The Instigator
Kc1999
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
GodChoosesLife
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points

Evolution is the most sensible model for the development of life

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,452 times Debate No: 45600
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Kc1999

Pro

First round is acceptance. Second round is debate (no rebuttals). Third Round is rebuttals. Fourth Round is Counter-Rebuttal.

I shall be arguing for the case; Evolution is the most sensible model for the development of life. The opponent would argue the opposite.

Rules:
1. No Ad Hominem (Personal Attacks: attack the opponent's points, but not the opponent)
2. No Trolling
3. No plagiarising
3. Try to keep religion away from this debate, but if that proves to hard for you, then yep, put in religion

Good Luck and Have Fun!
GodChoosesLife

Con

I accept :)
Debate Round No. 1
Kc1999

Pro

Evolution provides us humans with a rational explanation of what we have: our earths, our trees, our lives, and how these things I have stated developed into what it is today. Evolution provides us humans with a sensible explanation of how we came to be human beings, and attempts to leave many questions unanswered. Evolution is the rational reaction to religion and it's attempt to explain, without any facts though, how the world was made. I support evolution because of the following contentions:

1. Alternative Theories Don't Make Sense

Creationism, the most common alternative to evolution, just don't make sense. For example, how could the earth be 4,000 years old, when we have trees, whose ages are verified, 1,000 years older than the earth. We also have rocks, limestone, and fossils older than 4,000 years. Creationism also has to account for one man and his family building a huge ark, about the size of the ship Wyoming, and put many animals on that ship; creationists failed to provide any evidence of how they built the ship, and/or gathered all the animals abroad. They also have to live by natural laws, and on the ship, there would clearly be a shortage of food. Many other reasons, like the mere fact that there are no Grand Canyons in every continent (Grand Canyons are where the water from the Great Flood seems to have drained off too), and that there are no remains of Kangaroos in India, but Kangaroo Fossils in Australia (supposedly Noah's Ark landed in the Middle East, and all the animals on Noah's Ark survived. However, if Noah's Ark landed in the Middle East, how did Kangaroos get to Australia, and die there?), all support my case.

2. We have loads of evidence
Evolution is supported by the fact that we found fossils that date in a chronological order: for example, a fossil of a bacteria was found and was dated (using the Carbon Method) to 3.5 billion years. Scientists then uncovered more and more fossils; more types of animals were found. Amphibians, Reptiles, Mammals (us), Bacteria....The list goes on forever, but we seemed to have made more connections here. If the creation theory is correct, then we should find reptiles, mammals and amphibians all at 4000BC, but that is not the case. Another argument for evolution is in the DNA; scientists sequencing information on DNA found that Bacterium DNA were identical to those in us humans. Also, the DNA between Chimps and Humans are 97% identical, which only proves our points. If creationism is true, then human DNAs should not be similar to the Chimp's DNAs at all, as humans were created by god. Because of the plethora of evidence that supports evolution, I believe evolution provides a very sensible model.

Clearly evolution is superior because it has scientific proof; science is rational, and we live in a rational world, where only rational decisions make sense. Provided with our evidence, we should embrace evolution instead of denying it. Therefore, evolution is the most sensible explanation of the developments of human life.

I would like to wish the opponent the best of luck in her arguments.

Citations:
http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk...
GodChoosesLife

Con

Evolution is not the most sensible model for the development of life.

Creation is a big reason for the development of life. Without a creator how would someone explain the "evolution" claim of things just coming to being? It doesn't.

Sorry, so short of a response :/
SO busy with school, other debates, and other stuff. I'll try to make sure to reply better in my next round. Thank you for your patience Krit! Your awesome!
Didn't wanna FF though either.
Debate Round No. 2
Kc1999

Pro

In my DP, you see my angry idol, Chuvit Kalmovisit. That was arbitrary. Lol. It seems that the opponent has semi-forfeitted the last round (Ms.Lion, if you have loads of work, then this should be on your none-prioritized list). Nevertheless, her points will do as all I shall (and I could do) is rebut.



"Creation is a big reason for the development of life. Without a creator how would someone explain the "evolution" claim of things just coming to being? It doesn't. "

True; anything created has a creator. That creator makes things "evolutionize" into complex beings; but who is the creator? That is where, I believe, our ideals disagree; a creator is someone/something that creates life. The idea that god is the eternal creator of all life form, and that he created in the same period, does not match our evidence.

For example, in my last argument, I echoed some points that disproves this; I shall now grasp onto those points. A bacterial fossil was dated to 3.5 billion years and then through each life "form" periods, we found more and more types of animals. These lifetime periods are called Eons; geological Eons. The first mamals appeared during the Mezosozic Eon; we humans only appeared 200,000,000 years ago, or at least what we know as humans right know.

Creationism provides us with a not-so rational explanation of the world, and many points of creationist theory goes false everyday.

For example, it is well believed that Noah landed his Ark in the Middle East, but we find Kangaroo Fossils in Australia. If all animals came into the ark as the story is believed, then how did Noah and his pets get to Australia when there are no landbridges connecting Australia to Asia? That disproves the entire theory; many other points of the theory gets disproved by the scientific proof we are provided with every minute. For example, if the huge flood was drained off in 1 year, then there must be Grand Canyons where the flood could drain off to in every continent; that is not the case. More geological proof shows that layers over layers of rocks (some up to 18km deep) were discovered. Because of this, the mere structure of the earth was formed; because rocks form very slowly, it is doubted that anyone in 6 days, or 6,000 years, could've made such layers. T

And how do we know evolution is the most sensible model? Quite simply this: the earth's rock formation and proof of tectonic plates moving around simply proove this. Tectonic Plates move slowly (very slowly; but however, we see that there are some fossils of the same coastal species on both sides of the world (in Africa and South America). This prooves that the age of the earth goes further than 6,000 years old. Also, the mere number of species we know exist today outweight those that could be produced in such a time; we would discover 11 new species everyday if the earth was young. Also, Old Tjikko (a pine tree) is 9,550 years old; many other trees can 10,000-20,000 years old. The earth is clearly older than these trees; if a tree is 20,000 years old, then the earth's age must be more than that. As I stated, our DNAs are almost 100% similar to those of chimps, suggesting we evolved from Chimps and other identical and less complex beings. We have also seen evolution happen with our own eyes in ring species; I have touched on this, and I will do it again; for example, the Klauberi and the eschscholtzii are two examples of ring species; both can interbreed, but they both have different skin color, but yet could interbreed. We humans are an example of ring species! Some of us have different skin color, yet we could breed.

Therefore, evolution provides a simple and clear cut model of the development of life in earth.


Citations:
http://en.wikipedia.org...




GodChoosesLife

Con

Thank you for your post. And I understand your points.

God is the creator, this is to your question.

Not sure where you get the idea of Noah's ark landing in the Middle East from? But okay.. Maybe if that be true, that the kangaroos ventured off to the other country. What's wrong with that?

Plate tectonics is a nice analogy, however it doesn't exactly prove that evolution is the cause for that. Everything around us is alive. Water, trees, animals, people, insects, the earth, the atmosphere. That cannot be by conincidence of some evolution form? It does not add together. There has to be something that created it and the only explanation would be is God.

How do you explain the most simplest thing as the pupil of a persons eyes? Every little detail of it is gloriously magnificent. How would evolution create such beauty? What would be the purpose of life if everything was revolved or evolved into existence?

Therefore, evolution is not the most sensible model for life of development. Creationism is.
Debate Round No. 3
Kc1999

Pro

Firstly I would like start with rebutting some of the opponents points.


"God is the creator, this is to your question."


This is where we disagree; a cell was our creator. We eventually evolved into humans because of a cell.

"Not sure where you get the idea of Noah's ark landing in the Middle East from? But okay.. Maybe if that be true, that the kangaroos ventured off to the other country. What's wrong with that?"

Australia was not connected to a landmass (at least in the last 6,000 years) at the time when Kangaroos were supposedly to have evolved. Kangaroo fossils were allegedly found in many places, but recent discoveries show that all Kangaroo fossils found outside of Australia has been a case of mistaken identity. Nevertheless, kangaroos may have attempted their diaspora to Australia, but this theory is faced with two serious challenges. As I have stated, there are no landbridges connecting Australia to any bigger landmass. But at the same time, if there was, then we should find fossils in South East Asia, which is definitely not the case. Kangaroo fossils are only found in Australia because they only existed there; there is no other explanation. So if Noah, his family, and the many other species of animals got on a boat and landed in some place of the world, Kangaroos suddenly existed in Australia.

"Plate tectonics is a nice analogy, however it doesn't exactly prove that evolution is the cause for that. Everything around us is alive. Water, trees, animals, people, insects, the earth, the atmosphere. That cannot be by conincidence of some evolution form? It does not add together. There has to be something that created it and the only explanation would be is God."

My point is that plate tectonic show that the earth is older than 6,000 years old. Also, the concept that God produced hundreds of thousands of species in six days is really quite astonishing; how come God was unable to help us, when bombs were falling upon his children? How come God was unable to help us, when poverty took over our lands? How come God, whose power was so powerful, is unable to help us in times of trouble? If God's grace is so large, and He is so kind to us, why hasn't He shown Himself to us? On a more scientific-evolutionary based note, if God truly created us, then why do we have such a similar DNA with a Chimpanzee? Then why do we have a 50-60% similar DNA to the simplest form of living things on earth, single-cell bacterias? Clearly, evolution gave us our current DNA strands, and we should embrace that.

"How do you explain the most simplest thing as the pupil of a persons eyes? Every little detail of it is gloriously magnificent. How would evolution create such beauty? What would be the purpose of life if everything was revolved or evolved into existence?"

Ok then. I will now explain the pupil of a persons eye. Firstly, there was a bacteria, who eventually evovled into a reptile, then to a mamal, then into an ape, then into a human. So our "super super great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great...(the list goes on and on)" Grandmothers and Grandfathers were single cell bacterias. Evolution creates this beauty because it makes the lifeform more complex; it is also a slow process. For example, a chimp might be tall, and another chimp may have blue eyes. When both chimps reproduce, their babies would have more or less the characteristics of their parents, and some new characteristics. That is how evolution happen.

How do we know that is true?

An experiment on Silver Foxes were performed; 130 Silver Foxes were taken from their lair. However, only the friendliest were allowed to breed. Scientists observed that by the tenth generation, 20% of these foxes became tame and friendly. By the 8th to 10th Generation, these foxes started developing spots. What does this show? This shows that the common understanding of human evolution has been seen in action. With proof in front of your eyes, evolution has been shown to be true.



Evolution is a very rational and sensible model of the creation of life because it is supported by the tectonic plates theory, which shows that the earth is very old. It is also supported by the ages of trees, and the similarity between our DNAs and other animal's DNAs, and the existence of "Ring Species".

I would like to thank the opponent for giving me this opportunity to debate, and I hoped she did enjoy it as much as I did. I wish her the best of luck in the next arguments and future debates.

Vote Pro!

Citations:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://scienceblogs.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.the-scientist.com...
GodChoosesLife

Con

Thank you pro for your response. Do to this being the last round I would've liked to further question my opponents statements, but am left to just state my conclusion.

Although pro defines the development of life being because of evolutional evolvement, but in regards, a cell must've been created as well. As cell cannot come into existence without it may have having a beginning. Therefore evolution cannot be the most sensible model for the development of life. Instead, creationism is the most sensible model for development of life because just like people work all the time, God (who was in and before the Beginning) worked to create the whole universe and everything in it.

Thanks again for the debate pro and I as well look forward to future debates! Best wishes to you! :)
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by WaterTipper 3 years ago
WaterTipper
GodChoosesLife: "Everything around us is alive. Water, trees, animals, people, insects, the earth, the atmosphere."

Lolwat
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
Thanks for replying Ms. Lion. I'm just a little behind schedule, so I'll definitely post tomorrow, and on Monday.
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
Oops.....
Posted by SPENCERJOYAGE14 3 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Um Krit, most creationists believe the earth is 6000 years old. It doesn't really matter but it's a fun fact.
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
Go away if you're not going to be productive; it's the way people interpret the evidence. These debates aren't useless, you actually get to refine your debating skills.
Posted by the_streetsurfer 3 years ago
the_streetsurfer
Guys, there is no proof for either creation or evolution. There is evidence for both but there is no proof. These debates are worthless when people start throwing the word "scientific proof" around. If there really was proof, then why is there a debate?! SMH
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by thesupporter 3 years ago
thesupporter
Kc1999GodChoosesLifeTied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro your arguments are weak you said tha Noah's ark landed in the Middle East? What is your reasoning In that and evolution doesn't make sence how can evolution happen when no one has seen it? And there is no records of that happening
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 3 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Kc1999GodChoosesLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the best arguments over all, they were well thought through. Con gets conduct for finishing the debate even with a limited time scheduled. Good job.