The Instigator
commence
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
creationtruth
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Evolution isn't a ordinary theory 2

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...
creationtruth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 436 times Debate No: 72481
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

commence

Pro

Evolution theory still be a controversial theory. I just confuse to who is still against evolution theory. Evolution theory spread to all the world and still being learned in the formal education such as at high school and also in college.

For you, who against evolution theory, i think you have to have a valid evidence to 'ruin' evolution theory. Yeah, for you, maybe a Creationist. What are your strong arguments which can against evolution theory? I challenge you.
creationtruth

Con

Thank you for the challenge. I would first like to state that I am a Bible-believing Christian and creationist. I accept the Genesis account of the origin of the universe and all that is in it chiefly because of the authority of the Bible as God's word. I know the Lord Jesus Christ and the truth of His word because of the Holy Spirit's indwelling and movement within me which confirms their veracity. This evidence is only good for me, but all others are encouraged to seek God and His truth so that they may one day put their trust and faith in Him and receive the Holy Spirit who will guide them into all truth (John 16:13). With that said, because of my faith in God's trustworthiness and righteous nature, I expect that what we see in His universe will be consistent with what He has revealed in His word!

As a creationist I of course see evidence of intelligent design in nature even beyond mere complexity. From the intelligently coded genetic software found in all living organism's genomes to the irreducibly complex nano machines of living cells, the evidence of design is quite overwhelming. But when one considers the possibility that evolution gave rise to such structures, one must consider the capacity of its mechanisms to produce the genetic variation displayed in living organisms. Through my research I have found that the primary mechanism for change, namely genetic mutation, cannot possibly account for even the production of a single novel structure. The reason for its failure as a true mechanism for the production of novel genetic information is that, as an unguided copying error in the replication of DNA, mutations cannot alter genes in an intelligent way as to provide necessary structures conducive to an organism's survival. Since the prospect of mutational change is entirely random, one cannot invoke "need" or "want" in the process of evolution via genetic mutation; mutations occur in a variable manner that is entirely unaffected by the potential usefulness of a novel trait. So basically, evolutionists are proposing random copying errors can converge on highly specified codes for every phenotype, genotype, trait, organ, and biomolecular structure which all work as a cohesive unit often being dependant on one another or necessary as an integral whole for the organism to survive.

Beyond the astronomical improbability of such an hypothesis,on a more readily understandable note, mutations are inherently random, and since the genome serves as the software for the design of every living organism, introducing randomness into this system of digital code can only ultimately degrade the information content of the genome. If you have a computer program such as Windows 7 and wished to upgrade it to Windows 8, you would have to download the new version of the program and replace the old program all together. If you sat there attempting upgrade Windows by randomly adding, deleting and duplicating sections of the binary code in the software, all you would get is a corrupted program; you would never get Windows 8. The reason is that the new program contains specified information coding for precise features and functions; the code needs needs to be intelligently ordered in such a way that random changes cannot feasibly accomplish. Likewise, mutations in the genome of an organism cannot account for specified information which codes for novel structures. This explains why no example of such a change has been observed to date in a living organism. All examples of genetic mutation have shown to degrade information not produce it.

I will support my case if challenged and answer any objections Pro may have in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
commence

Pro

commence forfeited this round.
creationtruth

Con

creationtruth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
commence

Pro

commence forfeited this round.
creationtruth

Con

creationtruth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
commence

Pro

commence forfeited this round.
creationtruth

Con

creationtruth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by dub8 2 years ago
dub8
The premise "Evolution isn't a ordinary theory" seems a bit ambiguous. I'm assuming Con is supposed to make a case why people still question evolution. I would also ask Pro for a clarification that "evolution theory" means - "common descent" and not just "change over time" Most creationists accept observed changes in species by mutations and "natural selection"
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
commencecreationtruthTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides forfeited, but the FF deprived Pro the ability to refute Con's long and detailed argument, but Con refuted all of Pro's arguments.