The Instigator
thisisbob
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
OtakuJordan
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Evolution is not real.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 7 votes the winner is...
OtakuJordan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,566 times Debate No: 41299
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (7)

 

thisisbob

Pro

Alright. I will argue that the theory of evolution is false. You will argue that evolution is true.

Rules: Ummm... Just don't swear.

First round is acceptence only.
OtakuJordan

Con

Pleased to "meet" you, Pro. I am a theistic evolutionist and will be happy to debate this topic with you.

Please state your case.
Debate Round No. 1
thisisbob

Pro

Thank you for accepting con. Before we start I would like to clear a few things up.

Evolution has 6 meanings.

  • Cosmic Evolution, ie Big Bang (False)
  • Chemical Evolution (False)
  • Stellar/Planetary Evolution (False)
  • Organic Evolution (False)
  • Macro Evolution (False)
  • Micro Evolution (Only one that is true and observed)

Five of the top ones are false. Only the 6th one is true.

I will also be arguing specifically against theistic evolution, since you stated that you believe in this.

Argument: Here is my argument.

My stand: As a creationist I believe that people were created by God, but they did not evolve over millions of years into hominids with fully human bodies. God created us the way we are right now. We did not evolve from lizards into monkeys into Homo sapien sapiens. God created Adam, the first man, and then Eve the first woman. They looked just like we do now. I also believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old, not millions. The timeline goes like this. Creation: Before 4000 BC. Great Flood: Before 3,000 BC. 5 BC: Birth of Jesus. 30 AD: Death of Jesus. 2000 AD. [1] We are here. This is my belief. Evolution is false.

[1] http://biblehub.com...

Why theistic evolution is false:

  • According to this theory, God is a liar. The scripture clearly tells us that God created the Universe, and all of the things in it, in 6 literal 24 hour days. "For in 6 days the Lord has made the heavens and the earth, the seas and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day, therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." -Exodus 20: 11.[2] And God cannot lie. “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will not do it? Or, has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” Numbers 23:19.[3]
  • There is not theistic statement that shows theistic evolution to be true. God never said He used

    evolution to create man. In fact, He said just the opposite. His revelation declares creation, not

    evolution. Notice the following passages: Ex. 20:11; Ex. 31:17; Neh. 9:6; Psa. 33:6-9. Do they

    not claim fiat creation? [4]

  • Theistic evolution does not explain Eve. According to this theory, both of the sexes evolved at the same time. However, this is not the case. As said in Genesis 1:21-23, “So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[a] and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[b] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”

[2] http://www.biblegateway.com...

[3] http://www.biblegateway.com...

[4] http://www.riceroadchurchofchrist.com...

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Exodus 20:8-11 - See more at: http://www.creationworldview.org...

That is it for now. Thank you.

the Scripture clearly tells us that God created the universe, and all the physical things in it, recently in only six literal 24 hour days as recorded in Genesis Chapter One. - See more at: http://www.creationworldview.org...


the Scripture clearly tells us that God created the universe, and all the physical things in it, recently in only six literal 24 hour days as recorded in Genesis Chapter One. - See more at: http://www.creationworldview.org...
the Scripture clearly tells us that God created the universe, and all the physical things in it, recently in only six literal 24 hour days as recorded in Genesis Chapter One. - See more at: http://www.creationworldview.org...
OtakuJordan

Con

My opponent offered no evidence to support his claims that cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar/planetary evolution, organic evolution (which my opponent mistakenly views as being a separate process from micro and macro evolution) and macro evolution are false. There is, therefore, nothing for me to refute.

My opponent also used a red herring fallacy when he attepted to change the topic of the debate from whether or not the theory of evolution is scientifically sound to whether or not theistic evolution is heterodox.

In light of these egregious breaches of good conduct, I hope that the voters will disregard my opponent's first affirmative speech.
Debate Round No. 2
thisisbob

Pro

Alright smarty pants. Thank you for responding.

Note: Organic evolution: How life came from non-life. NOT Macro/micro evolution.
  • Just to make this faster, I am extremely busy, look at this video right here. Start at 20 minutes. Stop at 23 minutes.

"My opponent also used a red herring fallacy when he attempted to change the topic of the debate from whether or not the theory of evolution is scientifically sound to whether or not theistic evolution is heterodox." I did not attempt to change it, I just found it extremely interesting that you are Christian, so I would think you believe in the Bible. That is why I brought in examples from the Bible.

I would also like to point out that Con has not made an argument either. Now there are no rounds left. (I should have made more rounds.)

If you are really interested in this topic, watch the whole video of the link below. That is it, all is left is for Con to make an argument and possibly win this debate.

May the voters choose the best winner.

OtakuJordan

Con

Organic evolution is not the theory of how life came from non-life as my opponent and Kent Hovind claim. It's mostly a non-issue here, however refuting Hovind's definition does serve to show the calibre of scientist that he is.

Definitions of organic evolution

Def. 1:
the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms(1)
Def. 2: the slow and gradual process by which living organisms have changed from the simplest unicellular form to the most complex multi-cellular forms that are existing today(2)
Def. 3: Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations.(3)

What my opponent and Hovind are referring to as organic evolution is actually called abiogenesis.(4) This is a gross error in basic scientific vocabulary, something that even high school textbooks teach (mine certainly did). But I suppose it should come as no surprise from someone who touts himself as a doctor and a scientist and yet has no PhD or any type of science degree.(5) Hovind's definitions of micro- and macroevolution are also incorrect but I won't bother to argue that here.

Between the the twenty-minute mark and the twenty-three mark of the video my opponent posted, Kent Hovind made the following claims:

Claim #1: You can't fuse past iron, therefore evolution provides no explanation for how elements heavier than iron came into being
According to the astronomy department of Cornell University, post-iron elements are formed in supernova explosions. To quote, "So much energy is released during a supernova explosion that the freed energy and copious free neutrons streaming from the collapsing core drive massive fusion reactions, long past the formation of iron."(5)

Claim #2: We have never observed the birth of a star
False.(6)

Claim #3: We have never observed one kind evolve into another
While this is true, we have been able to make predictions based on our belief that this happens in order to test its accuracy. For example, we would expect that the creatures inhabiting a region would closely resemble the fossils found in the same region. This is the case. Evolution is, in fact, a highly falsifiable theory.(7)

I made no arguments in Round 2 because the burden of proof rested on Pro in this debate.

Sources
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2. http://www.tutorvista.com...
3. http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
4. http://rationalwiki.org...
5. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...
6. http://news.yale.edu...
7. Brockman, John. Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement. New York: Vintage Books. 2006.
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by loveu157 3 years ago
loveu157
I was asked to give more reasons for why i voted that way and this is it. I did agree with con from the beginning and although he had shorter arguments he did make a better point and had exceptional conduct. pro started to say hurtful and sarcastic things after round two which is frowned upon on this site.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
I already had a debate on that topic with another user. I may challenge thisisbob to a similar debate when my life is a little less hectic.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I suggest starting a debate on the sub topic of evolution R2 focused on.
Posted by TetsuRiken 3 years ago
TetsuRiken
I'm not going in to religion right now I was just saying I've heard of the second thing.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
@TetsuRiken Science and Religion are Compatible. Science is not exlcusive to atheism. Atheism is exlcusive to science.

Theism is much more compatible with Science and Religion.

Atheism can not logically explain both.
Posted by TetsuRiken 3 years ago
TetsuRiken
I've heard the Second theory but not the first.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
Most creationists will tell you that every single transitional fossil was either:
A. A plant by God to fool those of little faith.
B. A hoax by those evil, evil scientists who promote evolution.
Posted by TetsuRiken 3 years ago
TetsuRiken
One question Pro where did the Skulls of animals of the human ape cross come from?
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
Just because the last person to vote seemed confused on these points...

1. It is not necessary for me to post arguments in order to win because the burden of proof rested on Pro in this debate.
2. Giving rebuttals in the last round is not the same thing as raising new arguments.
3. How in the name of all that is good and beautiful is a Kent Hovind video from the '80s an equally reliable source as the Cornell physics department?
4. My opponent's second round arguments consisted entirely of a red herring fallacy. They were, therefore, not legitimate arguments.
Posted by xxWesxx 3 years ago
xxWesxx
....also, in regards to Con's argument of:

"Claim #3: We have never observed one kind evolve into another
While this is true, we have been able to make predictions based on our belief that this happens in order to test its accuracy."

This claim actually is not true. We have observed species evolve into another kind. A perfect example of this is seen in ring species like the Greenish Warbler. Within the past two centuries since Darwin and Wallace's ground breaking idea of natural selection, we have observed the Greenish Warbler evolve into another species entirely, the Green Warbler. This is the result of a ring species effect around the Himalayas. Ring speciation speeds up the process of evolution by separating the population into two populations in different environments. The isolated populations cannot interbreed, and thus isolate the genetics. When the species finally meet aroung the other side of the barrier, forming the ring, the two species on the ends can no longer breed together, or, as the bible, and Kent Hovind say, bring forth after their kind. This is but one example of observed evolution which Hovind erroneously claims hasn't been.

There is no question here who won this debate. Pro made no formal argument at all, and deserves no points whatsoever.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Cygnus 3 years ago
Cygnus
thisisbobOtakuJordanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I vote for OtakuJordan for the following reasons: 1. He made better use of sources. 2. He displays a better understanding of the scientific method. 3. As OtakuJordan states, thisisbob used a red herring from the very start. Thisisbob made the claim that the Theory of Evolution, which is a biological science, is false but made no attempts at citing a reputable source for his claim. In his very next post, he tries to equate evolutionary biology with cosmology, which are two different fields of study. I view this tactic as disingenuous, to put it mildly. 4. He dismisses macroevolution, but readily accepts microevolution because it fits his Christian worldview. 5. Thisisbob cites Kent Hovind as a source of information. Hovind has been shown repeatedly to be a tax fraud and his arguments have been demonstrably false and laughable. You can read more about Hovind at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind OtakuJordan wins easily.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
thisisbobOtakuJordanTied
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: Hum, Con asserts a burden of proof on Pro that isn't refuted. I think Con then disassembles Cons 2nd speech rather well. Since there is no impact to any of the god arguments (I don't understand why god being a liar would be undesirable) then I agree with Con that no burden of proof was met. In addition I think Pro actually affirms that at least one type of evolution is real...
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
thisisbobOtakuJordanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: First off, PRO loses conduct for calling con a "smarty pants." Way to lose a point. However, pro did not make any mistakes in spelling and grammar, while con made a few. Therefore, pro gets a point for that, but turns out to be his only point. For arguments, pro used a video to show his points. If he had typed it out, he would've won this part. Even though con really only made one argument, it was superior to pro's. That is because The Holy Bible is not a textbook. I'm not saying it is not true, it is just not a good way to disprove evolution. Both sides used good sources, but the thing that made con win was that his was more reliable. Pro used some christian sources, which of course don't believe in evolution. Con used reliable sources, such as Yale and even a book, he wins. I wish this debate was a little bit longer, but it was a good one nonetheless. Good job to both pro and con, but in the end, con comes out on top in this debate.
Vote Placed by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
thisisbobOtakuJordanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's snide remark of how Con is a pair of "smarty pants" definitely loses him the conduct point. However, at least he (sort of) made arguments (though they were blatant lies), where as Con didn't argue. Con's contention that the BoP is on Pro is unfounded. Sources was a clear win for Con, since all Pro did was cite sources founded on the Bible and creationists who have been discredited, while Con cited legitimate news, educational, and scientific sites.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
thisisbobOtakuJordanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: SOURCES: This was a slam dunk on sources; not so much for last round from con, but for the efficiency at which con shot down pros. Plus what kind of mental diluent did pro find, who thinks nothing past iron can be fused according to scientific theory? ARGUMENT: Con gave an incredibly weak showing in R2 (pointing out how bad something is, isn't the same as refuting it), balanced by pros equally weak R3. Neither side really comes ahead on argument by enough of a margin to claim the point. CONDUCT: I dislike the game pro played of switching definitions, yet I don't think he did it with ill intent (plus con dropping out of the cross examination, was a bit rude when those were real questions of interest). Anyway there wasn't enough of anything going on to hurt conduct enough for either side to claim this point.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
thisisbobOtakuJordanTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate should be re-done with more rounds. If you want to have R1 for acceptance, the debate should be at least 4 rounds (so you have at least 2 for debating and 1 for conclusions). I am very sorry that I have to do this, but since Con did not provide any arguments until his last round, to where Pro could not possibly have a chance to refute them, I have to disregard any new arguments created in that last round. Also. sadly, Con stated that Pro made no arguments in his R2 when Pro did make arguments in R2. They were not very good arguments and could have been easily refuted, however, Con did not do either of these. That means that Pro's arguments give him those points.
Vote Placed by loveu157 3 years ago
loveu157
thisisbobOtakuJordanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: im sorry but pro you need to chill and con you need to make a point