The Instigator
ZoellEmerson1499
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Evolution is only a theory and will not be fact. Creation is true.

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 7 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,567 times Debate No: 32774
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

ZoellEmerson1499

Pro

I will let my opponent start with proof against me.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Evidence for Evolution

There is so much overwhelming evidence for Evolution, that it is fair to say it is scientifically proven. However, I only feel the need to mention two areas of evidence:

1. Chromosome # 2


2. Directly Observed Evolution/ Speciation


Chromosome # 2


Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while all the other apes in our family have 24 pairs of chromosomes [2]. The chromosomes could not have gotten lost in our lineage, because that would be fatal. Thus, the only rational explanation if Evolution is true, is that chromosomes fused together, to account for the lesser chromosome count. If scientists did not find the fused chromosomes, then evolution is in trouble. Scientists found a chromosome which is actually two chromosomes fused together, it's call chromosome # 2 [3], and most humans have two of these. This shows strong evidence for Evolution, because the two fused chromosomes are actually primitive ape chromosomes. This find would literally make no sense if evolution was not true. Due to the amazing discoveries regarding Chromosome # 2 in humans, it is safe to say that human evolution has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.


"We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2." - J. W. IJdo [4]


Directly Observed Evolution/ Speciation

Evolution has actually been observed in laboratories, and is observed in laboratories. For example, why is it that vaccines always change? This is because, the viruses keep adapting to the vaccines [5], and they change so much that vaccines have a hard time keeping up with the pace. What about new species actually arising from evolution (which is called speciation)? Well, for example, some plant species can actually arise through evolution, even in as little as one generation. An example of an observation of speciation involving plants, was a study done by Hugo de Vries. He was studying the genetics of Oenothera Lamarckiana, and discovered that a new variant evolved that could not breed with the Oenothera Lamarckiana, and had a different amount of chromosomes. This means, a brand new species evolved, that was observed in a laboratory over long periods of time (he named the new species O. gigas.)[6]. Speciation has actually been observed first hand in the insect world as well. One example is the findings of Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky that were made observing a culture of Drosophila paulistorum [7].

Why is Creationism false?

If creation is true, then humans have existed as long as the oldest organisms. The fossil record shows that humans didn't exist until billions of years after the first organisms did. The older the rocks we find, the more simpler the organisms. This is strong evidence that creatures evolve and get more complex over time, and strong evidence against the claim that all animals were created at the same time. There are more reasons, but I will address my opponent's claims instead of delving into them further.

Conclusion

Not only do we find the truth of Evolution in our chromosomes, Evolution is actually observed and recreated in laboratories all of the time, and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, I have met my burden of proof, and the resolution has been affirmed.


Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org......
[2] http://www.mun.ca......
[3] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...;
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......
[5] http://www.historyofvaccines.org...;
[6] de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.
[7] Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila",Nature 23:289-292.
Debate Round No. 1
ZoellEmerson1499

Pro

Chromosome Two Fusion: No Proof for Evolution
Published by JT812
July 4, 2009, Category: Biology
The fusion of chromosome two has been said to be overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution and descent from apes. But is it really?
Recently I heard a claim that worried me a little bit concerning the decent of apes to humans. Here it is: since apes have 24 sets of chromosomes and humans have 23 sets of chromosomes, then if humans have a fused chromosome it would be proof of common decent. Turns out humans do have a fused chromosome. It"s chromosome 2. This can be proven because of the structure of chromosomes. Chromosomes have centromeres and telomeres. Centromeres are in the center of the chromosome and telomeres are at the end of the chromosome. If a chromosome fusion occurred then there would be telomeres in the middle of the chromosome and two centromeres. Such is the case for chromosome 2.

Being a believer in God and design as told in the Bible, this worried me a little bit. So I decided to do some research. Scientists claimed that this was overwhelming evidence for common descent, but its not. Either God made humans with what appears to be a fused chromosome, or a fusion happened somewhere in our past. If this fusion did happen it does not point to descent from apes. Even if we did share the same number of chromosomes as apes at one point we still could have been completely different from apes. Cats and pigs both have 19 pairs or 38 chromosomes. But do pigs and cats look like the same animal to you?

Other than both having three letter names, they are completely different. So this evidence proves nothing in favor of evolution. The only thing it proves is that most likely in some point in our past humans have had a chromosome fusion. Before this chromosome fusion humans could have very easily still been very different from apes, so it is impossible to say this is evidence for evolution.

Read more: http://scienceray.com...

I also have to say/ask something to you to prove
1. evolutionists say that reptiles became birds uhh... that just weird for one and one major difference is their lungs the reptiles breath in and out like we do and birds do not anything in between there would be fatal. All the Evolutionists think about is the scales becoming feathers. So please explain how this proves evolution.

And I know it may seem weird to think about a God who created this all by his hand but it seems harder to believe everything happened by chance I just don't see any logic in any of that. You can get a pile of bricks from a building but you cant suddenly get a building out of a pile of bricks it just doesn't work. Neither does chemicals and other things suddenly forming a very complicated thing and even more complicated things to have the other thing to survive. And why are people so eager to say we came from apes? I would take that as an insult to be honest.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Chromosome #2

My opponent claims that Chromosome #2 is not evidence of evolution for a couple of reasons. First, he claims that God could have made humans in a way that made it appear "as if" it is a fused chromosome, but isn't really. However, God could have created all of us five seconds ago, with memories fully in tact. These types of assumptions are just useless when dealing with scientific issues of this nature, because a prima facie case can self-evidently be made for the chromosome being fused. For this reason, my opponent's objection in question fails.


Pro also goes on to claim:

"Even if we did share the same number of chromosomes as apes at one point we still could have been completely different from apes."


This seems like a rather useless statement, because there is no way we could have been "completely" different from apes. We both have brains, feet, hair, teeth, arms, noses and things of that nature. Regardless, it is not just the amount of chromosomes that make apes so much similar to us on an evolutionary level, it is other genetic similarities as well. Also, the fossil record clearly shows that the more advanced ape like creatures formed later on, compared to less advanced forms. This is strong evidence for evolution. All we need to do is find one human fossil dated at a time which contradicts evolution, then evolution would be falsified. However, all fossils found are dated in a way coinciding with the evolutionary tree. This would be unreasonably coincidental if evolution was false.

Another statement made by Pro was:

"Cats and pigs both have 19 pairs or 38 chromosomes. But do pigs and cats look like the same animal to you?"

This is rather a juvenile rebuttal to the Chromosome #2 argument, because it really has nothing to do with it once so ever. Nobody is arguing that pigs and cats are the same animal, or that humans and apes are the same animal. Since this response was trivial at best, it is safe to say it can be disregarded as a sound objection.

Another reason Chromosome # 2 is strong evidence for evolution, is that it was predicted by evolution. It would be extremely unlikely that we would find this exact chromosome if evolution were false. This is analogous to somebody claiming they got in a chase and left a blue bike at park "A", and you go there and find the blue bike. There could be a blue bike there for some other reason, but it's most likely that the blue bike has to do with that person's claim. It would just be too coincidental otherwise.

Due to the fact that my opponent's objections failed, it is safe to say my argument stands unscathed. Chromosome # 2 is definitely evidence for evolution.

Directly Observed Evolution/ Speciation

This section of mine went unaddressed by Pro. I find this strange, as this is the most compelling argument for evolution. Different species evolving have actually been observed in laboratories. This is not only evidence of evolution, but definitive proof. Therefore, the resolution has been negated based off this section alone.


Additional Claims Made By Pro

"1. evolutionists say that reptiles became birds uhh... that just weird for one and one major difference is their lungs the reptiles breath in and out like we do and birds do not anything in between there would be fatal. All the Evolutionists think about is the scales becoming feathers. So please explain how this proves evolution."

The genetic sequencing of birds and reptiles shows common ancestry. Also the discovery of the Archaeopteryx fossil[2] shows a creature with bird like features, like feathers, but also with reptile like features as well. These reptilian features include small teeth (which modern birds aren't known to have), and a boney tail. The odds that the Archaeopteryx coincides with the genetic sequencing prediction by chance is too low it seems. The fact that this fits perfectly with evolution, is strong evidence for it.


Pro then goes on to say:

"And I know it may seem weird to think about a God who created this all by his hand but it seems harder to believe everything happened by chance I just don't see any logic in any of that."

Evolution is not driven by chance alone, this would assume complete randomness. Evolution is driven by natural selection, which is a non-random process which leads to specific results.

"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers."[2]

Since evolution is not completely random, it is not driven by chance alone. There is no reason to assume evolution driven by natural selection this is less likely than common Creationist claims.

"You can get a pile of bricks from a building but you cant suddenly get a building out of a pile of bricks it just doesn't work."

Nobody is claiming this is how it works. Thus, the above is a false-analogy.

"Neither does chemicals and other things suddenly forming a very complicated thing and even more complicated things to have the other thing to survive."

Chemicals could easily suddenly form into simple life forms given enough times to run the odds, but not complex ones. Complex organisms take much time to evolve, all life started out extremely simple.



"And why are people so eager to say we came from apes? I would take that as an insult to be honest."

Evolution doesn't claim that we came from modern apes, but rather we share a common ancestor with the modern apes. Regardless, the reason people are so eager to claim this evolution happens, is because this is what all the DNA and fossil records clearly show. If the evidence went in another direction, then scientists would lean in that direction, but this is not the case. It has nothing to do with people's subjective "wants", it has to do with finding out the truth about human origins, in a more concrete fashion than simply adhering to ancient books.

Why Is Creationism False?

Pro did not address my section here, thus it stands. If creation is true, then we should find human fossil remains as old as dinosaur bones, but we do not. All fossils are aged exactly as they should be if evolution was true, but this would be extremely coincidental if evolution was false. It is much more likely to conclude that evolution is true, and creationism is false for this reason.

Conclusion

In my opening round I presented three sections of argumentation:

1. Chromosome # 2
2. Directly Observed Evolution/ Speciation
3. Why Is Creationism False?

My opponent only addressed the Chromosome # 2 claim. Therefore, even if his objections do stand (which they do not), my other arguments remain untouched. For this reason alone my opponent is not to be favored in this debate. Also, his additional arguments for creationism did not stand to scrutiny as well. A vote Con, would be a vote in the right direction due to arguments outlined in this debate.

Source

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
ZoellEmerson1499

Pro

Ok the Archaeopteryx fossil is ONE fossil name some others that have these same traits because there MUST be a ton others in the in between stages they COULDN'T have all gotten wiped out right? And how did its flight develope?
Ok. here is something that doesn't really have to do with the debate:
THEORY: A supposition or a system of IDEAS INTENDED to explain something.
( The THEORY of evolution.)
Evolution states that life began as a chance combination of nonliving chemicals.
Natural selection is the idea that the fittest survive and pass along their traits to their offspring.
Down below are animals no evolutionists have the right to claim that they happened by chance (In my opinion anyway):

BIRDS, BEETLES, AND LIFE

by Barry Setterfield

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you ever noticed how you can usually tell if something is man-made or is just an artefact of time and chance? For example, a lump of marble, when left to wind and rain does not form a human face: that requires a sculptor. Likewise, the Sydney Harbour Bridge implies a designer, even though we may never have met him. Similarly, the Bible also says in Romans 1:16 that "the Creator's eternal power and Godhead, though invisible to us, are clearly evidenced by the created order in the cosmos."

Is this really the case? Is there evidence that life was formed by a loving and all-wise Creator and did not just evolve? Consider the little fish, wrasses that act as cleaners. The mouths of fish accumulate food debris and parasites, and they have no toothbrush! So wrasses clean them up inside and out. They swim into the mouths of big fish amongst the vicious looking teeth. The big fish make no attempt to eat these little cleaner fish. Even the spotted trunk-fish that exudes a poison from its skin withholds that poison while its cleaned up. In 1977, Nobel prize winner Albert Szent-Gyorgyi said in Synthesis Vol. 1: 1

"All this may sound very simple, but it involves a whole series of most complicated chain reactions with a horribly complex underlying nervous mechanism. All this had to be developed simultaneously. The chance of this happening as a random mutation has the probability of zero."

Examine the woodpecker! It gets its food by banging its beak into trees like a pneumatic drill to get the beetles and bugs hiding in the wood. It has an unusual arrangement of 2 toes at the back of its foot that allows it to hang on to trees. But the shock absorber mechanism in its head that allows it to drill into wood is not only unusual; it is unique. However, there is no point in drilling into wood unless you can get the food there. So the woodpecker has an extremely long, very flexible tongue that reaches way down into cavities in the wood. But where do you put a long tongue when its not in use? This bird wraps it under its skin, and right around its head, and anchors it in its right nostril! None of the pieces in this evolutionary puzzle have any survival value until the whole set is functioning together. Imagine a woodpecker evolving a tongue that was too long for its beak but too short to get the beetles! Plan, purpose, and special creation are far more likely than time, chance, and natural processes.

The giraffe's neck is a problem! How do you get the blood up to its head? Well the giraffe has a huge heart that sends blood out at high pressure. This pressure would damage the giraffe's brain, but gravity reduces it dramatically. But how does the giraffe cope with the rush of blood at high pressure when it bends down to drink? Well, it has a wondernet at the base of its brain, a spongy complex of small arteries and veins that enlarge considerably and reduce the pressure. Meantime, a remarkable series of valves close in its jugular vein that prevents blood in the neck flowing backwards into the head. When the giraffe suddenly straightens up it does not faint because of the reserve blood supply in the wondernet. Now think! Without the massive heart it would never get blood to its brain. If it had the heart without the wondernet it would die when it stooped to drink. If it had the heart and wondernet without the valves in the jugular vein, the wondernet would burst. All associated features must be in place simultaneously. The giraffe's neck is a testimony to special design and planning..

Look at the bombardier beetle! Despite its very ordinary appearance, it possesses a remarkable explosive chemical defence system. The beetle manufactures hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone that come down twin tubes into a combustion chamber. At the concentrations used by the beetle, its an explosive mixture. But the mixture does not explode in the beetle because an inhibitor enzyme comes down with the two components. Then, when this mixture is about to be fired at a hungry toad or predator, an anti-inhibitor is injected and the toad gets an explosion in its face at 100 degrees Celsius!

Imagine the first beetle evolving this system. If it had not evolved the inhibitor, the beetle would blow up! With any other of the component chemicals missing, the toad would have eaten the beetle. In other words, it could not have evolved gradually over time. The whole complete system had to operate from the beginning. Nor is this all. The beetle's chemical spray is highly directional, and is pulsed at the rate of 500 bursts per second! This complete functional chemical unit therefore requires a whole series of nerve and muscle attachments for aim and control. It speaks of plan, purpose and special creation.

These creatures, and life itself, therefore testify to a wise and loving Creator Who has a Plan and purpose for every life that comes into this world. But His Plan and Purpose for your life can only be discovered by putting yourself completely in His hands, and by accepting His sacrifice for your sins. After all, since He created and runs the cosmos, you can surely trust Him to look after your Life.

Well? I think that's amazing! In my opinion I think that Evolutionist take evolution (SMALL 'e') blow it up and make it Evolution (BIG 'E') And many people believe that the bird-reptile thing was a mosque of the features of both creatures. And evolution is pretty random if you look at away from the mask blinding you. If the world was MILLIONS of years old then why hasn't it suffered so much damage and how was it created in the first place? The BIG BANG? How did the thing that caused the big bang get there? Then HOW DID THE CHEMICALS GET THERE? It is INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have to say you evolutionists have a lot of faith in what you believe. And I think you would need alot of faith to believe it. Oh and one more thing even some evolutionists believe that there has to be a creator only they believe in ET life that is weird. There is a God and overwhelming evidence pointing to it and very little to evolution even then its quite unstable. (Building theory: it starts out as a simple pile of bricks and SLOWLY becomes a more complex structure OR It has a CREATOR who builds it.)
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Chromosome # 2

Interestingly enough, my opponent did not respond to my claims regarding the failures of his objections to the Chromosome # 2 argument provided. Therefore, this argument stands as strong evidence for evolution, due to the same reasons outlined in my previous round.


Directly Observed Evolution/ Speciation

This section of mine was the smoking gun, yet it went unaddressed. The very fact that new species have been observed to evolve in laboratories directly over long periods of study, shows that evolution is a fact and not only a theory. Directly observed evolution/ speciation negates the resolution alone.


Why is Creationism false?

This section still went untouched by Pro, as it seems he is having a hard time keeping up with the arguments provided. This is no fault of mine however, and I urge voters to take this blatant neglect to my arguments serious when the voting process begins.


Additional Claims Made By Pro (2)

"Ok the Archaeopteryx fossil is ONE fossil name some others that have these same traits because there MUST be a ton others in the in between stages they COULDN'T have all gotten wiped out right? And how did its flight develop?"

Fossilization is a rare occurance [1]. We wouldn't expect to find very many of these fossils, and not all fossils have been discovered yet.


"Evolution states that life began as a chance combination of nonliving chemicals."

First off, this is switching the goal posts. The resolution here is with regards to Evolution, not Abiogenesis (the hypothesis pertaining to the origin of life)[2]. Regardless, Abiogenesis as improbable as it would be, becomes much more probable the more times the odds are played out. For example, rolling a 6 on a dice seems unlikely, but if you roll the dice over and over again, the odds of you getting a 6 become much more apparent. If we apply this concept to Abiogenesis, then it becomes rather plausible. Reactions involving chemistry have been playing out billions of years before life began (as far as we know), so given a certain amount of time, the chance that life will emerge is high.

"Natural selection is the idea that the fittest survive and pass along their traits to their offspring.
Down below are animals no evolutionists have the right to claim that they happened by chance (In my opinion anyway):"

Here lies the problem. Nobody is saying that "chance" is the main culprit here. It's a natural mechanism (natural selection) which functions in a way that leads to certain outcomes. It has nothing to do with pure randomness, like my opponent is trying to make it seem.


"Consider the little fish, wrasses that act as cleaners. The mouths of fish accumulate food debris and parasites, and they have no toothbrush! So wrasses clean them up inside and out. They swim into the mouths of big fish amongst the vicious looking teeth. The big fish make no attempt to eat these little cleaner fish. Even the spotted trunk-fish that exudes a poison from its skin withholds that poison while its cleaned up. In 1977, Nobel prize winner Albert Szent-Gyorgyi said in Synthesis Vol. 1: 1"

None of the above observations support intelligent design, over natural selection though. Natural selection might not be only mechanism driving evolution for all we know. However, no reason has been given as to why this fish indicates sentient creation.


"All this may sound very simple, but it involves a whole series of most complicated chain reactions with a horribly complex underlying nervous mechanism. All this had to be developed simultaneously. The chance of this happening as a random mutation has the probability of zero."

My opponent has not stated the contents of the variables used to make this particular mathematical conclusion work. The underlying assumptions have not been justified here.


"None of the pieces in this evolutionary puzzle have any survival value until the whole set is functioning together.... Plan, purpose, and special creation are far more likely than time, chance, and natural processes."

Pro mentioned complex functions of a woodpecker as well, and then went on to say that special creation is far more likely than time, chance, and natural processes. He backs this up with the assertion that this evolutionary puzzle had no survival value. Lets say we granted that conclusion, this in no way this undermines evolution. This is because nobody is making the claim that evolutionary changes of this nature necessarily lead to a survival benefit of some kind. Just because this happens to be a main function, does not make it necessary for every occurrence. For this reason, my opponent's arguments here do not hold much weight.


"If it had the heart and wondernet without the valves in the jugular vein, the wondernet would burst. All associated features must be in place simultaneously. The giraffe's neck is a testimony to special design and planning.."

What warrant is there for the notion that all associated features must be in place simultaneously? The giraffe's neck being a testimony to special design and planning seems like a subjective claim here, more than one backed up by empirical evidence.


"Imagine the first beetle evolving this system. If it had not evolved the inhibitor, the beetle would blow up! With any other of the component chemicals missing, the toad would have eaten the beetle. In other words, it could not have evolved gradually over time."

This is a non-sequitur. "It could not have evolved gradually over time" does not follow from "If it had not evolved the inhibitor, the beetle would blow up! With any other of the component chemicals missing, the toad would have eaten the beetle."


"In my opinion I think that Evolutionist take evolution (SMALL 'e') blow it up and make it Evolution (BIG 'E')"

Big 'E' is a necessary effect of Small 'e' and time. If any things, creationists try to imagine a non-existent barrier which would prevent Big 'E' existing due to Small 'e' plus time for evolution to occur. Regardless, I already provided exampled of macroevolution in my first round, which went entirely unscathed.

"If the world was MILLIONS of years old then why hasn't it suffered so much damage and how was it created in the first place? The BIG BANG? How did the thing that caused the big bang get there? Then HOW DID THE CHEMICALS GET THERE? It is INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


First off, the Earth is billions of years old, not millions [3].

"I understand we have to be sensitive to people's feelings, but in all honesty there is no serious scientist who wouldn't acknowledge all the evidence that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old..." - Francis Albarede

Also, asking about The Big Bang is switching the goal posts again. We are discussing Evolution, not The Big Bang. My opponent is all over the place, and is having a hard time keeping a coherent case together.

Conclusion

My objections to his rebuttal to my argument with regards to Chromosome # 2 went untouched. Therefore, it stands. My section involving directly observed evolution/ speciation went untouched. Therefore, it stands (this negates the resolution alone). Also, my opponent also failed to address how unlikely it would be to not find older human fossils if evolution was false. The fact that all fossils are dated according to the evolutionary tree is strong evidence for evolution. My opponent then went on about how "chance" is too unlikely, but chance isn't the only factor at play here, which makes his probability arguments trivial. It's safe to say that Pro did not meet his burden of proof, while I met mine.

Sources

[1] http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.universetoday.com...
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ZoellEmerson1499 4 years ago
ZoellEmerson1499
First off I'm terrible with grammer also so your fine. Second you said that thing about god creating a more powerful being than himself well.... first tell me this >infinity? It is stupid to measure it cause its infinite and I'll admit you have very powerfut arguments. Another thing god is not made up of matter because he is A GOD and he is so powerful no tiny human brain would be able to lower his greatness by putting him into something we could understand. And he knew we would try to do this that is why he sent Jesus so we could relate to him instead. And like I said before he gave every human a choice and he knew which choice they were gonna make thats why he sent jesus so he could die for us and give us another chance to live and it doesnt please him to see what we choose thats why in the old tesament he sent a flood and took noah and his family (who still had sinned cause their human but FOLLOWED him faithfully) and reinhabited the earth with them. And God lives in heaven where no human can reach or even get close except by the grace of God. ANd many people have ALL these questions and more and they arnt stupid so keep on asking them us christians will be ready to try and provide you answers. Hope this helped!
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
I will admit i may have gone wrong in one area. I should not have said god could not exist because a perfectly good being cannot commit evil acts. I should have said if god does exist he cannot be perfectly good because he commits evil acts and creates things that commit even more evil acts. God did not give us a choice when it comes down to it he is supposdedly all powerful and all knowing meaning when he creates one thing he knows all the choices the organism has and knows all the choices the organism is going to make. Which woud basically mean he creates evil people then sends them to hell to suffer for eternity. It also means getting into hell or heaven would be like winning the lottery if you are lucky god made you knowing you would do good deeds so your ticket to heaven is guarenteed As for the rest of the unlucky people they get to burn in hellfire forever becase god made you knowing you would commit evil acts just so he could make you suffer for it
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
THat was just one of my arguments. Yes my grammar is horrible beccause i do this at night and dont care too much about spelling or punctuation when i cant see my keys it would take me forever to post.
The reason i said no being can be all powerful is because of the definitions. The definitions are not flawed they perfectly describe somthing as all powerful.

there are two definitions. (1) The ability to do all things even the logically absurd.
(2) The ability to do all things logical.

The reason the 1st definition does not work is because if god can do even the logically absurd he would be able to create a being more powerful than himself but if that were possible he could not be all powerful so god cannot be all powerful by this definition.

(2) God cannot be all powerfull by the second definition because of motion. If god is all powerful and bound by logic then he would have to be made up of mass and/or energy. Ek=1/2mv^2 F=ma no kinetic energy results in 0 movement no mass results in 0 force no force= no movement. IF god is made up of mass and energy then he again cannot be all powerful as his power would be limited based on the matter and energy he is made up of. If god does not have the ability to move objects on his own then he is not all powerful
Posted by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
I get tired of hearing these simple arguments like Narmaks wherea perfect God cannot create an imperfect world. It is too simple minded and the staement does not have much thought behind it.
Posted by StevenDixon 4 years ago
StevenDixon
I love savedbychrist's votebomb.

"macro-evolution" has already been refuted, for example under evolution Homosexuality would be wrong, when it isn't wrong and rape would be right when FACTUALLY it is ALWAYS wrong"

hahaha
Posted by Misfire 4 years ago
Misfire
First of all, I'm an atheist - just to get that out of the way.
Secondly, atheist means atheist. I'm not agnostic.

In light of my religious disbelief I am inclined to agree with narmak. But, being the perfectly rational human being I am, I feel the need to defend Zoell's point here (not that I am assuming he/she is incapable, just that I would like to butt in).

narmak, your argumentation is weak. "An all powerful perfectly good all knowing being would not make somthing that was evil has he would know it would do evil acts before he made it." Atrocious grammar aside, you don't know that. One of the most underrated, unrecognized theist arguments is that God(s) exist outside of our perceptible understanding of logic - meaning that rationale arguments concerning a deity's actions (or lack thereof) are rendered ineffective.

"(All knowing) be unable to commit evil acts or create things that would do evil acts( Perfectly good ) and have the power to stop any evil acts from occurring( all powerful)" Presumably, Zoell is a Christian. The Christian God is characteristic for allowing choice and not intervening when it would undermine that concept.

"Also no being can be all powerful" Do I even have to address this?

_______________________

All things aside, narmak, I'm simply saying that you should use some of the hundreds of more effective (if you could call it that) arguments our side has, instead of resorting to flawed logical conclusions.
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
you missed the point dude i said god cannot exist because a perfectly good being would be incapable of making somthing evil or somthing that would do evil acts
Posted by PabloM 4 years ago
PabloM
"And many people believe that the bird-reptile thing was a mosque of the features of both creatures."

Did you mean "mosaic"...?
Posted by ZoellEmerson1499 4 years ago
ZoellEmerson1499
God made this earth knowing it would turn bad but also knowing there would be people who loved I'm he gave us a choice instead of being mindless robots worshiping him. I would feel more loved if only one of my creations chose me and all the rest despised me because I knew they had a choice and I wouldn't care much if they do it because they HAD to. And many people struggle with your argument ( including Christians) and I'm sure you've heard of the devil he is another choice the easiest to follow and the one who will abandon you in the end. He has the power to wipe evil out yes but he chooses not to and he could make us die forever except he sent his son to die for us so that we may have a chance to live again. It does seem hard to believe in a all knowing God and I personally str5uggle with that but I am reminded when I think I m to far gone that he loves me and I get stronger in my faith.
Now I'm sure that may not have all been the info you needed but I hope this helps!
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
believing in god has no logic in it dude. An all powerful perfectly good all knowing being would not make somthing that was evil has he would know it would do evil acts before he made it(All knowing) be unable to commit evil acts or create things that would do evil acts( Perfectly good ) and have the power to stop any evil acts from occurring( all powerful)

Also no being can be all powerful
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
ZoellEmerson1499Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments and conducts: Pro has ignored con's speciation arguments and instead tried to change the subject. Con used arguments that deal with information from sources and probability of evolution while Pro's arguments were weak and sometimes were not relevant. However, con used too much wikipedia as sources, making him lose the source point.
Vote Placed by thp078 4 years ago
thp078
ZoellEmerson1499Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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: This was just sad. Con beat Pro into the ground.
Vote Placed by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
ZoellEmerson1499Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not back up his assertion that evolution has been observed directly in labs. It has not. Lab tests overwhelming show there are limits to mutation and things tend to move back to the mean. Pro did just enough to take the debate. It was close.
Vote Placed by medv4380 4 years ago
medv4380
ZoellEmerson1499Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did too many Wiki citations to give the any points for Sources, but Pro lacked any reliable sources. Pro abused punctuation and talked in Caps so Conduct and grammar goes to Con. Pro ignored the resolution of "Creation is true" and focused on "Evolution is only a theory and will not be fact". Pro failed to prove Creation is true, and did not counter any of Cons points regarding Creation. Even if the Earth was younger than we think the fossil record shows we didn't exist at the same time as other organisms. It needed to be addressed, but Pro ignored it.
Vote Placed by Apeiron 4 years ago
Apeiron
ZoellEmerson1499Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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: Con supported quite sufficiently only a little bit of the overwhelming evidence we now have for evolution in general (and EvoDevo in particular). Archaeopteryx was affirmed for Pro even. Sources also go to con since he used more quality and quantity.
Vote Placed by Enji 4 years ago
Enji
ZoellEmerson1499Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB SavedByChrist94
Vote Placed by SavedByChrist94 4 years ago
SavedByChrist94
ZoellEmerson1499Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: "macro-evolution" has already been refuted, for example under evolution Homosexuality would be wrong, when it isn't wrong and rape would be right when FACTUALLY it is ALWAYS wrong.