Evolution is true, Creationism is false.
Debate Rounds (4)
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?
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.
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 forfeited this round.
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.
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...
I am going to ignore that last comment about my God, my beliefs and my religion. I am done with this round.
' 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.
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."
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 8 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeited turn.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.