The Instigator
theta_pinch
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
othercheek
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution 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 2 votes the winner is...
theta_pinch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 466 times Debate No: 44445
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

theta_pinch

Pro

Evolution is true.

The proof: E. Coli Long Term Experiment

Over a period of 26 years and 50,000 generations a strain of E. Coli that that can only consume citric acid in an anaerobic environment evolved to be able to consume citric acid in an aerobic environment. None of the bacteria before generation 20,000 could consume citrate in an aerobic environment. This proves evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
othercheek

Con

In no way does your point prove that humans came from apes or any other animal.

Concerning your point of E. coli being able to conusme citric acid, that doesn't prove bullpucky. Humans used to not eat pigs; now we do. Furthermore, people weren't able to fly to the moon until recently. But genetically we haven't changed much. Change in behavior is NOT necessarily due to a shitf in genes.

Evolution can't explain the complexity of each cell--not even humans, the allegedly most evolved and intelligent, could create such complex life. Creation is glaringly evident; each species is so wonderfully adapted beyond what natural selection could explain. It doesn't account for the beauty in every sunrise or the wonder of the mountains. It doesn't account for how the universe could have possibly formed natrally--after all where'd the original energy come from? Either energy and matter ore eternal, or there is an eternal God. The first one doesn't make sense, so clearly there is a Creating God.

As for the genetic similarities between us and monkys, again, that'sd not proving bullpucky. It's entirely possible and even likely that the similarites are due to a common Designer, not a common ancestor.

And the Christological argument makes it painstakingly obvious. Jesus' existence, resurrection, and divinity have been proven by historians, even the Godless ones. This proves that there is a creating God, and that new life results not from natural processes but from divine choices.

I await your rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 1
theta_pinch

Pro

In no way does your point prove that humans came from apes or any other animal.

You are improperly equivocating evolution with humans coming from apes(which is inaccurate anyways.)


Concerning your point of E. coli being able to conusme citric acid, that doesn't prove bullpucky. Humans used to not eat pigs; now we do. Furthermore, people weren't able to fly to the moon until recently. But genetically we haven't changed much. Change in behavior is NOT necessarily due to a shitf in genes.

You don't seem to understand the significance of that ability. Before the 20000th generation they were PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF EATING CITRIC ACID IN AN AEROBIC ENVIRONMENT. That is not a simple change in behaviour. Your rocket analogy isn't valid because these bacteria had no help from an outside force. Here's a proper analogy; the E. Coli becoming able to "eat" citric acid in an aerobic environment is analogous to a person becoming able to drink posion on thrive on it. This was NOT just a change in behaviour.

Evolution can't explain the complexity of each cell--not even humans, the allegedly most evolved and intelligent, could create such complex life.

That's:
1. because humans haven't learned to create life yet

AND

2. because mother nature had 3.8 billion years to get it right; humans have only started to get anywhere close to what nature has done in the past century.

Creation is glaringly evident; each species is so wonderfully adapted beyond what natural selection could explain.

Seriously? Natural selection can be summed up as survival of the fittest; of course life is going to be well adapted; you need to give a reason for why natural selection can't explain it.

It doesn't account for the beauty in every sunrise or the wonder of the mountains.

Beauty and wonder are subjective, and no evolution can't explain the mountains, but plate tectonics can.

It doesn't account for how the universe could have possibly formed natrally--after all where'd the original energy come from?

It's absolutely impossible to remove all energy from a system; zero point energy ALWAYS exists wherever there is space. Before the big bang time didn't exist so a first cause to cause the universe is unnecessary because causality didn't exist before the big bang. Also this is irrelevant to the dabate.

Either energy and matter ore eternal, or there is an eternal God.

Matter doesn't need to be eternal because matter and energy are equivalent; they're the same thing so wherever there is energy there is also matter. Anywhere where the laws of physics apply there are random electromagnetic oscillations called zero point energy; this zero point energy will ALWAYS be left over even if you remove all matter and energy from a system.

As for the genetic similarities between us and monkys, again, that'sd not proving bullpucky. It's entirely possible and even likely that the similarites are due to a common Designer, not a common ancestor.

We are not descended from monkeys for one thing, but humans and monkeys do share a common ancestor and this can be proven without referring to similarities. You see there are these things called genetic markers that are sequences of DNA with a known location on a chromosome that allows a species to be identified. Humans and monkeys share several of these markers proving it was a common ancestor. If we didn't have a common ancestor than we wouldn't share so many genetic markers.

And the Christological argument makes it painstakingly obvious. Jesus' existence, resurrection, and divinity have been proven by historians, even the Godless ones.

Sorry but all historians have proven is that Jesus existed; they haven't proven his resurrection or divinity. In fact the only two facts agreed upon are that a person named Jesus was baptised and crucified. If so many historians did prove that Jesus was divine then most of them should believe that Jesus was divine and ressurected so I respectfully ask you to provide statistics on that. Also this argument is non-sequitur.




othercheek

Con

1) Answers in Genesis has handily rebutted evolutionism.

2) Well, humans didn't have any help from an outside force with the moon landing. They just decided, "Hey let's go to the mon." It's not as if some other species/force influenced them.

3) Exactly! If humans scientists, so intelligent and "evolved," could not create life but can separate hydrogen atoms to make pure hydroogen and thjey can chemically combine thigns (yes thoise realy happened), how could mother nature create life so perfectly? By accident, no less?

4) Um, hello, you have the burden of proof here.

5) But evolutoin/plate titonics can't explain the beauty and perfection.

6) Huh?

7) How could energy and matter form if they can't be eternal and can't come from nothing?

8) It's entirely possible and even likely that the similarites are due to a common Designer, not a common ancestor.

9) Proof of Christ's Resurrection and Divinity are Proof of God. Proof of God is Proof of Creationism. Proof of evoliuton can't coexist with an all-0loving Gpd.

10) Soirry if IU have a lot of typoes, my fingers are somwehat swollen today.
Debate Round No. 2
theta_pinch

Pro

1) Answers in Genesis has handily rebutted evolutionism.

Answers in Genesis is one of the least reliable sources. If you take a look at any article you can immediately see the big glaring errors(if you know anything about science that is.)

2) Well, humans didn't have any help from an outside force with the moon landing. They just decided, "Hey let's go to the mon." It's not as if some other species/force influenced them.

Yes they did; the rocket. Those E. Coli on the other hand had no help by any machines. Anywys remember that human analogy? Well no technology is going to help them drink that poison without dying.

3) Exactly! If humans scientists, so intelligent and "evolved," could not create life but can separate hydrogen atoms to make pure hydroogen and thjey can chemically combine thigns (yes thoise realy happened), how could mother nature create life so perfectly? By accident, no less?

Because mother nature had 1.3 billion years to make life and humans have had 50 years. Also biochemistry is not accidents.

4) Um, hello, you have the burden of proof here.

Yes I have to prove evolution happened but you made the claim natural selection can't explain it so YOU have the burden of proof to prove that natural selection can't explain life.

5) But evolutoin/plate titonics can't explain the beauty and perfection.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; it's subjective. Again survival of the fittest; we expect life to be "perfectly" adapted to its environment.


7) How could energy and matter form if they can't be eternal and can't come from nothing?

This is irrelevant to a debate on evolution.

8) It's entirely possible and even likely that the similarites are due to a common Designer, not a common ancestor.

Your making the claim that its likely that similartes are due to a designer so YOU have the burden of proof to show why it's likely it is due to a common designer.


9) Proof of Christ's Resurrection and Divinity are Proof of God. Proof of God is Proof of Creationism. Proof of evoliuton can't coexist with an all-0loving Gpd.

Sorry but even if this wasn't a non-sequitur there is still no evidence for Christ's resurrection or his divinity other than a supposed anecdote which isn't considered reliable evidence.

CONCLUSION
Con has used three logical fallacies, two subjective arguments which don't prove his case, two red herring arguments, and concede on one point. Therefore my arguments have gone unrefuted; therefore I have fulfilled my burden of proof.
othercheek

Con

Jokes are about cavemen going "ugga ugga FIRE ug," but a better quote from the Paleolithic would probably be "Good morning! Let's go fishing; I just traded some pots my wife made to the guys across the river for some bone fishooks. Now I better bring back some big fish or she's going to be mad." (In caveman language, of course.) They were people, living people's lives.

Obviously not all of their cultural values were in common with modern Americans, but we're talking like foreign-country different, not like chimpanzee different. (And while I'm at it: even chimpanzee different is not irrational or pointlessly brutal. Chimps have structured societies and they only express agression under certain circumstances and there are tons of examples of them putting social cohesion over physical urges. Even animals aren't "animalistic.") You might not always have agreed with them, but you would have understood them. And not like "the male is providing for his mate to prove his genetic quality" understood. Like "yeah, I can see why he kinda owes his wife after selling her stuff" understood.

Here are some things we know Paleolithic people did: Care for the sick. Bury the dead. Make art. Wear jewelry. Keep dogs. Travel in boats. Trade with each other. Follow calendars. Play musical instruments.

So humans were basically, well, ALWAYS humans. That makes evolution--the concept that we came from apes--completely fall flat on its face. Humans can't come from nothing, y'know.

And if matter and energy couldn't come from nothing, then clearly there was an eternal force timelessly extending beyond the universe--a.k.a. GOD. And if God exists, that means God created all His creatures. Which logically disproves evolution!

I have successfully proven my case.

(Yay! Fingers no longer swollen!)
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
theta_pinchothercheekTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. I can only hope that Con was trolling. Pro offered evidence that Evolution is true w/ the E. Coli experiment. Con, on the other hand, was trying to equate technological changes to genetic ones, I guess? Arguments for Con not really presenting any specific to the topic at hand (the closest he came was his questioning of UCD, which was not the subject up for debate). S&G because Pro's was readable, and, while Con's generally was, he clearly had several issues. Conduct because Con was, I believe, trolling--and doing a poor job. Even if he wasn't trolling, he never actually responded to the debate, but rather his malformed concepts of UCD. Sourcing because Pro provided one, while Con provided a mention of AiG, without even having the courtesy to make a point about it or actually cite it. Again, I think Con was merely trolling, but I'd suggest Con learn a bit about humor, because he didn't exhibit any skill at it. As always, happy to clarify anything in this RFD.
Vote Placed by NightofTheLivingCats 2 years ago
NightofTheLivingCats
theta_pinchothercheekTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: othercheek was not able to make proper rebuttals to theta, and made fallacies in theta's points