for the sake of flooding the world.

I shall now explain Creationism and highlight the limitations of science and why they indicate the feasibility of Creationism being fairly high indeed.

Creationism refers to the belief that the universe and everything in it were specially created by God through magic, rather than naturalistic means.[http://rationalwiki.org...]

Now, this may seem stupid to assume because 'magic' supposedly does not exist but let me ask you this:

(1) How can a blob of bacterium evolve into an eye capable of sight?

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (Darwin 1872) [Huse, Scott. 1996. The Collapse of Evolution. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, p. 73.]

(2) How on Earth did we evolve from non-sentient blobs of matter into conscious creatures capable of free will?

"The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts."
" Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871

(3) If evolution really is true then why haven't all of the same type of creature killed off all of the similar type within the same area?

For example, why haven't chimps killed humans or the reverse, or why haven't donkeys killed horses?

I conclude that evolution is not more viable than creationism.
Debate Round No. 2
S.Roche

Pro

Thank you for replying

First and foremost, I did ask for you to not relate to the bible for evidence, but to scientific evidence. I hope you will comply to my conditions in your next argument.

When you ask "How can a blob of bacterium evolve into an eye capable of sight?", there will be a clear answer for both of us. You will immediately refer to the bible, and I will immediately refer to science, and facts. I am going to try and explain how a blob of bacterium (which I will now refer to as "blob") into a multicellular organism capable of sight.
Now of course, entire lectures have covered this topic so I will attempt to make it brief.
Let's imagine we have two bacteria, bacteria A and bacteria B. Imagine Bacteria A eats bacteria B (yummy!), bacteria B was engulfed and is now a house guest in bacteria A, and is being able to stay alive because bacteria B has a nice membrane. Now imagine that bacteria A benefits from bacteria B living in it, sort of boosting it's capability of surviving in the environment. So now the cell goes threw mitosis, with it's genetic code "modified" to house bacteria B, and now starts duplicating itself. Abracadabra, we now have an evolved species of bacteria, while still having it's ancestors, A and B. So now the same process can be repeated with the new AB couple. We now have the first multicellular organism, and over thousands of years doing the exact same process, we could eventually end up with the lizard with an eye.

Now when you ask " How on Earth did we evolve from non-sentient blobs of matter into conscious creatures capable of free will?", I cannot answer half of that question. I can answer how matter became creatures, but not how it's conscious. Before you jump with joy because science doesn't have an answer, I would like to remind you on what science is based around. You guessed it, DISCOVERY. We observe and discover new things every day in science, there is not question about it. We do not fully know, but we are close to figuring out why consciousness exists. That is the beautiful thing about science, is that we don't know. We didn't know why Uranium decays into lead, but now we do because discovery and observation pushed us to finding the answer.

"(3) If evolution really is true then why haven't all of the same type of creature killed off all of the similar type within the same area?

For example, why haven't chimps killed humans or the reverse, or why haven't donkeys killed horses?"

Would you kill something for no reason? When you ask why haven't chimps killed humans, the only way I can answer that is 1. We don't need to kill them 2. They don't need to kill us (If they/we do please let me know, I'm open!)
And Donkeys killing Horses? The only way I can answer is this way 1. Do donkeys need to kill horses? 2. Do horses need to kill donkeys?... Well, the answer is no.

"C: From what I know (correct me if I am wrong), creationist believe that the Earth was created 4000-6000 years ago, and in the beginning, all of the animals of the world were created.
R: You are, indeed, wrong. Creationists have a cult, within them, named "Young Earth Creationists". These are the ones who believe that the Earth is only 10,000 years old (still not as young as you make it out to be). Creationists make no such claim. The time-frame of the bible isn't clear and this is likely due to misinterpretation of the wording of time in Hebrew to English. [http://www.godandscience.org......]. The Bible didn't ever say how old the Earth was, this is a misinterpretation of some translators." Thank you for correcting my misinterpretation.

So far from what I have seen, creationism has no supporting facts of "being". The only supporting factor you have is the bible. And remember, your god didn't create the bible itself, so how do you know 40 men were telling the truth. That's the point... you don't

http://www.biblica.com...

Websites to help me out:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.biblica.com...
baus

Con

I find it severely hypocritical of Pro to use sources such as this: http://www.biblica.com... and then demand that Con doesn't use any Bible-related sources to clarify points on Creationism.

Pro's explanation of how evolution made the eyes come from blob, or bacterium, is a joke. It doesn't explain how, or why, bacteria change their form into an eye, it only explained how they'd asexually reproduce into more and more bacteria via mitosis.

He states how prokaryotes can evolve into eukaryotes by this explanation:
(1) Let's imagine we have two bacteria, bacteria A and bacteria B.
(2) A eats B (how the heck does a bacteria eat another bacteria of its size?)
(3) B is now a 'house guest' in A (what the...?)
(4) Fallaciously claims that mitosos alters the genetic code, when, in fact, only meiosis is capable of this. [http://www.nature.com...]
(5) There is suddenly a group of cells that are bacterial cells B and A combined, replicated.
(6) Abracadabra... They magically evolved into a Lizard that can think, see, hear, feel, touch, taste and smell.

In all honesty, this sounds a little like some magical powers a certain God I know supposedly has...

He doesn't deny that we are conscious beings of free will, instead he justifies that Uranium into lead justifies that we are conscious. That is just... Well... I don't even know how to describe the flaw severity of this logic.

If natural selection were true, only one primate and one horse-type would have successfully evolved via natural selection. Instead, many are coexisting despite being different. This is because Creationism incorporates all animals as part of God's master-plan and that is the truth.

Notice how every single rebuttal to Pro's round 2 was completely ignored and only my questions at the end were addressed.

God made evolution seem true to test the faith of Christians. Those who fall into the traps of scientific worship shall be punished for failing to worship the right deity!

It is just as plausible as the 'abracadabra' of a lizard popping up out of nowhere and just as plausible as the sentience we all hold dear "evolving" form a completely non-sentient being, in capable of sentience to begin with.

Why are plants non sentient abut animals sentient? Evolutionists will never know!

I conclude that Pro has failed to mean their BoP and that evolution is not more viable than Creationism.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by baus 3 years ago
baus
Very detailed thank you.
Posted by baus 3 years ago
baus
Very detailed thank you.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
---VOTE RFD---
I did not think this was a troll debate going in, but in R2 pro intentionally ignores the resolution, to talk at length about YEC, which was hilarious! (the fallacy of it was identified by con), in R3 pro complains of con breaking rules by attempting to refute his bible claims, which reminds us that pro broke his own rules (first offense was forgivable, trying to enforce a double standard is an intentional surrender of conduct), as con put it "I find it severely hypocritical of Pro to use sources such as this: http://www.biblica.com...... and then demand that Con doesn't use any Bible-related sources to clarify points on Creationism."
One of con's weaker points was "God made evolution seem true to test the faith of Christians. Those who fall into the traps of scientific worship shall be punished for failing to worship the right deity!" which did literally make me laugh. "Viable: Capable of working successfully; feasible." Respectable dictionary, and not rejected by pro. In trying to keep evolution more viable than creation, pro makes the statement "That is the beautiful thing about science, is that we don't know." Anyone else think that is the type of answer expected from con on this debate? That greatly hurt pro's case for evolution being viable.

CONDUCT (con):
While funny, massive use of Straw Person when ignoring resolution to discuss YEC; plus breaking his own rule about not using the bible as evidence, but complaining that the bible was then mentioned when refuting him.

S&G (tied):
I preferred pro's method of organization, but little things like "threw" kept this away from a decisive advantage.

ARGUMENTS (con):
Pro pretty much ignored all rebuttals, offering very little defense. Pro did not prove evolution to be at all viable, con proved evolution to be at least somewhat viable (not to say likely).

SOURCES (tied):
Leaning to con, but not by quite enough to take the point.
Posted by doomswatter 3 years ago
doomswatter
Which statement in your opening statements is your resolution?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
S.RochebausTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: In a debate that compares one option to another, it's not enough to simply support one's own side. You have to show that the questions of life can only be answered by one of these theories, or at the very least that it is more likely to be answered reasonably. Pro could have approached this numerous ways, but instead he chose to make a string of arguments and rebuttals that effectively ignored his basic burdens in the debate. I don't know if Con managed to prove anything was truly more reasonable from a creationist perspective, but he at least was successful in assessing the comparison and finding equal viability, mainly due to a lack of such analysis on Pro's part. As such, I can't justify a vote for Pro, so I must vote Con.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
S.RochebausTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to sufficiently defend evolution, which Con pointed many holes in. It doesn't matter how stupid Creationism is if you don't prove that the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution are more correct.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
S.RochebausTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.