The Instigator
Jedd
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
DerKurbis
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution is true, Creationism is false.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Jedd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 556 times Debate No: 86454
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)

 

Jedd

Pro

I suppose the title is simple enough that there is no need to define anything.

Pro will argue that Evolution is true, Creationism is false, vice versa for Con.

Burden of proof is shared.

Basic opening point: There are tons of evidence supporting evolution. What does creationism have?
DerKurbis

Con

Creationism has plenty of evidence stating that it exists. First of all, I would like to state that I have an Old Earth Creationists approach to this debate. I believe that the universe was created by God, but I do not necessarily believe that it was created in a week. I accept the age of the universe and the age of the earth, but I do not believe in evolution. Secondly, I would like to ask why would humans evolve from apes? We have no natural defense mechanisms. We can barely defend ourselves better than a common domestic pig, without weapons. Weapons really are the only things that allow us to defend ourselves. Without them, we would be sunk.

Evolution is only a theory. That means that it can very well be false. You state that there is tons of evidence supporting evolution. Please state what that evidence is.

When it comes to ancient human fossils, they were either human or ape. There were no such things as Neanderthals. They were just disfigured human remains. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that we are progressively moving closer towards disorder, however, evolution implies an improvement of species. Please explain how a theory can counteract a scientific theory.

http://io9.gizmodo.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Jedd

Pro

'Creationism has plenty of evidence stating that it exists.'
Could you state a few of those? That would be really interesting and beneficial to the debate.

'I would like to ask why would humans evolve from apes? We have no natural defense mechanisms. We can barely defend ourselves better than a common domestic pig, without weapons. Weapons really are the only things that allow us to defend ourselves.'
I can't tell you why would humans evolve from apes as much as you can tell me why do mountains exist. There is no why, there is only a 'how'. In a nutshell, though climate change Africa, the origin of the first Homo species (OOA theory) was beginning to change from being a forest to grassland. Trees got fewer and fewer until the apes, being accustomed to trees, had to venture into the grassland in search of food and water. Gradually, the tall grass made them have to stand erect to see, fingers became more versatile as we invented tools, brains became larger as we evolved to be more intelligent. We can barely defend ourselves better than a domestic pig, true, but given that we have the best intelligence in nature, we can build, pass the knowledge down from generation to generation and accumulate even more knowledge. Spears made from flint and fire for warmth, combined with our unity in tribes and teams, our knowledge, were already enough for us to adapt to the environment, fend off predators and hunt for food. But some species of Homo did hit some bad luck and went extinct, like Neantherdals. Those who cannot adapt die off. Those who can, here you are now. Natural selection.

'Evolution is only a theory. That means that it can very well be false.'
Please don't confuse the English term for 'theory' and a scientific theory. Scientific theories have been observed, tested, experimented on and with plentiful evidence and that none to refute it, confirmed on many different occasions. The Theory of Relativity, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Plate Tectonics are all widely accepted theories. Basically, it's the closest you can get to absolute truth in science, but it remains a theory because science keeps an open mind.

'You state that there is tons of evidence supporting evolution. Please state what that evidence is.'
Sure! Here are few, followed by a quick explanation/example.
1) Paleontology: The discovery of fossils showing forms of animals that had never previously been seen began, and that fossils provide the only direct evidence for the history of evolution. http://ncse.com...
2) Biogeography: The distribution of species in relation both to geography and to other species. http://www.sparknotes.com...
3) Embryology: Many traits of one type of animal appear in the embryo of another type of animal. For example, fish embryos and human embryos both have gill slits. In fish they develop into gills, but in humans they disappear before birth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
4) Molecular Evolution: The process of change in the sequence composition of cellular molecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins across generations. https://en.wikipedia.org...
5) Comparative Biology: Comparative biology is a cross-lineage approach to understanding the phylogenetic history of individuals or higher taxa and the mechanisms and patterns that drives it. https://en.wikipedia.org...

'When it comes to ancient human fossils, they were either human or ape. There were no such things as Neanderthals. They were just disfigured human remains.'
Could you specify a credible source to back that up? Neantherdals were a species or subspecies of human in the genus Homo which became extinct around 40,000 years ago. They were closely related to modern humans, having DNA over 99.5% the same. https://en.wikipedia.org...
From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils
You're right. They were the genus Homo, sharing a common ancestor with the apes, halfway on the evolutionary line to become Homo Sapiens, or humans. https://en.wikipedia.org...

'The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that we are progressively moving closer towards disorder, however, evolution implies an improvement of species.'
You clearly have no idea what The Second Law of Thermodynamics is. A system without exchange of matter with the surroundings, the change in system entropy exceeds the heat exchanged with the surroundings, divided by the temperature of the surroundings. It doesn't mean we are heading towards disorder, it's merely a law for how energy dissipates, resulting in an increase of entropy. Which clearly has nothing to do with the topic.

Well, I'm out of characters. I'm awaiting whatever evidence you have that says an all mighty sky father created everything in 6 days, based on your book of fairy tales.
DerKurbis

Con

DerKurbis forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Jedd

Pro

Do you have no more proof then?
DerKurbis

Con

No, I do have more proof. I was not online during that round, and I apologize for that.

There are two types of science, observational science, which involves the world as it is, and historical science, which involves the world in the past. As none of us have lived in the distant past, we are merely assuming what has happened. The Book of Genesis was written by Moses, a prophet of God. God spoke to Moses, and Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, which includes creation. That is a firsthand account of the start of mankind.

You state that we have the best intelligence in nature. Explain why, if we have said intelligence, we are destroying the world with war, pollution and all of the other man-produced problems that were caused. We consistently repeat the same mistakes over and over again, throughout history. The Bible states that it is because Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree, that humans discovered sin, but it appears that science has no evidence regarding this.

You state that science keeps an open mind. Then why, if it keeps such an open mind, does it reject creationism? Palaeontology may prove that dinosaurs once existed, but how do we know whether or not they coexisted with humans. Carbonic dating could help, but is not necessarily reliable. Biogeography is just false. Organisms are in those places because God put them there. Don't invasive species also counteract biogeography? Embryology is also not true. If the human embryo has gills, that is just because it needs to be able to live in the womb for nine months. Fish have gills because they have to live in the water all their lives.

https://answersingenesis.org... This here is a source as to why Neanderthals did not exist and here is another: https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com... You state that there are over 6000 fossils of early human remains. That still does not prove that Neanderthals existed. Those could be disfigured, diseased or damaged remains. They weren't on the "evolutionary line to become Homo Sapiens," because they were Homo Sapiens.

http://io9.gizmodo.com...
This was the site that stated that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution. After looking up the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I must agree with you in saying that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not have anything to do with this topic.

Another thing is the Five Proofs of the Existence of God by Thomas Aquinas. https://en.wikipedia.org...
  1. Motion: Some things undoubtedly move, though cannot cause their motion. Since, there can be no infinite chain of causes of motion, there must be a First Mover, not moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God.
  2. Causation: As in the case of motion, nothing can cause itself, and an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be a First Cause, called God.
  3. Existence of necessary and the unnecessary: Our experience includes things certainly existing but apparently unnecessary. Not everything can be unnecessary, for then once there was nothing and there would still be nothing. Therefore, we are compelled to suppose something that exists necessarily, having this necessity only from itself; in fact itself the cause for other things to exist.
  4. Gradation: If we can notice a gradation in things in the sense that some things are more hot, good, etc., there must be a superlative that is the truest and noblest thing, and so most fully existing. This then, we call God.
  5. Ordered tendencies of nature: A direction of actions to an end is noticed in all bodies following natural laws. Anything without awareness tends to a goal under the guidance of one who is aware. This we call God.

I am going to ignore that last comment about my God, my beliefs and my religion. I am done with this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Jedd

Pro

It's cool, m8.

' As none of us have lived in the distant past, we are merely assuming what has happened. The Book of Genesis was written by Moses, a prophet of God. God spoke to Moses, and Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, which includes creation. That is a firsthand account of the start of mankind.'
Merely assuming what has happened. That applies to you too. And what did Moses have, a God phone? Did God come down to Earth to have some tea? Again, the only evidence you have that the Bible is God's word is the Bible, same as the evidence for God, Moses being the writer and Creationism. Which, the Bible is right because God says so, and God is right because the Bible says so. Open your eyes, the Bible is just made up fiction.

'Explain why, if we have said intelligence, we are destroying the world with war, pollution and all of the other man-produced problems that were caused.'
A chimpanzee's intelligence doesn't even come close to ours, that's why I said we have the best intelligence in nature. This is irrelevant to intelligence. And no, it wasn't because of the 2 fictional characters ate from some tree that we discovered wrongdoing. There is no right or wrong in nature, it's just survival.

'If science keeps such an open mind, why does it reject creationism?'
Because there is no evidence at all, as opposed to evolution, which has tons.If one day there is undeniable proof for creationism, then science will support it too.

'how do we know whether or not dinosaurs coexisted with humans.'
No dinosaur fossils found with humans' or any other modern mammal is the simplest irrefutable answer. Dinosaurs would have found humans as easy prey too. The meteor (crater in Yucat"n Peninsula) that wiped out the dinosaurs would have rendered humans extinct too.

'Biogeography is just false.'
Continental shifts and plate tectonics suggest otherwise. Some invisible nonexistent dude putting them there makes much less sense.

'Don't invasive species also counteract biogeography?'
That's because humans introduced them to new places.

'If the human embryo has gills, that is just because it needs to be able to live in the womb for nine months.'
What the damn. I suggest you do some research before you state anything here. You don't even know what an embryo is. https://en.wikipedia.org... And no, I don't refer to pro-evolution websites for reference.

' That still does not prove that Neanderthals existed. They weren't on the "evolutionary line to become Homo Sapiens," because they were Homo Sapiens.'
Oh please. Neantherdals' skulls look like ape's skulls but more human, this is the simplest of explanations. If you could just bring a science website as a reference instead of those so desperate as to ignore plain evidence, that would be great. If you're so sure that Neantherdals don't exist, go show it to the experts and win a Nobel prize.

'there must be a First Mover, not moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God.'
No, God doesn't make rain. It is an endless cycle of evaporation, condensation, rainfall, water flowing into the river and going back to the sea again. Life is an endless cycle, God has nothing to do with anything.

'an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be a First Cause, called God.'
I am so darned tired of this. Why do theists refer everything that happens to be a motive of God? Look at how desperate that sentence is. There must be something...it must be God. That can't happen...it must be God. If the tables were switched, it would sound something like this: 'Why are black holes dark? Must be science. Why is 1+1=2? Must be science. How does gravity work? Science.' This is the philosophical fallacy every theist clings on to as it is the only thing science can't explain yet.

'Our experience includes things certainly existing but apparently unnecessary.'
Why do mountains exist? Why is the color blue blue? There is no why, there is only a how. Why doesn't suggest there's God, how is debunked by science.

'There must be a superlative that is the truest and noblest thing, and so most fully existing. This then, we call God.'
This is the most desperate claim I have ever seen.

'A direction of actions to an end is noticed in all bodies following natural laws. Anything without awareness tends to a goal under the guidance of one who is aware. This we call God.'
Then God is just another name for gravity, light, atoms... We are not going to say God keeps us on the ground, things are made of tiny God, it's dark, turn on the God. Stop claiming credit for everything, God.

Well, there we have it, no evidence for creationism whatsoever, God too. I'd like Con to refute my evidence, if possible. Evolution is already accepted worldwide, even some open-minded Christians support it. It fits all available evidence and is close as you can get to a fact. You try to refute one piece of evidence, there's a mountain of others to back it up.
DerKurbis

Con

No, "merely assuming" does not apply to my argument. Moses was a primary source. Obviously he did not have a "God phone." He prayed and God spoke to him. Anyway, I do not just have the Bible as my only source. Didn't you even read my last argument? At the end, I cited Thomas Aquinas. At other points, I cited certain websites, one of which was pro-evolution.

We do not have wars to survive. Many times, we have wars out of greed, conflict or other reasons that only a human could understand. Pollution is pretty much all man-made. There are some natural forms, but it is mostly all man-made. Evolution is supposed to have organisms adapt to problems like these. However, we are not really adapting to said problems. We are barely making it through and many organisms are dying off from it.

According to Biblical scholars, the world is only about 6000-8000 years old. Even if God made them in the Pangaea position, the tectonic plates would not have enough time to move. I am not denying that they are not moving, but as Thomas Aquinas said, "As in the case of motion, nothing can cause itself, and an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be a First Cause, called God."
https://en.wikipedia.org...

God does not take credit for everything. God created gravity, light, atoms and all of those things. Nobody calls those things "God." I don't name everything I create after myself, and I do not know anyone who does that.

I now have to go to church to worship my God, who created everything in six days. Thank you for debating.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God"s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
You see Jedd, all your denials doesn't tke away the punishment you face. it remains there for you to see, ponder and one day in your future experience, along with all other non fact finding people, ignores of truth. But it DOESN'T HAVE to BE that way for you Jedd. God said WHOMSOEVER WILL COME, may come, Romans 10:13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." 14How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?xxxx think about it Jedd, there is STILL TIME, but I wouldn't wait much longer were I you?
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
hypothesis " thesis " conjecture " supposition " speculation " postulation " postulate " proposition " premise " surmise " assumption " presupposition " opinion " view " belief " contention " principles " ideas " concepts " philosophy " ideology ,and last but certainly not least a system of ideas " science!!! I mean you guys are soooo desperate that FACT don't even NEED to be involved. God said in Romans you WOULD do exactly that Jedd. You would choose to IGNORE Him Don't believe it? Romans chapter 1 says it all! 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
My point has been made, and it has been made by you, sooooo Thank you Jedd. You lose! quote"I will ignore your example" unquote. You see Jedd that's been you Atheist, Theorist, Humanist problem the whole time. Your NOT LOOKING for truth? your looking for anything that will give you comfort that your not going to have to spend eternity in punishment! So desperate are you boys to attempt to avoid the knowledge that your going to be held accountable for your wrongful deeds, being cast into eternal flames that you'll cling to ANYTHING no matter how squirrely.
Posted by Jedd 1 year ago
Jedd
Again. Don't confuse the English term 'theory' with a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

In this case, 'theory' in English translates to 'hypothesis' in science. It's just that science is so humble that it stays a theory, not a fact.

Some other scientific theories include cells, atoms and gravity. Anyone who thinks gravity is the English term for 'theory' is welcome to jump off a ten floor window.
Posted by Jedd 1 year ago
Jedd
http://necsi.edu...
http://necsi.edu...
http://necsi.edu...
http://necsi.edu...
http://humanorigins.si.edu...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_23
http://www.hhmi.org...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.nature.com...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://anthro.palomar.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4

I could give you 2 pages more worth of links but I know you wouldn't read them. That's the problem with religion. You are so caught up with your views written 2000 years ago that you openly decline every piece of evidence given to you. There wouldn't be any scientists making big breakthroughs and understanding the world we live in now if everyone would just have your mindset. The people's intellectual growth would have halted.

I just suggest you question everything. A personal connection with God is harmless, but don't believe everything they tell you. Have you been indoctrinated with Christ as a child? Then this is the time you think with your own mind. I'm not pushing you to be an atheist, I'm just telling you to think critically, have doubts. Maybe you fear Hell. But what truth
Posted by Jedd 1 year ago
Jedd
And that's why the coelacanth is now a critically endangered species. Without human intervention to help preserve it it would be extinct by the hands of natural selection.

Bringing up the silver fox experiment demonstrates how little you know about evolution. The experiment was run only for 50 years. What do you think, a new species pops up overnight? Atheists read and study the bible too, it'd be nice if people actually read some science to return the favor.

Evolution has already been confirmed as much as the existence of Napoleon. There are thousands and thousands of independent evidence all pointing in the same direction. Creationism, however, has not a single shred.

I will ignore your example. I suggest you go study up on how evolution works.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
a theory is generally accepted fact? Your kidding aren't you? Theory and FACT by their very definition are in conflict!
the"o"ry.NOUN 1.a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Darwin's theory of evolution" <-----ohhhhh BUST!! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Definition: fact.NOUN 1.a thing that is indisputably the case: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"she lacks political experience"a fact that becomes clear when she appears in public" " xxxxxxxxx
synonyms: reality " actuality " certainty " truth " verity " gospel <------- Ohhhhh BUST!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
The ONLY scientific evidence for evolution is its ability to change from fairytail to fact without a single scientific piece of evidence to be shown in the entirety of the globe! Show the evidence. point it out where we can go to the page. I mean if there IS an actual proof that does exist .... it should be available by now. And no monkey bones because ..... don't make me say it ....... okay, because monkey bones ARE monkey bones aren't they? show your scientific evidence or admit defeat!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Coelacanth did not evolve. It contiues to be the same as it was 400 million years ago. The silver fox experiment prove that the only evolution is that 2 silver foxes can produce every color and flavor of foxes, but at its end, foxes is what you get. Not a new species in the bunch. Flies experiment done because of short life span, produced every type and kind of fly after multiple generations, but alas not a new speciein the bunch. If you just use reason it becomes clear that evolution is hogwash. I mean picture it, here you go trying to morph into some seacreature from a land creature, you finally getting your nitch them WHAM, you get eatin because the legs you USED to use to run with are now flipper like and you can run worth squat! Remember predators ain't gonna wait for you to EVOLVE before they eat your changin self.
Posted by jglass841 1 year ago
jglass841
A scientific theory is as high as it gets. A theory is a generally accepted fact which explains how an event occurs, and a law states that something occurs. Therefore, evolution is a generally accepted fact, and the majority of scientists that know what they are talking about agree with it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
JeddDerKurbisTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeited turn.