The Instigator
polka-dots323
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
73 Points

Evolution is true and the Big Bang occured.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,879 times Debate No: 2537
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (20)

 

polka-dots323

Con

I am obviously a religiouss person. I don't believe in evolution and the Big Bang didn't occur. I know thos because where did the stuff to create the atom that formed the universe come from??? Where did it start? I am not debating God's existance, for I know it is real and true. I am debating against these 2 theories and their lack of sense and evidence.
Kleptin

Pro

Since this popped up side by side with the challenge I received, I will argue this another way. Since my opponent is an ardent theist and I'm bored, I'll argue this with a twist.

I believe that in the beginning, there was God. And God was this "thing". And then, God just exploded and mass came into being. From the remnants of God came the forces that hold the universe together, atoms, and energy.

God as we know it, became the universe we know today.

So thus, I can believe in God, the Big Bang, and Evolution all at the same time.
Debate Round No. 1
polka-dots323

Con

Okay! :) This debate isn't about God though. This debate is about the Big Bang and evolution. How can you prove these two to me?
Kleptin

Pro

Well, all the scientists seem to agree that the evidence points towards the big bang and evolution.

Don't tell me you're just going to sit there, attempt to "refute" everything, then assume the Bible to default.

As my opponent has refused to contribute anything to this debate as of yet, I shall simply state this:

The theory of evolution being responsible for speciation and the concept of the big bang being responsible for the universe have been extensively studied and verified.

Motion in space dictates an overall "spreading out" of matter from a single position. In addition, abnormally energy levels between big gaps of matter in space indicate that there is some residual energy from a very, very intense reaction all throughout the known universe.

Evolution itself is so well understood that listing evidence here would take up all 7000 of my remaining characters. Evolution is backed by the fossil record, as well as visible speciation in fast-replicating organisms.

Since the scientific community has done so much work in heralding these two theories, it is my opponent's responsibility to offer counterpoints as to why we should oust these two theories. Not my responsibility to restate decades of research and study, especially not to someone who may have difficulty understanding the two subjects.
Debate Round No. 2
polka-dots323

Con

"Well, all the scientists seem to agree that the evidence points towards the big bang and evolution"

No, not all scientists agree. You should not assume that all scientists agree on one subject.

"Don't tell me you're just going to sit there, attempt to "refute" everything, then assume the Bible to default."

No, I am not going to "sit here and attempt to refute everything." I am GOING to refute. Also, I do not assume the Bible is true, I know it is.

"Evolution itself is so well understood"

Not really. Also, the same thing for the Big Bang. Here is proof. Okay, so evolution occurs through natural selection which occurs through mutations, am I correct? Well, the bacterial genome is what scientist believe everything evolved from. Correct? Well, the human genome contains much more information than a bacterial genome and through mutations, information is LOST! Not gained. So, how do you explain human genomes containing much much more information? That is just one fact that goes against evolution.

Okay, so you have the certain proteins and chemicals that combined to form DNA right? So, who decides if the chemicals and proteins work together? We have a code that shows us how DNA is composed. But, who created the code? It's like somebody having the word BAT as a combination of letters. To people who speak the English languages, it's a word, but to people of other tongues, it is just a combination of letters that is useless. How did this combination work? Did it just decide that Adenine and Thymine pair up while Cytosine and Guanine work together? It is a useless code unless created.

"Not my responsibility to restate decades of research and study, especially not to someone who may have difficulty understanding the two subjects."

I do understand the two subjects. It seems as though you have not done enough in-depth research to recognize the flaws of the two theories. I hope that others can see from just these two points I have made that evolution and life just arising from pretty much nothing is just not realistic nor logical. Also, not all scientists agree on the two theories and many are unable to answer or explain the two statements I have made. Can you? Evolution may not be so well proved and understood now is it? We were not actually back when dinosaurs became extinct to say we know what happened. We can not make guesses about life from long ago and assume that it is correct.
Kleptin

Pro

"No, not all scientists agree. You should not assume that all scientists agree on one subject."

I apologize to my opponent for the misconception. I retract the statement that all scientists agree on the evolutionary theory and submit in its place "The scientific community at large finds that evolutionary theory and the theory of the big bang to be validated by enormous amounts of evidence"

"No, I am not going to "sit here and attempt to refute everything." I am GOING to refute. Also, I do not assume the Bible is true, I know it is."

I find it excellent that you have such confidence. But as this is your last post, I doubt you will be able to live up to that goal.

"Not really. Also, the same thing for the Big Bang. Here is proof. Okay, so evolution occurs through natural selection which occurs through mutations, am I correct? Well, the bacterial genome is what scientist believe everything evolved from. Correct? Well, the human genome contains much more information than a bacterial genome and through mutations, information is LOST! Not gained. So, how do you explain human genomes containing much much more information? That is just one fact that goes against evolution."

Interesting concept, but one that I have seen many times before, and explained away with ease. It is a common misconception that information is lost and not gained through mutations. This is because many laypersons or middle-school level biology students don't cover much about genetics. However, information can both be gained and lost. The mechanism for mutation is highly tied in with protein synthesis. If you have a few months to spare, I suggest you read up on DNA synthesis, transcription, translation, introns, exons, the genome, and the proteome. In many university and AP level biology classes, these chapters are always stuck together. Understanding the mechanisms will allow you to overcome this misconception that mutations always ivolve less information.

However, if you want a more succinct answer (as you have expressed irritation at me before about this matter) I will answer this: bacteria can trade genetic information that develops via mutation, allowing them to be protected against certain toxic compounds. This is how bacteria resistance to medications develops. Information is being added, not just lost. Therefore, your argument is totally and completely defeated.

"Okay, so you have the certain proteins and chemicals that combined to form DNA right? So, who decides if the chemicals and proteins work together? We have a code that shows us how DNA is composed. But, who created the code? It's like somebody having the word BAT as a combination of letters. To people who speak the English languages, it's a word, but to people of other tongues, it is just a combination of letters that is useless. How did this combination work? Did it just decide that Adenine and Thymine pair up while Cytosine and Guanine work together? It is a useless code unless created."

Very interesting question and I am very pleased to answer it for you. First of all, you must grasp this simple philosophical concept. Why is it necessary for there to be someone to decide it? Being a theist, your mind would skip that logical step because you believe in God. I however, have no bias, so I can ask as many questions as I wish. Your question is actually invalid. Rules of the universe are not rules of a manmade game, so why expect a creator? To do so is called "begging the question", a logical fallacy. I have no doubt that you will accuse me of not answering your question directly, as you probably do not understand the logic behind what I am saying, so I will simply say this: Not everything occurs because someone wanted it that way. The laws of physics are not passed in congress. They are just observations of what happens. If you can say "nothing came before God, God just is", I can say "Nothing came before the laws of nature, they just are".

I will now answer your question about base pairing. Most laymen and elementary-school students who have no background in genetics would have trouble understanding why these base pairs are so specific. The reason is simple chemistry/physics. Adenine and Guanine are purines, which are longer than pyrimidines (Thymine and Cytosine). In a DNA chain, it would look weird to have long bind to long and short bind to short, DNA would not be able to exist that way. So naturally, short binds to long and long binds to short. That's why the base pairs are what they are.

"I do understand the two subjects. It seems as though you have not done enough in-depth research to recognize the flaws of the two theories."

It may very well be the case that I do not understand them very well, as I am continuously searching and questioning. However, I will make the bold statement that I know quite a bit more about the topics than you do simply because I have chosen to accept Biology and Chemistry as my bread and butter for the rest of my life.

"I hope that others can see from just these two points I have made that evolution and life just arising from pretty much nothing is just not realistic nor logical."

I also hope that others can see that your two points are not realistic nor logical.

I have responded to your arguments and debunked them, but yet you don't seem to have a response to that. I hope you will address them if you choose to debate me again.

"Also, not all scientists agree on the two theories and many are unable to answer or explain the two statements I have made."

I disagree. The concepts are relatively simple and I learned them in high-school. Those who know the subject well enough to answer it don't need to, because to them, the question is ridiculous. But I find it pleasing to enlighten others.

"Can you?"

Oh, but I just did.

"Evolution may not be so well proved and understood now is it?"

Actually, it very much is. And I hope that you understand it better now as well. I sense that you assumed I would not be able to answer your question as this has a tone of arrogance in it. Again, I remind you that you should not anticipate an opponent's response with too much certainty.

"We were not actually back when dinosaurs became extinct to say we know what happened. We can not make guesses about life from long ago and assume that it is correct."

You had a great, great grandmother, did you not? And you obviously weren't around to know her. How can you prove that your great-great grandmother was a human and not a very large penguin?

Of course your great great grandmother was a human, and a very nice lady, I'll bet. The moral here is that logic and science can determine the events of the past with evidence from the present. Observed phenomena are explained with a hypothesis, tested, tested again, tested by other scientists, tested by even more scientists, then declared a theory or tossed aside as rubbish. Otherwise, I would be free to say that your great great grandmother was a large penguin.

***********************

I have cited quite a bit of data in this debate and my position hinges heavily on the extensive research my colleagues have done in the field of evolution and the theory of the big bang. I hope the voters understand that due to the vast amount of evidence, I am unable to give that and stay within my 8000 characters. However, I must emphasize that none of my opponent's attempts to disprove either theory had any strength whatsoever and I have responded in detail to every single one.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Well, i don't agree entirely, but enough so that the debate won't really yield much fruit. Most of the time, Intelligent design debates are a tug of war where the distance is how "hands on" God is in the creation of the universe. If you believe that God developed the laws of science, that's pretty far over to the "God didn't really do much" side. It's essentially deism.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
So you agree? That's a little unexpected...
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Ah, in that case, we won't have much to argue. Some other issue, some other time then :)
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
I don't "support" intelligent design. I believe in God, and I believe that he is the creator, but I believe part of his creation was the establishment of the laws of science. I don't believe science and religion are at odds, rather misinterpretations of each other. Noone can deny that great civilizations have not been created under the instruction of false prophets... their message may be corrupted yet they posessed enough logic, reason, and science to develop and build great civilizations. In the past religion WAS science, and with the spread of logical thought came the depreciation of the science of religion.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
No problem. Always fun to put my classes to outside use.
Posted by polka-dots323 8 years ago
polka-dots323
Thanks for the debate! :)
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
That's up to you. I suggested it since you seemed to support it.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
We can debate the validity of intelligent design, but under what definition?
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
The validity of Intelligent Design?
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
What would you like to debate? Make sure it's not something we agree on!
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
polka-dots323KleptinTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Andromeda 5 years ago
Andromeda
polka-dots323KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
polka-dots323KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
polka-dots323KleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
polka-dots323KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
polka-dots323KleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
polka-dots323KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
polka-dots323KleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
polka-dots323KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by clemsongirl5353 8 years ago
clemsongirl5353
polka-dots323KleptinTied
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